Techdirt

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Rico R., responding to an ultimately-unconvincing defense of the CASE act from a popular source:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2014, scrutiny was ramping up on former NSA boss Keith Alexander from all directions, while evidence continued to emerge further linking the NSA's SIGINT director to private contractors. Rep. Mike Rogers was calling for Ed Snowden to be charged with murder, and a former agency official was saying anyone who "justified" Snowden's leaks shouldn't be allowed to work for the government. We learned more about the CIA's spying on the Senate, while Congress was not so easily giving in to the FBI's demands about ending encryption, and amidst all this... more research showed mass surveillance doesn't work.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2009, the copyright lobby was bumping up against proposed anti-spam laws because they might interfere with their DRM and spyware practices, copyright holders were going to war with univeristy photocopy shops, and the US Chamber of Commerce began its DMCA-fight with prank group The Yes Men. We learned that Shepard Fairey made some bad decisions in his copyright fight with the AP over his famous Obama poster, but also wondered whether anyone could trust the AP's own reporting on the subject. And we saw trademark shenanigans from both the usual suspects (Monster Energy) and some more surprising ones (The Sex Pistols).Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2004, people were looking to the future of mobile devices — especially with cheap wifi on the rise — and examining everything from what makes mobile bullying unique to the coming consequences of device convergence and the possibility of peer-to-peer bartering becoming a dominant form of commerce. One prediction certainly didn't come true: a Finnish researcher extrapolated some trends and decided that the internet would collapse in 2006. Meanwhile, the RIAA's own figures were painting a different picture about file sharing from the one the agency liked to tout, web publishers were maybe-kinda-sorta coming to terms with BugMeNot, and some news websites were getting over their silly aversion to linking to other news outlets in their own coverage.

We've long discussed the problem that is astroturfing and companies that abuse website reviews sections by inputting fake positive reviews for their own products. These fake reviews break the ecosystem of sites like Yelp and many others, where a big part of the draw to the sites are the communities that provide helpful, honest reviews. It's also been the case, however, that such fake review campaigns have occasionally come with fines or lawsuits with limited clarity on precisely what laws were being broken.Still, the FTC is a thing and it would seem to be in that organization's purview to mete out some kind of punishment for the truly bad actors out there. In the case of skincare company Sunday Riley, however, it seems that FTC settlements for truly egregious fake review campaigns are entirely without teeth.Let's start with the scheme itself. According to the FTC, for two years, spearheaded by founder Sunday Riley herself, employees and interns were tasked with both voting down real negative reviews on Sephora.com, as well as setting up fake accounts for Sephora and inputting fake positive reviews. This, again, was directly communicated by Riley herself.

On very rare occasions, the front mouths for law enforcement -- police unions -- will surprise you with inadvertent truthiness. Such a rarity occurred recently. It was -- as almost every union outburst is -- provoked by the introduction of the tiniest sliver of accountability.The Bronx District Attorney decided to release its list of cops even it can't trust. What the New York Post refers to as a "naughty list" bears some resemblance to the Brady lists compiled (but rarely released) by other city prosecutors. These lists contain cops who have been caught lying in reports or in court or have had evidence tossed (usually more than once) for Constitutional violations.These lists are supposed to make their way to criminal defendants. This rarely happens either. No prosecutor wants their star witness impeached, even if the prosecutor knows what we know: cops lie. Some more than others.The list released to the New York Post contains some redactions (thanks to sealed cases), but at least a few officers' names were made public. Here's one snippet from the "naughty list."

Another day, another shining example of why connecting everything from your Barbie dolls to tea kettles to the internet was a bad idea. This week it's Whirlpool that's under fire after a researcher discovered that the company had failed to secure a database containing 28 million records collected from the company's "smart" appliances. The database contained user email addresses, model names and numbers, unique appliance identifiers, and data collected from routine analysis of the appliances' condition, including how often the appliance is used, when its off or on, and whether it had any issues.Needless to say this is just the latest example of security researchers doing companies' jobs for them after they connected their products to the internet, then failed to adequately secure the data gleaned from them. For its part, Whirlpool told the researcher that they managed to secure the information within a few days of being alerted earlier this month:

The federal government still doesn't have any great ideas on how to head off future school shootings. But it does have some ideas. Some ideas are better than none when calls to "do something" abound. Something is indeed in the works. Unfortunately, the solution being offered just opens up students to increased surveillance, on and off campus.You already know we're headed to a darker place when the head of the DOJ is touting anti-terrorism tactics as a solution.

I've mentioned in the past that, from Techdirt's earliest posts, one key topic is how you handle "jurisdiction" on the internet, since the internet is global, and laws don't always work that way. Indeed, allowing for global jurisdiction for any particular government's laws would inevitably mean that the most draconian and the most limiting laws rule around the globe -- and that should worry everyone. This is why we've been so concerned about rulings concerning "global" blocking of content in places like Canada and the EU. Thankfully, just recently, the Court of Justice in the EU stopped one global application of the EU's right to be forgotten, and Canada's attempt got effectively stopped by a US court.And now we get to see how all this plays out in India, as a court has issued a global blocking order directed at Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. The content in question appears to be a video about a book, Godman to Tycoon that the courts have deemed to be defamatory towards Swami Ramdev, a somewhat controversial "yoga superstar."The companies pushed back arguing a variety of points including that the whole case made no sense since the person who uploaded the videos themselves wasn't even targeted with any lawsuit -- and if that person removed the videos, they would be gone worldwide. But, mostly they focused on just how wrong it is to think that an Indian court should be able to control content well outside its jurisdiction (and they point to the rulings in the Canadian and EU cases above, among others, to suggest that it will only lead to embarrassment for the Indian court to try to reach its power too far).

The Ultimate Adobe CC Training Bundle has 12 courses covering the most popular apps in Adobe's Creative Cloud. The courses cover everything from Photoshop and After Effects to Illustrator and InDesign and everything in between. You'll learn photo and video editing, web and mobile design, animation, and more. It's on sale for $39.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

There is an infamous chart in media circles. It shows newspaper advertising revenue steadily rising until about the year 2000. A few years later, it drops off a cliff. Superimposed on this chart is the exponential growth of Google and Facebook:Source: Thomas BaekdalThe obvious implication, at least to those who work in journalism, is that Google and Facebook killed their industry. That’s certainly the conclusion Matt Stoller comes to in a recent op-ed for the New York Times:

Have we mentioned lately that 5G is being over-hyped? While it's an important evolutionary step in wireless connectivity, it's far from the revolution hardware vendors and cellular carriers are promising. Verizon, for example, insists that 5G is the "fourth industrial revolution" that will almost miraculously spur the smart cities and smarter cars of tomorrow. While 5G is important (in that faster, more resilient networks are always important), the idea that 5G will fundamentally transform the world tends to overshoot the mark.Carriers haven't quite learned yet that over-hyping the standard (or flat out lying about it) only serves to associate it with disappointment in the minds of consumers. Verizon, for example, has crowed widely about the company's early 5G launches, but when reporters and users actually try to use these networks, they routinely find they're barely available.To hype the standard further, Verizon has been deploying it to select parts of a handful of major sports venues, insisting in its press releases that these early deployments are "fundamentally changing the way we live, work and play." But when reporters actually press the company on where it's available, they quickly discover it's, well, not. While Verizon has been hyping 5G availability in NFL stadiums, deeper inquiries have shown that the service is available in only a few areas because the millimeter wave spectrum Verizon is using for these early efforts has a hard time with range and penetrating walls.The same thing is now playing out in other major sporting venues. While Verizon has claimed in press statements that it will soon be offering 5G in more than 10 major sports venues, Jon Brodkin at Ars Technica pressed them for additional detail and came away notably unimpressed:

We've talked before about the over-reliance on tech to do certain jobs that cannot be simplified to the sum of mathematical parts. The criminal justice system is starting to turn over sentencing to algorithms -- something that seems like the smart thing to do but removes judicial and prosecutorial discretion from the mix, leaving defendants with the unpalatable option of challenging software they're never allowed to examine.Police departments are also moving towards predictive policing. Relying on historical data, cops are hoping to head off future crimes by allocating resources to areas where crime appears to be more likely to be committed. Sounds good on paper, but in reality, all it does is reinforce biases and push law enforcement to treat everyone in targeted areas as criminals. If the data being fed in reflects biased policing, crunching the numbers even harder isn't going to erase that. It's only going to reinforce it. And, again, suspected criminals aren't able to access the data or software that puts them in law enforcement's crosshairs.A certain amount of automation is expected as government agencies seek to streamline public services. The problem isn't necessarily the tech. It's the removal of human interaction. As has been stated here frequently, moderation at scale is impossible. So is automated governing. Automated processes are as prone to failure as the people overseeing them. But when you decide software is going to do almost all of the work, those who need the assistance of other humans most are cut out of the loop.Citizens looking for government assistance have grown accustomed to jumping through red tape hoops. Now, the hoops are inaccessible, but still must be jumped through. The most marginalized members of society are given URLs instead of contact names and numbers when many of them have no reliable access to the internet or a computer. A new series by The Guardian shows the human cost of going paperless. It's happening all over the world, and it's literally killing people.

To a certain segment of the population, just mentioning IPTV is enough to get them frothing at the mouth and shouting "copyright infringement" at anyone who will listen. This isn't entirely without cause, of course, as IPTV is a technology that can be used to infringe by streaming copyrighted TV shows and films. There are entire sites out there that list such infringing content, as well. But the fact remains that IPTV is a tool, not content that infringes copyright itself. As such, there are plenty of IPTV-related tools and uses out there that are perfectly legit.Like Perfect Player, for instance. Perfect Player is an android app that allows the user to choose what IPTV playlists from 3rd party providers can be played. In other words, it's essentially a media player for IPTV streams. Upon installation, it does not come with infringing playlists to stream. What is watched on the player is entirely the choice of the end user. Despite all of this, one unnamed major pay-TV company filed a copyright complaint against the app with Google, arguing that because end users can use Perfect Player to infringe on copyright, the app itself was infringing. Google, frustratingly, complied and has delisted the app from the Play Store.

We've covered a few times in the past some of the oddities of both Australia's defamation laws and its views on intermediary liability. Our big complaint regarding both of those things is how they end up enabling censorship by the powerful of critical reporting and commentary. Perhaps a perfect example of this is former National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard having some pricey lawyers threaten Australian booksellers if they decided to offer Ronan Farrow's new book Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators. If you haven't guessed, a part of Farrow's book covers efforts by the Enquirer to "get dirt" on certain people in what appears to be an attempt to suppress their credibility or ability to go public, and also to engage in the practice of "catch and kill" (from whence the book gets its title) a story by "buying" the exclusive rights to it, only to kill it.It appears that some of those threats have worked, as a number of booksellers have chosen not to sell the book (though some others, admittedly, are still offering it for sale). Of course, the threat letter to the various book retailers has some weasel wording, allowing Howard and his lawyers to pretend that they're not trying to seek the blocking of the book:

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is a law enforcement agency known mainly for its criminals. Yes, it oversees the largest jail system in the world, but even that can't hold all the criminals the LASD associates with. The Department hires (and re-hires) criminals to staff itself. It has 300 employees on the LA District Attorney's "Brady list" -- the list of officers prosecutors feel are too untrustworthy to testify in court due to past misconduct and lying.For an entity that prides itself on policing gang activity in East LA, the Department has shown no similar willingness to police itself. The Department has been the home to several gangs over the years, composed of deputies and jailers willing to break the law in order to enforce the law.The LASD has rolled out of one federal investigation and right into another one. Former Sheriff Lee Baca ran a corrupt jail system presided over by a racist deputy gang that hid an FBI informant from his federal handlers and allowed (another) white supremacist gang to run the prison. Deputies were so sure they were untouchable they openly threatened FBI agents. Seven convicted deputies later, Sheriff Baca -- himself convicted of obstructing an investigation -- was out of a job.You'd think a change in management would have resulted in some internal housecleaning. It didn't. Baca's replacement, Sheriff Alex Villanueva, did nothing while pretending to do something. Taking credit for employee turnover he had almost nothing to do with, Villanueva claimed he had rid the department of its toxic deputy "gangs."A recently-filed lawsuit says otherwise. It also says the LASD protects it most violent and racist members, many of whom belong to a deputies' gang known as the "Banditos." Ali Winston of The Appeal reports on the good cops who are hoping to take down the department's many bad cops.

In the earlier days of Techdirt, Lego made multiple appearances as an IP bully. However, its IP bullying ran into some legal headaches as various courts pushed back again and again and again. The company failed, pretty spectacularly, in its quest to argue that no one could make similar, or even interconnecting, Lego bricks. Its patents long expired, and any copyright and trademark rights were much more limited.For years, the company has relied on the fact that even with the ability of other companies to copy its designs, really only Lego could manufacture the toy bricks with the kind of exact precision that made them work properly. Knock-offs tended to not connect nearly as well. And Lego's manufacturing was such that beyond the precision in the blocks, it could also make the blocks so cheaply that it was difficult for anyone to undercut them anyway. Finally, Lego's brand is pretty powerful in its own right, and many people would buy official Lego products as the default anyway, because of the brand association.All of that makes the recent news of Lego threatening the 3D printing community all the more bizarre. There's simply no way that 3D printed version of Lego-style bricks are a "threat" in any way. The takedown letter itself, as posted by recipient MyMiniFactory (who initially thought it was spam!), is bizarre. It's symptomatic of obnoxious IP bullying, in that it was sent to platforms like MyMiniFactory that host 3D printable designs for sale, but, while it lists out designs it says are infringing, it appears not to explain how or why they are infringing. It does list out copyright and trademark rights that the company holds, but does not indicate which ones its complaining about for which designs, leaving it up to MyMiniFactory to determine such things. That, by itself, is a bullying tactic, effectively making it harder for the recipient to judge the merit of the infringement claims, and (most likely) hoping that leads to broader compliance with the request to avoid the hassle and potential legal costs and liability.

Surveillance growth markets are the best growth markets. Amazon, not satisfied with tying up the online shopping and data storage markets, is moving forward aggressively with plans to become the government's top surveillance vendor, as well as the friendly face of (cop-enabled) home surveillance via its Ring doorbell camera. A swarm of analytics companies have descended on the massive amounts of data generated by social media/cellphone users to turn haystacks into marketable needle sources.Anywhere a camera can be installed, a camera has been installed. Some are mute witnesses, incapable of doing anything more than providing playback of recorded footage. But some have additional features, like facial recognition tech or the ability to read license plates.Your local eatery may be the next frontier for a curious blend of data analytics and surveillance. Louise Matsakis reports for Wired that Outback Steakhouse is tying analytics software to its existing cameras. The goal is to provide better customer service, but the backend resembles a dystopian sci-fi plot line.

All three of the language learning apps on offer in the Deals Store are on sale today.Babbel Language LearningLearn Spanish, French, Italian, German, and many more languages with Babbel, the #1 top-grossing language-learning app. Developed by over 100 expert linguists, Babbel is helping millions of people speak a new language quickly and with confidence. After just one month, you will be able to speak confidently about practical topics, such as transportation, dining, shopping, directions, making friends and socializing and much more! A one year subscription is on sale for $69, 2 years for $99, and unlimited for $149.HelloTalk VIPThe best way to learn a language is to actually speak it! HelloTalk connects you with native speakers to chat with for free. Packed with innovative tools, this app makes practicing language fun and effortless. You can chat with individual members, or join group chats for a collaborative learning experience. Search for language exchange partners by native language, city, distance from you, and more. Whether it’s across the world or across town, you’ll instantly find suitable partners to begin a conversation. It's on sale for $29.uTalk Language EducationThe world is flattening (figuratively) and it is becoming more and more valuable to learn a second or third, fourth, or fifth language. uTalk helps you overcome the language barrier challenge by helping you learn real, practical vocabulary in a wide variety of languages from any device that you choose. uTalk's language programs let you understand how native speakers actually talk and feature independently verified translations so you'll be able to navigate through your next vacation like a real local. Two languages are on sale for $20, 6 languages for $30, and unlimited languages for $100.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

There are many critics of CDA 230 these days, and there's a pretty wide range in the quality of their arguments. Law professor Danielle Citron is, for good reason, considered one of the more thoughtful critics of the law. And, to her credit, she actually does understand the law, what it enables, and what the wider impacts of the law might be. Her scholarship tends to be thoughtful and careful as well, and, just recently, she was awarded a MacArthur "genius grant." And that's why I find it frustrating that her presentations before Congress recently seem to miss the mark by a fairly wide margin. Earlier this year, we called out her testimony on "deep fakes" because she falsely suggested that internet platforms have "no incentive to address destructive deepfake content."As we explained at the time, nothing could be further from the truth. The companies have been facing tremendous pressure from the media, the public, politicians, and (importantly) advertisers to clean up junk on their networks, or they risk losing users and revenue. The incentive is the desire not to have their platforms turn into complete garbage dumps.Unfortunately, Citron is continuing to spread this misleading idea to Congress, as she did last week, when the House held a hearing on Section 230. Citron's opening statement has also been posted to Slate with the title: Tech Companies Get a Free Pass on Moderating Content, and the subtitle: "It's time to change that." Once again the premise is simply false. What is accurate is that platforms do have a legal free pass to decide what level of moderation is appropriate, but that level of appropriateness is very much driven by the concerns of all of the stakeholders mentioned above, with users and advertisers topping the list (for fairly obvious reasons).It is misleading in the extreme to suggest that a lack of legal incentive somehow means no incentive at all. It is a kind of faith in legal systems (and an ignorance of markets) that is disconnected from reality. Citron's piece does mention market power, but only to brush it away with a blind insistence that it couldn't possibly work:

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.This was all laid out to US District Judge Richard Leon during the trial (twice), who ignored all of the warnings and rubber stamped the deal without a single condition. At absolutely no point did Leon in his absurd ruling recognize the threat of AT&T owning both a monopoly over broadband and a massive media empire in charge of content needed by competitors. And when lawyers and economists warned him that kind of power would only lead to higher rates, he almost happily ignored them.Fast forward a year or so and AT&T is already imposing another significant hike on its TV customers (both traditional and streaming). New and existing users are seeing price hikes upwards of $10 to $15 per month. It's the second price hike in less than a year. And despite being the broadcaster in this equation, AT&T blamed the hikes on broadcasters:

Blizzard's decision to pander to the Chinese government is a PR headache that simply isn't going away. Last week, games giant Blizzard stepped in a minefield when it severely punished a Hearthstone player for supporting the protests in Hong Kong during a championship live stream. The reaction was swift, justified, and severe, with everyone from gamers to Blizzard employees accusing the company of prioritizing profits over principles.After days of silence, Blizzard ultimately issued a statement on the decision and, while public backlash forced it to retreat from some of the player's more severe punishments, the company doubled down on its decision to censor players for political opinions, ignoring most of the criticisms leveled by human rights organizations like Access Now. It also tried to claim with a straight face that its financial interests in China played no role in the decision:

The City of Baltimore was hit with a ransomware attack in May of this year. Criminals using remodeled and rebranded NSA exploits (EternalBlue) knocked out a "majority" of the city's servers and crippled many of its applications. More details didn't surface until September when the city's government began reshuffling the budget to cover the expenses of recovering from the attack.The person in charge of the city's systems was Frank Johnson, who went on leave (presumably permanently) after a post-attack audit found the IT director hadn't done much IT directing.

A couple of months ago, we were surprised when a WIPO employee showed up in our comments to defend the organization's new database of supposedly infringing sites against our many criticisms. In that post, we highlighted a Twitter thread from lawyer Rick Shera — who represented Mega — and this week, Shera joins us on the podcast to further discuss the inefficacy and negative impact of these kinds of pirate shaming lists.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.

The fallout from Blizzard's heavy-handed move on a professional Hearthstone player for voicing support for the ongoing Hong Kong protests on a livestream, which included ripping away prize money and issuing a 1 year ban on competing, continues to blaze. But while most of the backlash has been directed solely at Blizzard, the company's actions are having a ripple effect across the eSports landscape.Depressingly, plenty of folks in the eSports industry are clearly frightened that they might accidentally cross some undefined line with gaming companies and find themselves on the losing end of an international public relations argument. One lovely example of this is Riot Games' League of Legends competitions and streams. There appear to be plenty of folks out there that are self-censoring mentions of Hong Kong to ridiculous levels, including attempts to avoid saying the name of a LoL team, the Hong Kong Attitude.

I'm really not sure what to tell anyone at this point. None of this works.

Enhance Gmail and get your Google Inbox features back with DarwinMail. This secure inbox tool aims to help you be more productive when dealing with emails and to-dos. You can organize and sort your inbox by category, sender, or subject with DarwinMail's bundling feature. It also has a Reminders feature which you can jot down your tasks so you don't forget about them. Plus, the Snoozing tool allows you to snooze emails and take care of them on your own time. You'll never have to worry about shooting an apology email for sending a wrong email with DarwinMail's Undo Send feature. A one year subscription is on sale for $10, and an unlimited subscriptions is 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.

You may have heard over the past few days about a bit of a feud between Presidential candidates -- mainly Elizabeth Warren -- and Facebook about how the company handles political ads with false information. It began a week or so ago when the Trump campaign started running a bunch of Facebook ads around impeachment, some of which were blatantly false, based on totally debunked claims. Facebook, however, just recently clarified its policy, noting that while it will block ads that its partner fact-checkers have determined to be untrue, that does not apply directly to political candidate ads themselves:

Buried underneath the blistering hype surrounding fifth-generation (5G) wireless is a quiet but growing consensus: the technology is being over-hyped, and early incarnations were rushed to market in a way that prioritized marketing over substance. That's not to say that 5G won't be a good thing when it arrives at scale several years from now, but early offerings have been almost comical in their shortcomings. AT&T has repeatedly lied about 5G availability by pretending its 4G network is 5G. Verizon has repeatedly hyped early non-standard launches that, when reviewers actually got to take a look, were found to be barely available.There's a solid chasm between where carriers say they offer 5G, and where 5G is actually available. And there's every indication that mobile carriers are working overtime to make sure that chasm isn't obvious to consumers.As the FCC finally buckles to pressure to fix the US's comically inaccurate broadband availability maps, both AT&T and Verizon are trying to ensure that 5G is excluded from these efforts. The FCC has been widely ridiculed for blindly relying on overly-generous ISP data indicating where wireless and wired broadband exists. The FCC has long declared that an entire census tract is technically "served" with broadband if just one home in that tract has service. After massive bipartisan political pressure, the FCC recently announced it would at least take a look at using more accurate geospatial data to pinpoint broadband availability.But in letters to the FCC, the wireless industry declares that 5G should be excluded from these mapping improvements because it might reveal ambiguously "sensitive" information:

Order your copy of Working Futures today »We're off today for the long weekend, but I wanted to use the opportunity to publish the last of our posts about the stories in our Working Futures science fiction anthology about the future of work. If you haven't read the earlier ones, they're here:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is aerinai proposing a way to find out just how much cops and prosecutors believe in asset seizure as an effective means of law enforcement:

Order your copy of Working Futures today »Techdirt is taking a break for the long weekend — and while we've still got the comments post coming tomorrow, today instead of the usual history post we're looking forwards, with our new Working Futures anthology.For those who don't know or who haven't had time to check it out yet, Working Futures is a collection of fourteen speculative short stories by science fiction authors, exploring the question of what work will be like in the future as artificial intelligence and other technologies continue to transform our world. If you want a taste, you can check out the first half of one of the stories, A Quiet Lie in our pre-launch teaser post. Since then, Mike has been sharing summaries and thoughts about other entries in the book: about how AI and humans could keep each other in check, and how private services and social credit could define our lives, and how the lines between human and machine could blur in fascinating and challenging ways, among many other topics.This week, we also had a special episode of the Techdirt Podcast in which Mike was joined by three of the authors: Katharine Dow, whose story The Funeral Company portrays a society divided by its reactions to both climate change and ubiquitous surveillance; James Yu, whose story The Mummer gives us eerily real characters in a not-too-distant future running up against the darker side of our interaction with robots; and Christopher Hooton, whose story A Brief History Of Algorithmic Life: Introduction closes out the anthology with a moving, lyrical tale about about the first true human-AI friendship.And of course, Working Futures also contains a pair of stories by Mike himself, who hadn't tried writing fiction in a long time, but hit the ground running with two engaging possible futures: one in which increasing centralization has put our lives in the hands of a few big companies that compete to offer the services and products for your entire life, and another in which the return to a truly decentralized online world has led to an energetic and anarchic knowledge economy. We've also got a story by our own Tim Geigner, who has been at this for a long time (his earlier sci-fi novels Digilife, Echelon, and Midwasteland are available as pay-what-you-want ebook downloads in our Insider Shop) and who went straight for the core of the "future of work" premise with a story about working in corporate human resources for not-so-human employees.I hope some of that piques your curiosity. Techdirt will be off on Monday, so if you're looking for something to read, grab a copy of the Working Futures paperback or ebook to see you through! And if you do read some or all of the stories, we'd greatly appreciate a review on Amazon and anything else you can do to help spread the word.

It's baseball playoff season, and this week, as many have been highlighting, it's actually the 100th anniversary of the infamous 1919 Black Sox scandal, in which a bunch of players from the Chicago White Sox were later accused of deliberately throwing games in a deal with some gamblers. I've seen a few stories covering "facts and myths" about the scandal (which only really came to light the following year), but the NY Times has really great debunking of some myths about the scandal by the historian of Major League Baseball, John Thorn.So, what's this got to do with Techdirt? Well, according to Thorn's piece, a key fact that many have associated with the Black Sox was entirely made up, and the reason for it being made up was a confused (and incorrect) understanding of copyright law. To understand what happened, we need to take a few steps back. First, there's a fairly long history of what's known as "fictitious entries" that have been used in various reference works for ages -- with it being especially common in map making, where the practice is sometimes referred to as "trap streets." These are entirely fictitious streets (or sometimes towns) that are added to a map to try to catch a competitor who is just copying the work. In short, if your fake street (or dictionary entry, or whatnot) is showing up elsewhere, you know that it was copied from you. We even saw a very recent example of this kind of technique when the annotation site Genius altered apostrophe's to try to "catch" Google allegedly copying Genius's lyrics (which turned out not to be the case). Google itself has used this technique to catch Microsoft copying its search indexing for Bing.And, it remains a valid technique for catching copying -- which some might call a form of plagiarism. However, when it comes to copyright, it's a bit of a different story, because the underlying reference facts often aren't subject to copyright in the first place. The key court case on all of this is the famous Feist case in which one telephone directory company was accused of infringement for copying another phone book, with the "evidence" being some fake entries (kids: in the pre-internet days, to figure out how to contact someone, you went through a giant book of phone numbers). But as the Supreme Court eventually ruled, the directory listings weren't subject to copyright in the first place and (in the US, at least) you don't get a copyright for merely assembling a collection of facts if there was no creativity involved (which there shouldn't be for a phone directory!).That brings us back around to the Black Sox. The most well known book covering the Black Sox scandal was the book Eight Men Out by Eliot Asinof, which was published in 1963 (Asinof also co-wrote the movie by the same title that came out in 1988 and was quite popular). A key character in the book was a figure by the name of "Harry F." As described on the "famous trials" website:

We were just discussing how the NBA and Blizzard each responded to the thin-skinned Chinese government's pressure on each in the wake of statements made supporting the Hong Kong protests that have raged for months now. The Blizzard half of that conversation involved the company yanking prize money and issuing a 1 year ban on a Hearthstone champion going by the handle Blitzchung, who stated support for the protests to sign off of a recent stream -- which, Blizzard claims, violated contest rules. The backlash to Blizzard's decision, was swift and severe. Unlike the NBA, which backtracked on its own appeasing comments to the Chinese government, Blizzard hasn't budged an inch.The fallout is continuing, if not intensifying. Most recently, famed streamer Brian Kibler quit Hearthstone entirely over Blizzard's decision.

Order your copy of Working Futures today »Since releasing our Working Futures book last week, we've been profiling the various stories so that people are aware of what kinds of stories are in the book. We profiled the first three, then the next three and earlier this week, another three. Below we'll profile three more stories and then next week we'll profile the last few stories in the book as well.Trash Talk by Holly Schofield explores the kind of job that probably doesn't get much attention when people talk about "the future of work": jobs that require manual labor. Many people seem to assume that those will just be entirely automated away but, as this story explores, it's possible that we'll just enhance humans with machines, rather than replacing them altogether. And sometimes that might create some, well, tricky situations.A Quiet Lie by Ross Pruden. We previewed the first half of this story the week before we launched, so you can read it right here on Techdirt. It's also a story that explores how more traditional jobs might be enhanced by technology, perhaps leading to ideas and concepts that simply aren't possible today. What's interesting to me about this one is that people have responded to this particular story in totally divergent ways. Some think that the story presents an exciting possible future world, while others see it as a dangerous path. It's a kind of test of how you view the world.The Mummer by James Yu. James talked a bit about his thinking behind this story on our recent podcast, talking about how it explored the blurry lines between when a human "helping" machines becomes a part of the machine itself... while also exploring when a machine becomes increasingly human-like. It's a fascinating character study that raises a bunch of questions about what is a machine and what is a human being.I think it's great that these three stories follow one another in the book, as they all explore different (often very different) aspects of a world in which computers and technology "enhance" work -- and the consequences (both good and bad) that can result. These are big questions that we're going to be dealing with for a long, long time, and these three stories provide some perspectives on ways to think about that issue.

IN 2017, NY Times columnist Bret Stephens gave a commencement address at Hampden-Sydney College that he then repurposed as one of his NY Times columns entitled: "Leave Your Safe Spaces." The entire theme was that college students are way too soft intellectually, and they've been coddled and are too afraid to debate difficult and dangerous ideas. He mocks the concept of safe spaces, and suggests that it diminishes ones ability to truly seek the truth. Near the end, it states:

For years Hollywood has seen Netflix as a mortal enemy because of the company's interest in disrupting the entertainment industry. Hollywood has been particularly vocal about how Netflix is "destroying" the traditional, sticky-floor, brick and mortar theater business because it wants to modernize antiquated release window rules from a bygone era. For example, Netflix content was banned from Cannes last year largely because the company wouldn't adhere to France's absurd cultural exception law that requires a 36-month delay between theatrical release and streaming availability.Hollywood theater chains' disdain for Netflix bubbled up again this month, with the news that Netflix's latest exclusive, the new Martin Scorsese film "The Irishman," would be banned from being shown at a number of major theater chains. Apparently this was intended as some kind of "punishment" for Netflix, though the company quickly spun the narrative on its head. Like "Roma," "The Irishman" needs at least some major theater time to be considered for Oscar contention, so Netflix has decided to screen the film at the Shubert Organization’s historic Belasco Theatre on Broadway.It's the first time a traditional film has been shown there in the theater's 112 year history, drawing more public attention to the film's release:

The Complete C# Programming Bundle has 7 courses to teach you what you need to build your own apps and games with C#. Famed for its simplicity and ease of use, C# is a solid language to pick up if you're new to the world of coding. These courses will get you C#-savvy by walking you through the basic concepts, tools, and functions for building desktop and mobile apps. You'll design your own Full 2D Shooter and Multiplayer Unity Game. You'll also learn about Xamarin, a flexible development tool that lets you create cross-platform apps using a single shared code base. It's on sale for $29.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.

Thankfully, recently, the EU's Court of Justice, has limited the scope of the "right to be forgotten," so that sites can't be forced to censor content outside of the EU. However, it still does apply within the EU, and that has real and significant consequences.Just last week we received yet another notification from Google that one of our articles had been removed from certain (unrevealed) search results in Europe, due to a successful "right to be forgotten" petition. This is hardly the first time this has happened, though at least this time it's not about the one guy who has sent a new RTBF demand every time we write about him. We're still trying to figure out what to do with the latest one, which appears (like so many) to be someone who was convicted of a crime (in this particular case, counterfeiting) who is apparently upset that his name and past crimes come up in a search.We had warned about this years ago, highlighting how a short-sighted attempt to deal with "privacy" would collide head on with free speech and a free press -- and for the most part we were ignored. However, the NY Times has a fairly astounding story about how a RTBF demand from a guy who stabbed his own brother and wanted to hide the resulting press stories more or less bankrupted the publication that had the story:

Wireless carriers have been under fire for failing to protect their users from the practice of SIM hijacking. The practice involves posing as a wireless customer, then fooling a wireless carrier to port the victim's cell phone number right out from underneath them, letting the attacker then pose as the customer to potentially devastating effect. Back in February, a man sued T-Mobile for failing to protect his account after a hacker, pretending to be him, ported out his phone number, then managed to use his identity to steal thousands of dollars worth of cryptocoins.Like the ongoing wireless industry's location data scandals, the FCC has so far refused to utter so much as modest condemnation of carriers that have failed to protect users.But with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey having his Twitter account recently hijacked thanks to SIM hijacking, the government appears to have finally gotten the message that we have a bit of a problem.For example, the FBI issued a warning last month to its private industry partners, noting that two-factor authentication can be bypassed thanks to the hacks:

The official channels don't work. That's the message Snowden sent -- one that was countered by multiple high-level government officials who'd never had the whistle blown on them.Government entities protect their own. Whistleblowers who attempt to bring things through the proper channels are deterred almost every step of the way. The few times they manage to get their reports to someone who might actually be able to do something about it -- like Congressional oversight or the various Inspector General offices -- those affected by the report will do everything they can to silence it.The New York Times discusses what happened when the whistleblower report about President Trump's phone call to the president of Ukraine was routed through the official channels. The whistleblower (who the NYT questionably outed as a CIA officer) used a third party to bring the complaint to the CIA's counsel. The CIA's top lawyer needed to find out whether the allegations about the content of the phone call were accurate. So, she called the White House to get the transcript of the call.You can see where this is going. The New York Times fills in the details, showing why doing things the way the government wants you to do them seldom results in blown whistles. (This is taken from the NYT's podcast transcript, which is why it doesn't read like a NYT article.)

Techdirt has written many times about the need to move from traditional academic publishing to open access. There are many benefits, including increasing the reach and impact of research, and allowing members of the public to read work that they have often funded, without needing to pay again. But open access is not a panacea; it does not solve all the problems of today's approach to spreading knowledge. In particular, it suffers from the same serious flaw that afflicts traditional titles: a tendency to focus on success, and to draw a veil of silence over failure. As a new column in Nature puts it:

As an autonomous collective, let's try (together!) to do a little NYPD math.Here's the beginning of the word problem:How many cops does it take to choke someone to death?One.Officer Daniel Pantaleo. Pantaleo choked Eric Garner to death while "effecting an arrest." The presumed crime was unlicensed cigarette sales, but no one really knows for sure why Pantaleo decided to escalate the situation by using a forbidden tactic to subdue the non-resistant Garner. And we'll never know anything else about it because Officer Pantaleo has dodged everything but a firing over his decision to perform an illegal chokehold in the course of detaining Eric Garner to death.Rather than rally against this illegal use of force, the NYPD union -- headed by awful human being Pat Lynch -- has decided to demonize everyone who isn't a Police Benevolent Association (PBA) member. Citizens who are still alive in the Big Apple don't know how well they have it, being presided over by a bunch of bad apples who labor under the scrutiny of a powerless populace.

Facial recognition tech is considered at least mildly controversial in the United States. Certain federal agencies (like the DHS) are pushing for widespread deployment even as Congress members are raising questions about the tech's accuracy and reliability. Meanwhile, facial recognition bans are being introduced and enacted at the city and state level, showing there's no nationwide consensus that the tech is trustworthy, useful, or non-invasive.Citizens and privacy groups have similar concerns in France, but the French government apparently doesn't care. In the name of "security," the government is adding facial recognition tech to its national ID program, as Helene Fouquet reports for Bloomberg.

The A to Z Cyber Security and IT Training Bundle has 12 courses and over 114 hours in training to get you up to speed on the latest security techniques. The courses cover ethical hacking, the Art of Exploitation, SQL injection, penetration testing, and more. You'll also get test prep for the CISSP Exam, CCSP Exam, CISM Exam, CISA Exam, CompTIA Security+ Certification Exam, and CompTIA CSA+ Exam. It's on sale for $39 and use the code 40LEARN40 to get an additional 40% off.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

The Herrick v. Grindr case [um] ground to a halt on October 7th, as the Supreme Court refused to grant cert. The lawsuit -- and its attempt to undermine Section 230 immunity -- is dead, relegated to the pile of also-rans which have attempted to get a US court to rewrite this very important section of the Communications Decency Act.Not that there was anything decent in the events leading up to the lawsuit. Matthew Herrick's ex-boyfriend used Herrick's information to create a fake Grindr profile and sent more than 1,200 men to Herrick's home and workplace over the next several months. Herrick sued Grindr, alleging that the company failed to prevent his ex from abusing the service to harass him.The case was tossed on appeal, with the Second Circuit Court finding in favor of Grindr and its invocation of its Section 230 immunity. The party at fault here was Herrick's ex-boyfriend, but it was Grindr Herrick chose to take to court. The case was not argued well. The allegations contained suppositions that were pretty much impossible to reconcile, as Cathy Gellis pointed out in her post on the lawsuit. Herrick tried to dodge Section 230 immunity by claiming Grindr either handed out his geolocation info or some sort of bug left it exposed. This was the basis for his negligence claims. But none of that makes sense.

When you sign up for security services like two-factor authentication (2FA), the phone number you're providing is supposed to be explicitly used for security. You're providing that phone number as part of an essential exchange intended to protect yourself and your data, and that information is not supposed to be used for marketing. Since we've yet to craft a formal privacy law, there's nothing really stopping companies from doing that anyway, something Facebook exploited last year when it was caught using consumer phone numbers provided explicitly for 2FA for marketing purposes.It's not only a violation of your users' trust, it incentivizes them to not use two-factor authentication for fear of being spammed, making everybody less secure. As part of Facebook's recent settlement with the FTC the company was forbidden from using 2FA phone numbers for marketing ever again.Having just watched Facebook go through this, Twitter has apparently decided to join the fun. In a blog post, the company this week acknowledged that participants of the company's Tailored Audiences and Partner Audiences advertising system may have had their phone numbers used for 2FA used for marketing as well:

Another day, another example of copyright being used as censorship. As you may have heard, there was a bit of controversy this weekend when talk show host Ellen DeGeneres attended the Dallas Cowboys game with former President George W. Bush. This made lots of people quite upset as they argued that being friends with Bush was either support for "tolerance of hate and discrimination" or an effort at "whitewashing... his manifest crimes." Others argued, as Ellen did, that there are good reasons to be kind to people you fundamentally disagree with.Wherever you come down on that debate, hopefully you can agree that, no matter what, the Ellen Show was wrong to use a copyright claim to take down a transformative video, created by Rafael Shimunov, that took Ellen's "be nice to each other" monologue about the situation and superimposed images on the back screen of what appears to be scenes of devastation in the Middle East that came about from President Bush's policies. This is, of course, classic fair use. Taking a bit of video (1 minute and 46 seconds) from Ellen's show, and using it in a transformative way to provide commentary and criticism of Ellen's speech. Even if you think it's unfair or heavy handed, it still should quite clearly be protected by fair use. But, instead:That's the original tweet posting the video, showing that it has been "disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner."Of course, in response to this, a whole bunch of folks are now reposting the video on Twitter. So far, (as I type this), they've mostly remained online -- which at least suggests that the original takedown was not an automated takedown notice or machine recognition situation, but a deliberate report. Indeed, other tweets suggest that the "social media manager" of The Ellen Show sent a DMCA takedown over the video.

At long last, the PR nightmare for Epic Games is over. Kind of. You will recall that the company went on a lawsuit blitz over those that develop and/or promote cheats for Epic's hit game Fortnite. While one can understand that the company was salty over cheat enablers for its online shooter, given that disruption by cheaters makes the game less fun and therefore less popular, the fact is that Epic also fought this battle on claims that such cheats violate copyright and the license provided by the game's Terms of Service. These are claims that need to be tested, and hopefully defeated, in court, because they are a twisting of copyright law into the worst kind of pretzel.One of the cheaters Epic sued, at the time without knowing so, was a 14 year old minor. That young man also appears to have been both rude and brazen throughout the lawsuit process, which at various points involved his mother trying to get the court to dismiss the case and Epic arguing that indeed a minor can enter into a ToS contract with the company. The fact that Epic pushed this so hard and for so long was fairly bizarre, given just what a PR nightmare suing a minor over this sort of thing should have been.Well, that nightmare is now over, as there is reportedly a settlement between the two parties.

Order your copy of Working Futures today »Over the last week or so, since releasing our Working Futures book of science fiction stories about "the future of work," we've been profiling each of the stories in the book. The first three stories were profiled here, and the second three were profiled here. Here are the next three stories in the book:Joan Henry vs The Algorithm by Randy Lubin is a modern retelling of the legend of John Henry vs The Machine, but where the machine is an algorithm and there are a few additional twists in the story.Prime of Life. This is my own second story in the collection, and I talked a bit about it on yesterday's podcast. This was my attempt to look at how more and more services are coming with subscription models, and picturing a world (and new kinds of jobs) that might come about if we were to create subscription services for almost anything. But, that also raises questions, such as whether or not you'd want to turn your whole life over to one company. And then what happens if that company decides you should no longer keep that life. But... also what happens if there were real competition in the market to provide such services.The Auditor & The Exorcist by N. R. M. Roshak which is a story that explores the future of work in a near-future world with AI-mediated social credit. Unfortunately for everyone concerned, software bugs are still a thing in the future. If you have nightmares about the lack of security on IOT (and also about the possibility of a social credit score), this one is for you.I like that these three stories are together in the collection, because despite all three being very different, all three present protagonists with jobs that clearly don't exist today... but which don't seem at all unlikely depending on how technology and society evolve over the next decade or so. All three also highlight how these futures we're discussing are neither dystopian nor utopian (or, arguably, they can be seen as both dystopian and utopian depending on whose perspective you're looking at. These are worlds where amazing things are possible, but those amazing things also have costs and consequences that should be considered. Thanks to everyone who has already purchased the book -- and for those who haven't yet, please check it out.

In some surprising, and ridiculous, news the local court judge, Judge John Marshall (no, not that Judge John Marshall), has decided not to dismiss the lawsuit that Nunes filed against Twitter, two satirical Twitter accounts, and political strategist Liz Mair. As you'll recall, Mair and Twitter had both argued that the case had no reason to be in a local Virginia court, and that, if anything, the proper venue was in California. The judge had demanded that Twitter reveal to him the details of who was behind the Twitter accounts (something that was already questionable under the 1st Amendment, which protects anonymity). Twitter refused, though did say that neither account holder was based in Virginia.Of course, now it looks like none of that even mattered anyway, as the judge has said that the venue is fine because Mair once lived in Virginia (she doesn't any more) even though it was a different county from where the lawsuit was filed. The reasoning from the judge is... weird.

It's no secret that the Chinese government is no friend to free speech. While that statement must seem painfully obvious, the entire world is getting an education into just how thin-skinned Beijing is with the ongoing protests in Hong Kong. While those protesters are chiefly demonstrating for their own civil rights, the Chinese government has apparently made it its business to police the rest of the world's speech while holding the second largest economy on the planet as a hostage to its own hurt feelings.And American sporting companies are failing this values test. And failing it badly. We'll start with the NBA. Days ago, Daryl Morey, the GM for the Houston Rockets, tweeted out an image that included the text, "Fight for freedom, Stand with Hong Kong." It's the kind of thing literally anyone could have sent, except that the NBA, and the Rockets in particular, are insanely popular in China. Much of that has to do with Yao Ming having played for the Rockets years ago. Ming now runs the Chinese Basketball Association.The reaction to all of this was swift. The CBA cut ties with the Rockets. Chinese broadcasters announced they would no longer broadcast NBA pre-season games. A pre-season game that is supposed to be played in China in mere days is up in the air as to whether the game will even be played. And Chinese run media ran with it all, with one article stating: