Techdirt

When Charter Communications (Spectrum) proposed merging with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks in 2016, the company repeatedly promised that the amazing "synergies" would lower rates, increase competition, boost employment, and improve the company's services. Of course like countless telecom megamergers before it, that never actually happened. Instead, the company quickly set about raising rates to manage the huge debt load. And its service has been so aggressively terrible, the company almost got kicked out of New York State, something I've never seen in 20 years of covering telecom.Fast forward to 2019, and despite surging competition from streaming video providers, Charter is once again raising rates on numerous services. Broadband and TV services will all be seeing major price increases next month, as will the company's hardware rental surcharges and the universe of misleading fees the industry uses to covertly jack up the advertised rate post sale. That includes the company's "broadcast TV fee," which is really just a small part of the cost of programming hidden below the line in the form of a (now) $13.50 monthly additional charge:

For years, we've talked about what a total joke the federal courts' PACER system is. That's the computer system the federal courts use for accessing court documents. It acts like it was designed in about 1998 and hasn't been touched since (and even when it was designed, it wasn't designed well). But that's not the only fucked up computer system that the federal courts use. A few years back when I was an expert witness in a federal case, I had to make use of a different US court website just to get paid by the government -- and while it's been a few years, I still remember that it required you to use Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer! It had lots of other issues as well.By now you may have realized that every computer system in the federal court system seems to be antiquated and poorly designed. And now we've got even more evidence of that. On Friday, the federal court system announced that a "power outage" probably fucked up clerkship and staff attorney applications going back three months.

If you want to work in the booming, lucrative field of cybersecurity, you need to earn certifications to verify your abilities. CompTIA is the leading certifying body for IT security. In the 4-course CompTIA Security Infrastructure Expert (CSIE) Bundle, updated for 2019, you'll get comprehensive preparation to sit four crucial CompTIA exams: Security+, CySA+, CASP, and PenTest+. You'll learn how to secure a corporate environment by scanning for vulnerabilities, how to analyze the results of network reconnaissance and recommend and implement countermeasures, how to leverage collaboration tools and technology to support enterprise security, and more. It's on sale for $49.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.

Recent protests in West Papua have made things uncomfortable for the Indonesian government. The protests were triggered by recordings of Indonesian military personnel taunting Papuans and calling them racial slurs. The Indonesian government responded to the protests by shutting down internet access and seeking to arrest a prominent West Papua civil rights lawyer for allegedly spreading "fake news."West Papua was formerly its own nation but it was handed over to the Indonesian government in 1969 following a "free choice" voting process that saw about 1,000 "delegates" chosen by the Indonesian military override the will of the country's residents, making it officially a province under the Indonesian government's control. That's obviously not working out well for Papuans.If you're wondering how West Papua has arrived at this flash point, this hilarious/disturbing video produced by The Juice Media explains the whole thing. And it explains the Australian government's complicity in the Indonesian government's subjugation of the West Papuan people. (NSFW language throughout. Here's an annotated script if you'd rather read about it.)That explains where the nation is at now, and why its people want to be free of their Indonesian overlords. It also explains why no one nearby is riding to their rescue, since it's clear the Australian government would rather maintain its ties with the regime presiding over West Papua than try to help clear a path to independence.That also explains why The Juice Media was recently informed this video can no longer be viewed in Indonesia. It appears the government has filed a legal complaint targeting the video embedded above, resulting in it being blocked in Indonesia.For whatever reason, The Juice Media is completely unable to challenge this decision by YouTube. A screenshot of the account's dashboard doesn't even show the complaint, nor does anything sent to the account by YouTube explain what law was broken or which government entity filed the complaint.The problem with YouTube complying with local laws is that many local laws are written solely for the purpose of making censorship easier. Allowing the Indonesian government to target content it doesn't like to keep its citizens from learning more about its abuses just ensures more abuses will occur. The cycle will continue until someone decides the spread of information is more important than staying in the good graces of authoritarians.

While T-Mobile has built a brand on the claim it's hugely different from the other big wireless carriers, it routinely likes to illustrate the limits of that claim. Like the time T-Mobile CEO John Legere mocked the EFF after the group noted T-Mobile routinely violated net neutrality (it also supported killing the FCC rules). Or the time the company hired Trump advisor Corey Lewandowski, shortly after he'd mocked a kid with Downe's Syndrome on live TV, just to get a leg up on its Sprint merger approval process. And that's before you get to the steady stream of bullshit T-Mobile has been pushing to get that deal approved.That's not to say that T-Mobile hasn't done some good things in the industry, just that when push comes to shove the entire consumer-friendly schtick is only skin deep.Another case in point: New York City has filed suit against T-Mobile (pdf) alleging that the company's "Metro" (formerly MetroPCS) prepaid arm routinely rips off its customers. More specifically, the complaint alleges that Metro routinely sells customers used phones disguised as new, buries caveats, restrictions, and surcharges in fine print, and offers a "30 day money back guarantee" the complaint claims is "wholly illusory, and completely deceptive":

While T-Mobile has built a brand on the claim it's hugely different from the other big wireless carriers, it routinely likes to illustrate the limits of that claim. Like the time T-Mobile CEO John Legere mocked the EFF after the group noted T-Mobile routinely violated net neutrality (it also supported killing the FCC rules). Or the time the company hired Trump advisor Corey Lewandowski, shortly after he'd mocked a kid with Downe's Syndrome on live TV, just to get a leg up on its Sprint merger approval process. And that's before you get to the steady stream of bullshit T-Mobile has been pushing to get that deal approved.That's not to say that T-Mobile hasn't done some good things in the industry, just that when push comes to shove the entire consumer-friendly schtick is only skin deep.Another case in point: NY Attorney General has filed suit against T-Mobile (pdf) alleging that the company's "Metro" (formerly MetroPCS) prepaid arm routinely rips off its customers. More specifically, the complaint alleges that Metro routinely sells customers used phones disguised as new, buries caveats, restrictions, and surcharges in fine print, and offers a "30 day money back guarantee" the complaint claims is "wholly illusory, and completely deceptive":

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous commenter offering a simple opinion on the government's actions to prevent mass shootings:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2014, police in the UK were threatening domain registrars and abusing anti-terror laws to snoop on journalists (while keeping mum about just how often they do so), while the Culture Secretary was demanding that search engines magically stop piracy. Artist deadmau5 was embroiled in two crazy IP battles — one in which Ferarri was trying to block the sale of his decorated car, and another in which Disney was trying to block his attempt to trademark his logo (even as he discovered the company had been pirating his music). In Australia, a movie studio was comparing piracy to pedophilia and terrorism while ISPs were getting sued for wanting court orders before blocking websites. And the IFPI issued an especially bogus takedown notice demanding Kim Dotcom take his own album down from his own website.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2009, the Canadian recording industry was mobilizing in Toronto to push bad copyright ideas, the especially bad idea of a music tax was rearing its head yet again, Hollywood was making another attempt to start using selectable output control to block DVRs, and the UK IP Minister was defending kicking people off the internet. Both the new USPTO head and the Commerce Secretary were calling for more patents, approved faster — I guess like the insane one they granted saying that you can patent the idea of using precisely three knowledge bases to diagnose medical diagnostic decisions — while we got another example of the US's pressure on China to adopt a patent system turning around and biting it. But one of the worst ideas came from Microsoft's patent boss, who was calling for globalization of the patent system.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2004, outgoing MPAA boss Jack Valenti was continuing to misunderstand and misrepresent the digital word right up to the wire of retirement, while his incoming replacement Dan Glickman got off to a worrying start with a speech praising and defending Valenti's words and the export of the DMCA to Australia. Over at the RIAA, Mitch Glazier was still pushing the "sue everyone" angle, the INDUCE Act got a mostly-cosmetic update, and the downloadable music store market was still a mess. We did get one very important ruling though, with the Court of Appeals upholding the decision that it's not a DMCA violation to create third-party garage door openers, though the precedent it set was murky and not as clear-cut as one might have hoped.

As we've previously discussed, restaurant chain Taco John's has waged at least a decades-long war to try to pretend that its trademarked term, "Taco Tuesday," hasn't become generic. How the chain ever got what sure looks to be a purely descriptive trademark is anyone's guess, but armed with its trademark the company has since gone after other restaurants big and small for daring to host their own "Taco Tuesdays." If all of this sounds depressingly stupid to you, well, you're not wrong.You really would think the convergence of trademarks and tacos eaten on Tuesday couldn't get any dumber, except here comes LeBron James. Some background is probably in order. See, LeBron loves tacos. So much so, in fact, that he tends to eat them on many Tuesdays, all while Instagramming his family doing so and affecting a Hispanic accent while shouting about how much he loves Taco Tuesdays. That would have been only mildly interesting at best, except that LeBron's company has now decided to try to trademark the phrase. Side note: The New York Times should really be better about conflating copyright and trademark law, as you will see below.

When the police have already decided who they like for some unsolved crime, almost nothing will stop them from getting their man. Investigations are supposed to involve investigating. But when a handful of tipsters said a black man robbed a bank, the Portland PD went to work trying to pin four bank robberies on one man. (via Simple Justice)The problem with this man was his list of distinguishing features. He had several -- all as plain as the tattoos on his face. (All photos via court documents.)That's Tyrone Lamont Allen's booking photo. This is an image of the suspect captured by a bank's security system.The first thing that jumps out of this photo is the lack of things that jump out. No tattoos on the face capture by bank cameras. Plenty of tattoos on the "suspect" the Portland police decided to arrest. But at least investigators did a little footwork first. And a little Photoshop work as well.Here's the photo they used of Allen in lineups shown to bank tellers at robbed banks.Yeah, that's Tyron Allen -- minus everything that makes him distinctively Tyrone Allen. This is what the Portland PD did to steer witnesses into handing them the suspect they wanted to arrest.

MoviePass initially seemed like it might be a plausible idea, though recently the outfit has been exposed for being terrible at this whole business thing. The service initially let movie buffs pay $30 a month in exchange for unlimited movie tickets at participating theaters, provided they signed up for a full year of service. But recent reports have made it clear company leaders had absolutely no idea what they were doing, the service was routinely hemorrhaging cash (particularly after an unsustainable price drop to $10), and execs even tried to change user passwords to prevent users from actually using the service.Apparently, the outfit wasn't too hot at this whole internet security thing, either.Mossab Hussein, a security researcher at Dubai-based cybersecurity firm SpiderSilk, recently discovered that the company had left tens of thousands of user credit card numbers exposed to the internet. An exposed database on one of the company's subdomains resulted in 161 million records on various types being exposed (a number, if precedent holds, that could grow even larger). And while much of this data was not sensitive, a good chunk of it was:

Good news has arrived for the long, long, oh so very long list of travelers who've had their rights abused by TSA agents. Reversing its own decision, the full panel of Third Circuit Appeals Court judges has removed TSA agents from "can't be sued" list.Originally, the court had held that Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) were immune from civil lawsuits under the Federal Tort Claims Act. For the most part, federal government employees can't be sued directly. Previously, this covered TSA employees, whom the Third Circuit claimed were not "investigative or law enforcement officers" -- one of the few exemptions from this blanket immunity.That ended Nadine Pellegrino's lawsuit against the TSA agents who behaved abusively during her "extended screening." Here's a description of those events from the Third Circuit's reversal:

As you probably heard, earlier this week, the FCC fined Google/YouTube for alleged COPPA violations in regards to how it collected data on kids. You can read the details of the complaint and proposed settlement (which still needs to be approved by a judge, but that's mostly a formality). For the most part, people responded to this in the same way that they responded to the FTC's big Facebook fine. Basically everyone hates it -- though for potentially different reasons. Most people hate it because they think it's a slap on the wrist, won't stop such practices and just isn't painful enough for YouTube to care. On the flip side, some people hate it because it will force YouTube to change its offerings for no good reason at all and in a manner that might actually lead to more privacy risks and less content for children.They might all be right. As I wrote about the Facebook fine and other issues related to privacy, almost every attempt to regulate privacy tends to make things worse, in part, because people keep misunderstanding how privacy works. Also, most of the "complaints" about how this "isn't enough," are really not complaints directed at the FTC, but at Congress, because the FTC can only do so much under its current mandate.Separately, since this fine focused on COPPA violations, I'll separately note that COPPA has always been a ridiculous law that makes no real sense -- beyond letting politicians and bureaucrats pretend they're "protecting the children" -- while really creating massive unintended consequences that do nothing to protect children or privacy, and do quite a bit to make the internet a worse place.But... I'm not even going to rehash all of that today. Feel free to dig into the past links yourselves. What's interesting to me is something specific to this settlement, as noted by former FCC and Senate staffer (and current Princeton professor), Jonathan Mayer: the FTC, in this decision, appears to have significantly changed its interpretation of COPPA, and done so in a manner that is going to set up something of a clash with Section 230. What happened is a little bit subtle, so it requires some background.The key feature of COPPA -- and the one you're probably aware of whether or not you know it -- is that it has specific rules if a site is targeting children under the age of 13. This is why tons of sites say that you need to be over 13 to use them (including us) -- in an attempt to avoid dealing with many of the more insane parts of COPPA compliance. Of course, in practice, this just means that many people lie. Indeed, as danah boyd famously wrote nearly a decade ago, COPPA seems to be training parents to help their kids lie online -- which is kinda dumb.Of course, the key point under COPPA is not actually the "under 13" users, but rather whether or not a website or online service is "directed to children under 13 years of age." Indeed, in talking about it with various lawyers, we've been told that most sites (including our own) shouldn't even worry about COPPA because it's obvious that such sites aren't "directed to children" as a whole and therefore even if a few kids sneak in, they still wouldn't be violating COPPA. In other words, the way the world has mostly interpreted COPPA is that it's not about how whether any particular piece or pieces of content are aimed at children -- but whether the larger site itself is aimed at children.This new FTC settlement agreement changes that.

Whether you're reporting on last quarter's earnings or pitching an idea to potential investors, your presentation could benefit from some insightful charts or vivid infographics. Slideshop helps you build presentations faster and captivate your audience with 600 presentation template slides for PowerPoint, Keynote, and Google Slides. Featuring modern designs, unlimited downloads, and easy editing, Slideshop simplifies presentation prep with pre-made templates for planning, business, infographics, and more. It's on sale for $30.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

The scanning of visa and green card applicants' social media accounts during the application process continues to escalate. Even though the program hasn't shown itself to be effective in keeping the country free of terrorists or criminals, the DHS and its components continue to believe this is an essential part of our national security infrastructure.If the ultimate goal is to create a worldwide chilling effect on speech, then this program is coming along nicely. Knowing immigration and customs officers are going to be taking a deep dive into your social media accounts results in a lot of self-censorship, since it's not entirely clear what screeners are looking for. Presumably, this has been left to officers' discretion, which means it's a "we'll know it when we see it" situation.Performing a deep dive means having access to as much of an account as possible. Limits placed on site visitors without an account appears to be frustrating customs officers. So, they've officially been given permission to create fake accounts to better access the content they're screening.

We've noted repeatedly how the Sprint, T-Mobile merger isn't great. There's forty years of history showing how telecom industry megamergers almost always result in less competition, higher prices, and fewer jobs, and this deal is no exception. Eliminating one of just four US wireless carriers is likely to result in higher prices (see: Canada or Ireland). And Wall Street analysts not only predict the deal could eliminate anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 jobs, data suggests the consolidation could result in employees across the sector making less money even if they work at other companies.Of course if you ask T-Mobile and Sprint executives, they'll tell you that none of this will actually happen. They'll tell you that the deal will somehow create more competition and jobs, despite (again) history showing that this rarely, if ever happens and such deals almost exclusively benefit executives and shareholders.Hoping for a little reassurance, T-Mobile employees this week penned a letter to Deutsche Telekom CEO Tim Hoettges (Deutsche Telekom has a majority stake in T-Mobile) asking for guarantees they won't see layoffs and pay cuts in the wake of the deal:

I have seen the future and it's hundreds of law enforcement agencies morphing into Amazon subsidiaries. Amazon's Ring doorbell camera currently commands 97% of the doorbell camera market. It's easy to see why. Amazon has the marketing power and cash flow to hand out discounted cameras to police departments, using them as loss leaders to ensure buy-in by end users, many of whom get these cameras for free from local cops.What's the catch? There isn't one* -- not if you disregard the implications of accepting a free surveillance camera from law enforcement. Ring wants more end users and for more of those end users to download its Neighbors app. Neighbors accelerates the sharing of doorbell cam footage. It also accelerates bigotry, which tends to turn virtual meetups on Neighbors into a discussion about shady people of color wandering the neighborhood.It's not enough for Ring to command nearly 100% of the market. It also spends its time vetting law enforcement statements and press releases to ensure cop shops stay on brand and push the Neighbors app. The more people cops can convince to use the app, the bigger the discount on the next order of Ring doorbells.Sharing is what matters. Encouraging people to share footage of suspicious activity with their neighbors via the app breaks down reservations people might have about turning over footage to cops. Law enforcement requests are made through a portal provided by Ring, which includes a map that shows cops every residence that has a Ring doorbell installed.The Guardian has obtained documents from two more of the 400+ law enforcement agencies currently partnering with Ring. These documents contain screenshots of Ring doorbell maps from the portal, as well as its template for warrantless footage requests.The documents also contain a very heavily-edited press release from the Gwinnett County Police Department. Nearly the entire thing has been rewritten by Ring reps, excising mentions of Ring's donation of 80 cameras, as well as language that makes it clear law enforcement will have access to any footage uploaded to the Neighbors app. [Picture via The Guardian]The end game is seamless access to recordings, with the wheels greased by social media interaction and the implicit suggestion that recipients of free doorbell cameras may want to repay the favor with a little footage.But not everyone is willing to give cops warrantless access to footage. Well, Ring is on top of that as well, as Dell Cameron reports for Gizmodo. Upon request, it will hand over rejection stats to law enforcement, letting them know how often citizens (or "civilians" in Ring's PR language) aren't meeting their tacit obligations. Turns out it's most of them.

Over the past year or so, we've been discussing Epic's somewhat strange ongoing legal dispute with a minor from Illinois over cheating software he developed for Fortnite. Epic initially went after a host of so-called cheaters for developing these tools, claiming that they were violating both copyright and TOS agreements for the game. It found out later that one of these targets was a minor. Instead of backing off in any respect, even after the child's mother petitioned the court with a letter asking it to dismiss the case as the minor can't have entered into a TOS agreement, Epic has since pressed the throttle to go after a child.This, as I argued at the time, should have been a PR nightmare for Epic. However, after the minor retained a proper non-maternal lawyer and put in a proper motion to dismiss, Epic contends that the minor continued both cheating in Fortnite as well as promoting his cheating software through alternate channels. If that's truly the case, it paints the teen in a much less flattering light.

Just a few weeks ago, we wrote about how the White House was clearly setting itself up for another embarrassing failure in court when it removed the press pass of Brian Karem. This wasn't new. The same thing had happened a year ago. And yet, our comments filled up with a lot of nonsense about how we were wrong and "there is no right to a White House press pass" and a bunch of other nonsense.I'll be curious to hear the response from those same individuals now that a federal judge has ordered the press pass restored.

A federal court [PDF] has just declared the federal government's Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) unconstitutional. It's not that the government can't maintain a database of travelers it feels are enough of a threat to hassle repeatedly, it's that it can't do this without providing more information to, and better redress options for, those it has placed on this list.Unlike the "No Fly List," TSDB placement doesn't necessarily prevent those on the list from traveling. It just means they'll be subjected to enhanced screening processes and detentions that can last for hours. Travelers are not informed when they are put on this list. Nor are they told whether or not they are on this list if they ask the government why they're being searched and detained every time they attempt to board a plane or return from a foreign country.The guidelines for placement on the TSDB are vague. They're also something the government isn't willing to discuss. A nomination can be performed by almost any federal agent for almost any reason. This is how the US government ends up presiding over a so-called terrorist watchlist that contains children as young as four years old.The sole avenue of redress provided by the government does not work. The DHS's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program was revised after being declared unconstitutional by this same court in 2015. The new version was considered adequate for travelers placed on the more restrictive "No Fly" list. But it isn't adequate for those the government feels are benign enough to be allowed to board planes, but somehow still dangerous enough to be subjected to lengthy interrogations and highly-intrusive searches.The entire redress process is a black box. The DHS takes the complaint, determines whether or not the person is on the TSDB, and then tells the complainant nothing. Unlike the revamped redress process for the "No Fly" list, possible watchlist members are never told whether or not they're on the watchlist, or whether they're still on it after the government has taken a second look at their nomination.The government tried to dodge this lawsuit by claiming two things: first, that traveling around the country without being hassled is not a right. Second, it said the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their non-litigation options, pointing to the very TRIPs process the court has declared unconstitutional. The court points out the plaintiffs are suffering real, ongoing harm due to their placement on this watchlist. That's enough to make the broken redress process the DHS offers unconstitutional.

A federal court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought against the Splinter website by a former Trump staffer. Jason Miller, a Trump campaign spokesman, sued after Splinter published an article that included allegations made by another Trump staffer Miller had an affair with. The allegations being sued over weren't your normal allegations. These allegations were made in court by A.J. Delgado, Miller's affair partner who later had Miller's child.Whether or not the allegations made by Delgado were true is irrelevant. Miller may have been correct his reputation had been damaged by the publication of these court documents (but $100 million-worth?), but the fact remains they were court documents. Filing a defamation lawsuit over reporting on court documents is per se stupid.The thing about allegations made in court is that, while they can be defamatory, they cannot be sued over. Miller understood at least this much, it appears, because he didn't sue the staffer he had an affair with. He instead sued Splinter, which published an article containing the court document with the allegations in it. Miller may have thought he had found a softer target. But he was wrong, as the federal court points out.Reporting on court documents is protected under New York law. Splinter invoked this law to defend its reporting. The court agrees the law applies. Because it does, it has no reason to examine any other of Miller's claims. From the decision [PDF]:

It appears that the idea of SLAPP suits has moved to China. The Chinese internet giant Tencent is apparently fed up with its own users criticizing the company on its own WeChat blogging platform, and has sued a bunch of them (possibly paywalled -- here's another link for the story). The details are pretty ridiculous, even recognizing that China doesn't (by a long shot) have a history of protecting free expression. What's incredible here, of course, is that Tencent could have just shut down the accounts of the WeChatters. But, instead it's trying to completely destroy them with these lawsuits.

The Complete 2019 CompTIA Certification Training Bundle has 12 courses geared to help you prepare for CompTIA's certification exams. Courses cover A+, Network+, Security+, Pentest, CySA+ (Cyber Security Analyst), and more. It's on sale for $69.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.

By now we've well established that the FCC ignored the public, ignored the experts, and ignored all objective data when it killed net neutrality rules at the behest of telecom monopolies.One common refrain by Pai and and the industry (and many folks who don't understand how the broken telecom market works) is that because the internet didn't immediately collapse upon itself post-repeal in a rainbow-colored explosion, that the repeal itself must not be that big of a deal. That ignores a number of things; one being that ISPs are only largely behaving because they're worried about the numerous new state level net neutrality laws passed in the wake of the federal repeal. They're also worried about the ongoing state AG lawsuit against the FCC (which, if victorious, would restore some or all of the rules).None of that mattered to the Chicago Tribune editorial staff, the latest outlet to proclaim that because your internet connection still works, ignoring the public and letting AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast dictate US federal internet policy must not have been a bad thing:

A month ago we wrote about Devin Nunes' third lawsuit against his critics over their speech, and noted that he was promising in the press that more lawsuits were coming. We noted that the latest lawsuit was slightly odd in that he actually filed it in California, rather than Virginia (as with his first two lawsuits), and in California he could face real anti-SLAPP penalties (i.e., paying the other side's legal fees). Perhaps that's why that lawsuit was not actually filed by Nunes himself, but rather his campaign. If it got tossed out via anti-SLAPP, then suckers who donated to his campaign would foot the bill, rather than Nunes directly himself. Either way, we'll likely never find out because as suddenly as that case was filed, it's now been dismissed by Nunes. Amusingly, Nunes' lawyer is claiming victory:

Reverse warrants are the new tech-related toy law enforcement is experimenting with. Oddly, a lot of what's come to light so far originates in the Midwest, an area not exactly known for early adoption. Outside of the NYPD and feds confirming they use warrants to seek a list of possible suspects (rather than targeting any specific suspect), most reporting has covered deployments by law enforcement agencies in Minnesota.We can add Wisconsin to the list of areas where cops are working backwards to suspects by using the copious amount of GPS data hoovered up by Google and others. Russell Brandom of The Verge has more details:

A few weeks back, we talked about the dumbest trademark application I've ever seen, with the Ohio State University deciding to try to get a trademark on one of the most commonly used determiners in the English language: "The." Honestly, the whole thing is painfully stupid, as trademarking such a common word cannot possibly be worked into the original purpose of trademark law, but here we are. The only good thing thus far to come out of all of this was the University of Michigan's playful suggestion that maybe it should trademark the word "Of."Fortunately, it wasn't just us IP nerds who found all of this so silly. The public reaction writ large was fairly negative, with plenty of fun being had at the temerity of OSU. But what about OSU fans themselves? How would they react, given that all of this is built on the haughty insistence of NFL players emphasizing the "the" when announcing what school they attended?Well, Kirk Herbstreit is a useful thermometer for this, given that he is both probably college football's most recognized analyst and a former OSU football player. And, man, does he not have kind words for his alma mater.

In early 2016, we wrote about an absolutely ridiculous plan by the Copyright Office to -- without any basis in the law -- strip every site of its registered DMCA agent. In case you're not aware, one of the conditions to get the DMCA's Section 512 safe harbors as a platform for user content, is that you need to have a "Designated Agent." As per 512(c)(2), it says:

By now, you likely all know the story of David Karpf's mild "bedbugs" joke that drew the personal, professional and journalistic ire of the New York Times' Bret Stephens. As it turned out, Karpf — a professor with expertise in media and political communication — was more than capable of responding to Stephens and talking about what was happening in a variety of media outlets, with far more insight than the Pulitzer-winning columnist himself, turning what started as a very silly incident into an exploration of very serious topics. So this week, David Karpf joins us on the podcast to talk about his experience, and what we can all learn from it.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.

A key argument by many who are advocating for getting rid of Section 230 is that various internet platforms need to "take more responsibility" or have some sort of "duty of care," to rid their platforms of malicious content (however that's defined). I even heard one staunch anti-Section 230 advocate complain vocally that internet services "aren't experimenting enough" with policing their platforms. The argument that there's not enough experimentation struck me as quite odd -- because if you look around, there's actually a ton of experimentation going on in platform moderation methods and techniques. And, even more weird, is that most of this experimentation is only possible because of Section 230.Take the case of Pinterest. While Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon have all struggled with ways to deal with the influx of utter nonsense -- much of which is actively dangerous -- Pinterest earlier this year announced that it was taking a hardline stance against anti-vax nonsense, banning it from the site, as best it could.

In the wake of more mass shootings, everything coming from up top has been bat shit insane. The Trump Administration has a bunch of suggestions, and they're no better than those offered by a bunch of policy makers who think pulling the plug on certain areas of the internet will somehow reduce the frequency of mass shootings in the US.Despite being able to do actually useful things at the federal level, Trump has decided preventing gun violence should be everyone else's job. First, he declared it's time for social media companies to engage in even greater vetting of users' posts, apparently in hopes of finding the next mass shooter before they start shooting.We're headed to pre-crime territory, with the feds in tow. Working together, these entities can be expected to create a massive mess -- one that criminalizes words and will result in plenty of non-dangerous people spending more time interacting with federal agents. This isn't going to solve the problem. It's only going to create a new set of problems, waste limited law enforcement resources, and deprive people of their rights and liberties.So, of course, the Trump administration is out there trying to make a bad situation even worse. Working backwards from a stillborn idea to come up with a catchy acronym, the White House brain trust is planning on inflicting this on America:

The Complete Raspberry Pi 3B+ Starter Kit & Course Bundle has 3 courses and a kit with a Pi 3B+ to get you up and running in no time. This starter kit is perfect for anybody with an interest in STEM projects. You'll get a new Raspberry Pi 3B+, along with a Sensor Kit that has 37 sensor modules along with instructions for 35 products, allowing you to launch your Raspberry Pi journey. Two courses cover the fundamentals of working with Pi and a third course teaches you how to integrate your projects with Amazon Alexa. The bundle is on sale for $140.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 you happen to recognize the name Jamie Lynn Crofts, it may be from the truly amazing amicus brief she filed two years ago in the nutty SLAPP lawsuit that coal boss Bob Murray filed against comedian John Oliver after Oliver did a (very funny) segment about coal and coal jobs that talked a fair bit about Bob Murray. Crofts, at the time working for the ACLU in West Virginia, filed an amicus brief that was truly wonderful to behold, including sections entitled "The Ridiculous Case at Hand" and "Anyone Can Legally Say "Eat Shit, Bob!" and "You Can't Sue People for Being Mean to You, Bob" and "You Can't Get a Court Order Telling the Press How to Cover Stories, Bob."Anyway, it appears that Jamie has since moved on from the ACLU, and it appears that she's now regularly writing about legal issues for Wonkette, and doing a pretty damn good job of it as well, looking through her recent stories. I wish I'd known that before, as I would have followed her coverage much more closely. However, Jamie truly shines when dealing with bullshit censorial threats, and apparently the performance artists known as "Diamond and Silk" decided to send a laughably sketchy "cease and desist" letter to Wonkette over some of their coverage of Diamond and Silk and whatever it is that they do. Jamie's response is entitled In The Matter Of Diamond And Silk's Very Real Lawyer v. Wonkette: Bring It, Sh*thead, which maybe gives you a sense of the spirit of her reply.Normally, in this space, we'd go through and highlight the absurdity of the threat letter, but, honestly, we can't do half as good a job as Jamie does (we probably couldn't do 20% as good a job). So you should go read the whole thing, but here's a snippet.

With the federal government doing little to pass a real privacy law for the modern era, states have begun rushing into the void. That's unfortunately resulting in some state privacy laws that are a lacking in the...quality department. That's been particularly true in California, where the government recently passed the new California Consumer Privacy Act. While the law may be well intentioned, we've noted how the rushed bill has plenty of problems that need fixing if it's ever going to actually work. Murky definitions and drafting errors leave the bill a bit of a muddled mess, with the potential to even undermine other, existing laws.While all sides of the debate have descended upon the California legislature in a bid to try and fix the bill's language, Silicon Valley lobbying giants have been busy running some highly misleading ads in a bid to try and soften the bill. Under the banner of "Keep the Internet Free," the Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Microsoft-backed Internet Association has been running ads trying to claim that the bill would result in users having to pay errant fees just to use the internet:

The EU Copyright Directive was supposed to bring copyright into the digital age. Instead, it turned into an attack on the Internet ecosystem by companies that once dominated analog media, and which are still struggling to accept the arrival of online services with a global reach. For example, the upload filters that are unavoidable under Article 13/17 of the Directive are really directed against Google, which ironically won't be much inconvenienced by them. Ordinary people, by contrast, may find their perfectly legal uploads forbidden without explanation. You might think the EU copyright companies would be pretty satisfied now they have this powerful new right to block uploaded materials using automated filters as their proxy, without needing a judge's approval. Not a bit of it. The German Web site Netzpolitik has obtained a leaked document revealing a coordinated campaign by copyright companies to hammer home the message that Internet companies are today's baddies:

Another lawsuit has arisen from the Office of Legal Counsel's ongoing refusal to allow the general public to see its legal memos. The OLC claims these are categorically exempt from FOIA law because they constitute "deliberative" documents and/or are protected by attorney-client privilege.But they're not "deliberative." In some cases -- if not many cases -- the OLC's guidance tells government agencies what they can and can't do legally, providing justification for warrantless searches, extrajudicial drone strikes, and lots of domestic surveillance.In essence, the OLC is creating secret laws. Stupid amateurs (meaning the citizens who pay for the office that refuses to speak with them on an FOIA basis) apparently have no business knowing what the government has decided its okay for it to do.Once in a long while, a FOIA lawsuit forces a legal memo out of the office's hands. But for the most part, an unknown number of legal opinions remain locked up out of the reach of the citizens the government is supposed to be accountable to.The Knight First Amendment Institute is hoping a lawsuit will finally trigger a document dump from the opacity-prone OLC. FOIA law has changed in recent years, but the OLC has apparently chosen to ignore this.

Update: After this post published, the Kotaku article was updated with more input from the hacker who reversed course and stated his previous exploit still worked on the new firmware version for the Vita. Kotaku apologized for the error in reporting, as do we.If ever there were a poster child for this strange new culture in which we don't actually own what we buy, there is a strong argument for making Sony the number one pick. Beyond all of Sony's day-to-day anti-consumer practices disguised as anti-piracy efforts, the company is also rather infamous for the Playstation 3 debacle, in which the console was rolled out with a feature that allowed buyers to install other operating systems on it, and then subsequently removed that feature via a firmware update. That Sony wasn't fully trashed in the legal and public opinions courts for doing so basically set the tone for the subsequent decade, where now this sort of bullshit is common practice.Which brings us to the present and a discussion on the Playstation Vita. The Vita, a Playstation hand-held device, has basically been retired with PlayStation Plus games no longer rolling out to the devices and new cartridges for the system no longer being manufactured. As there had been with the PS3, the Vita has a tinkering community around it that has long worked to jailbreak the hardware to allow it do other things. Piracy is part of that, sure, but so is emulation, running other sorts of software, tinkering with hardware performance, etc. Each time someone released a way to jailbreak the Vita, Sony would patch it with a firmware update.Including, most recently, this past week.

You may recall a few years back, John Oliver did one of his always excellent Last Week Tonight shows all about encryption. It concluded with an "honest Apple commercial" that highlighted the difficulty of keeping phones secure, and noting that it's a constant war against malicious attackers who are always trying to figure out new ways to break into people's phones:That commercial is a lot more realistic than people might think. And late last week, Google revealed a pretty astounding iOS exploit that broadly targeted anyone who visited a series of compromised websites, using a combination of zero day attacks that allowed them to more or less own anyone's iPhone who had visited the sites. As Wired noted in its piece about this attack, it changes most of what we know about iPhone attacks these days. At the very least, it demolished the idea that most iPhone hacking really only targeted key individuals.

Earlier this summer, we wrote about the 2nd Circuit appeals court affirming a district court ruling against Donald Trump, saying that it's a 1st Amendment violation for him to block followers on Twitter. The reasoning in the decisions was a bit nuanced, but the short version is that (1) if you're a public official, and (2) using social media (3) for official purposes (4) to create a space of open dialogue, then you cannot block people from following you based on the views they express. The four conditions do need to be met -- and the lower court at least noted that such public officials can still "mute" people. That is, the officials don't need to listen -- but they cannot limit access to the narrow public space that is created in response to their official social media posts.Right after that ruling came down, we pointed out that someone had already sued Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for blocking people on Twitter as well, and our analysis was that she certainly seemed to be violating the 1st Amendment in the same way as Trump was. Now, the Knight 1st Amendment Institute, which filed the initial lawsuit against Trump, has sent a letter to Ocasio-Cortez making the same point. This is interesting, because when the original lawsuit against AOC was filed, and the media requested comment from the Knight Institute, there was at least some hesitation, saying that they needed to look at all of the details. Now that the details have been explored, it appears that the Knight Institute has come to the same conclusion.As the letter makes clear, the @AOC account meets all the criteria that the court required to say that blocking is not allowed. Apparently Ocasio-Cortez is trying to argue that the @AOC account is a personal account, and she had another more official account. But, as the Knight letter explains, that's not at all accurate:

Far too many prosecutors in far too many states have trouble reading child porn statutes. Instead of reading them how they're intended to be read -- to punish adults who victimize minors -- they read them to include the criminalization of minors participating in sexting. When these pictures and videos are shared, these justice system components become contortionists in order to treat subjects of recordings as their own child pornographers.If only the courts weren't so willing to help. Instead of stopping this abuse of the law, they become part of the problem, offloading it on legislators who just aren't all that willing to alter existing child porn laws. Some legislators no doubt believe minors should be treated as sex offenders for engaging in sexting, even when the sexual acts themselves are legal. It's the documentation that's the problem.Mark Joseph Stern of Slate has uncovered another one of these unfortunate incidents. This one is more unfortunate than most because of the actions of one of the recipients of the recorded sex act.

Use the code 10TECHDIRT to get an additional 10% off the following bundles and courses.The Complete C Programming Certification Bundle has 7 courses geared to teach you all you need to know about C, C++, and C#. It's on sale for $39.Python Programming for Beginners is designed to give you a deeper understanding of the language. This example-driven course will help you discover the essential Python fundamentals in as little as one day. It's on sale for $25.Devslopes Coding Academy will help you master the most relevant, desirable skills, from iOS and Android development to back-end development to game creation. Not only will you have full and complete access to 300+ hours of content, but you'll get access to the course discussions, Devslopes community, and free course updates. It's on sale for $29.From setting up projects in JIRA to streamlining pipelines with Agile and Scrum, the Complete Project Management Bundle hass 11 courses to get you up and running with the project management essentials. It's on sale for $29.The Complete Project & Quality Management Certification Bundle has 8 courses designed to teach you the fundamentals of Agile, SixSigma, Scrum, PMP, and more. It's on sale for $40.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

It's one thing to trigger a massive Streisand Effect. It's another to keep on making it worse. Bret Stephens is entering new territory here. Last week, we wrote about his bedbug freakout, in which he misread a tweet that basically no one had seen or read, and tried to use his high and mighty position as a "NY Times Columnist" to get a professor fired, by angrily emailing that professor and cc'ing university provost. As you'll recall, the professor, David Karpf of George Washington University, had simply cracked a mild joke in response to someone at the NY Times tweeting that there were bedbugs in the NY Times offices: "The bedbugs are a metaphor. The bedbugs are Bret Stephens."Now, let's pause for a second, to note that Stephens appears to have misread this tweet. It is not calling him a bedbug. It's saying that "bedbug is a metaphor for Bret Stephens." In other words, he's joking that other NY Times staffers want to get rid of Stephens, but are having trouble doing so.Stephens dug himself a deeper hole the next morning by going on MSNBC and trying to defend his nonsense -- saying he wasn't trying to get Karpf fired, but just wanted his bosses to be aware of how professors at the school acted. That's nonsense and everyone knows it's nonsense. You don't angrily email someone's boss and complain about them hoping for no response whatsoever. Stephens is insulting everyone's intelligence with such a claim. Stephens also claimed that he took such offense to being called a bedbug (remember, he wasn't being called a bedbug) because it was associated with how "totalitarian regimes" act in dehumanizing people. Again, no one believes this. No one read Karpf's joke of a tweet and thought, "man, it's time to send Stephens to the ovens."Either way, Stephens had a whole week to calm down, and to recognize he totally and completely overreacted. He could even it as a growing moment. Perhaps recognize that many of his columns about how easily people take offense, and how people need thicker skin, were kinda hypocritical, given his own reaction to a very mild criticism. But, nope. Stephens apparently thinks himself too important, and is way too cocky and overly sure of himself, to let such a grave insult pass him by. He seems to think he was really, really onto something with that comparison to totalitarian regimes. And, he's an important NY Times columnist -- so it must be time to write a full column about how the Nazis called Jews bedbugs. He just... needed to find the right quote and be too technologically illiterate to recognize that when you link to Google books, after doing a search it retains your search terms.So, Stephens writes one of his high and mighty NY Times opinion pieces about Nazis "and the Ingredients of Slaughter." He doesn't mention Karpf or his own little laughable freakout. He just subtly (I'm sure, he must have thought) drops in a reference to Germans referring to bedbugs. And didn't realize that he'd left the search terms viewable to all.

Apple has never looked too kindly upon users actually repairing their own devices. The company's ham-fisted efforts to shut down, sue, or otherwise imperil third-party repair shops are legendary. As are the company's efforts to force recycling shops to shred Apple products (so they can't be refurbished and re-used), and Apple's often comical attacks on essential right to repair legislation, which only sprung up after companies like Apple, Microsoft, Sony, John Deere, and others created a grass-roots counter-movement via their attempts to monopolize repair.The motivation for these behaviors is obvious: if users are repairing or recycling their iDevices, that means fewer device sales and more customers wandering outside of Apple's ecosystem. Apple routinely obfuscates this obvious self interest under claims that it's exclusively worried about consumer safety and security, like that time it claimed that Nebraska would become a "mecca for hackers" (oh no!) if the state embraced legislation protecting a consumer's right to repair their own devices.But the right to repair movement finally appears to have driven some actual change at the company. Apple announced this week it would be providing parts to independent repair shops for the first time in the company's history, provided the repair technicians are certified. The program creates an entirely new "authorized independent repair" program, but for the moment it only applies to out-of-warranty iPhone repairs in the US, and it's not clear yet how easy it will be to gain Apple's official approval.In a company statement, Apple implies the decision was driven by a simple concern for consumer welfare:

The Indiana Court of Appeals has handed down an opinion that says criticizing a police officer -- at least in this case -- is a criminal offense.Constance McGuire's son died in police custody after his arrest, apparently of a meth overdose. (That lawsuit can be read here.) Shortly after this, McGuire posted several comments about the arresting officer. They were unpleasant and crude, but they were also the sort of anger you often see following the death of a loved one while they were in the nominal care of others.The appeals court opinion [PDF] opens with direct quotes of McGuire's posts.

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is That One Guy summing up the awfulness of the government's approach to Backpage:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2014, as the events in Ferguson prompted us to continue scrutinizing the police, we looked at how a federal law ordering the Attorney General to gather data on police use of force had been ignored for 20 years. President Obama ordered a review of the military gear given to police departments, but it didn't sound like it was going to result in any corrective action, even as we learned that cops were getting so much equipment that they were losing track of everything from rifles to Humvees. Some cops were facing felony charges for using government databases to screen potential dates, but when it comes to use of excessive force, the judicial system was a clear enabler.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2009, a Swedish court got The Pirate Bay taken down by ordering one of its main ISPs to stop serving it, while the judge in the IsoHunt case surprised the MPAA by noting that it actually needed to prove infringement by US residents, and the DOJ — fresh off the appointment of a bunch of top entertainment industry lawyers — announced more funding and a new focus on intellectual property enforcement. Music publishers really kicked their war against lyric websites into high gear, we saw some evidence that copyright holders might be seeding torrents of their own files to find and sue downloaders, and we featured an interview with William Patry about how the copyright debate got so twisted.But the real moment in Techdirt history this week in 2009 was that... we got hacked. Thankfully, the damage wasn't too severe.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2004, there was some suggestion that the Justice Department actually wasn't so keen on doing Hollywood's dirty work, though we know now how that ultimately played out. Indeed, the very same week, despite rumblings that the feds were going to announce a major crackdown on spammers, they ended up being more interested in going after file sharers and pirated software, followed by an attempt to make a big splash with a more general anti-cybercrime sweep that was basically just a press release.Also this week in 2004: our criticism of a journalist for misunderstanding Wikipedia turned into a bit of an ongoing debate, some people began wondering if the war on spam would fuel major AI advancements, and rumors re-emerged about the possibility of a Google browser.

Earler this summer, we discussed Tom Brady, famed Patriots quarterback and winner of many games, deciding to apply for a trademark on a nickname some fans had given him: Tom Terrific. In news you'll never believe, it appeared that Brady didn't really have any idea how trademark law works. As evidence for that, Brady claimed to want the trademark because he hates the nickname and wanted to stop others from using it. That's not how trademark law works. Instead, to have a valid trademark, Brady would have to use the term himself in commerce, meaning that more people would hear his unwanted nickname in doing so.But that wasn't the only problem. See, Tom Terrific is a well-known nickname... of Tom Seaver, the famed NY Mets pitcher. The Hall of Fame pitcher popularized the nickname in sports. Hell, I'm in my 30s and I know Tom Terrific = Tom Seaver.And so do the folks at the USPTO, apparently, as they rejected Brady's application on the grounds that he would mislead others into thinking he was somehow associated with Tom Seaver.

Another layer of opacity shielding bad cops from accountability has been lifted in California. Accountability and transparency hasn't exactly been welcomed by the state's law enforcement agencies, but recent developments have forced it upon these unwelcoming recipients.As of the first of this year, police misconduct and use-of-force records are now obtainable via public records requests. For years, these have been locked away by statute, freeing California cops from the unimaginable horror of public accountability. This new law has raised several legal challenges from cops and their representatives, but so far, none of those have found courts willing to grant them their injunction requests.Now, some of these same cops are going to find themselves even more exposed. The state's top court has just ruled that prosecutors must be informed about officers' past misconduct. The ruling may only discuss a single department, but it will affect every law enforcement agency in the state, as Maura Dolan reports for the L.A. Times.

As many have pointed out, our mobile phones are the perfect surveillance device. Most people carry them around -- voluntarily -- while they are awake. Put this together with the fact that mobile phones have to connect to a nearby transmitter in order to work, and you end up with a pretty good idea of where the person using the device is throughout the day. No surprise, then, that police and prosecutors around the world turn routinely to phone tracking data when they are investigating cases. But as the New York Times reports, there can be serious problems with simply assuming the results are reliable. The Danish authorities have to review over 10,000 court verdicts because of errors in mobile phone tracking data that was offered as evidence in those cases. In addition, Denmark's director of public prosecutions has ordered a two-month halt in the use of this location data in criminal cases while experts try to sort out the problems:

Josh Hawley pretends to be against big government. He pretends to be against the "nanny state." But since the second he got into power, nearly everything he's proposed has been about increasing government control over industry. But just one industry. The internet/tech industry that he has personally decided doesn't work the way he thinks it should. Beyond trying to get rid of Section 230, Hawley has proposed a bill that literally makes design choices for internet companies. Earlier this year, he introduced another bill that tries to design features for online video sites. He's made it clear that he doesn't like internet site because his constituents like them too much, which seems odd.And, just a week after the Wall Street Journal rightly mocked this approach, and explained that his constant refrain that there is no innovation coming out of Silicon Valley anymore is laughable... the very same Wall Street Journal has allowed Hawley to simply repeat his nonsensical claim that there is no innovation coming out of Silicon Valley (likely behind a paywall):