Techdirt

The BBC News site has one of those heart-warming stories that crop up periodically, about how clever new technology averted a potentially dangerous situation. In this case, it describes how a group of people lost in a forest in England were located by rescue services. The happy ending was thanks to the use of the What3words (W3W) app they managed to download following a suggestion from the police when they phoned for help. W3W's creators have divided the world up into 57 trillion virtual squares, each measuring 3m by 3m (10ft by 10ft), and then assigned each of those squares a unique "address" formed by three randomly-assigned words, such as "mile.crazy.shade". The idea is that it's easier to communicate three words generated by the What3words app from your position, than to read out your exact GPS longitude and latitude as a string of numbers. It's certainly a clever approach, but there are number of problems, many of which were discussed in a fascinating post by Terence Eden from earlier this year. The most serious one is that the system is not open:

Nearly a decade ago, we wrote a bunch about an excellent book called Copyfraud, by law professor Jason Mazzone, which went into great detail about how the legacy entertainment industry companies have used copyright in ways that are clearly against copyright's intent -- to the point that they border on fraud. The concept of copyfraud should be referred to more frequently, and here's a perfect example. Just a couple months ago, we wrote about the amazing social media account of Jimmy O'Brien, who goes by @Jomboy_ on Twitter. He's combined his love of baseball, his video editing skills, his ability to read lips incredibly well, and with a sarcastic, dry sense of humor to make a ton of amazing videos about various things happening in baseball. We highlighted a bunch last time around and his profile has only grown a lot since then, including among Major League Baseball players.About a month after that post, Jomboy may have had his biggest moment so far, in putting together a truly amazing video of NY Yankees manager Aaron Boone getting ejected -- following a bunch of players and Boone arguing with a young umpire over some bad calls. What took the video from normal great to amazing was that it revealed exactly what Boone was saying to the ump during their argument thanks to a bunch of "hot mics" from the broadcast. That allowed us to learn a lot more about this argument than anyone normally does in watching a manager scream at an ump:

Oh come on. Earlier this week we wrote about both Twitter and Facebook shutting down a bunch of Chinese accounts that both companies claimed were state-backed accounts pushing propaganda/misinformation/attacks against Hong Kong protesters. Separately, Twitter also changed its policies to no longer accept advertising from state-backed media operations. The Chinese government -- the very same government famous for aggressively censoring the entire internet -- apparently is not happy about it, arguing that it's a violation of free speech rights. Really.

In a small county in Oregon, free speech -- specifically the act of journalism -- is being threatened. The Malheur Enterprise, a weekly newspaper, has been investigating a state lawmaker's ties to business deals and contracts being executed in the county. Doing what journalists do, the paper's reporters have been trying to get answers or statements from people working with State Rep. Greg Smith, whose business dealings are currently under the small paper's microscope.No one seems to want to talk to the paper, but good journalists are persistent and willing to talk to anyone who might give them a new lead or verify findings. This is how journalism works. Rep. Greg Smith thinks journalism is a criminal act.

John Perry Barlow is all too frequently held up as the patron saint of a sort of "techno-utopian" internet, in which the internet will save us all and open up all sorts of wonderment and good feels -- and all the bad stuff is whisked away on a rainbow cloud of TCP/IP. Critics of Barlow sometimes delight in mocking his flowery language or predictions that didn't come quite true (though many did). They especially delight in pointing to the current internet hellscape as proof that Barlow's vision of the internet-for-good was a vision through impossibly rose-colored glasses. As I noted upon his passing, this is a near total misunderstanding of Barlow, who saw both the promise and the peril of the internet, and his writings were designed as a call to action for those developing the future (i.e., all of us), to embrace the good and avoid the bad. His presentments were an attempt to urge us all in the right direction, not a suggestion that that direction was inevitable, or easy, or guaranteed.That framing is useful context for reading through an amazing collection of essays and reflections on Barlow put together by Duke's Law & Technology review, in what it has entitled The Past and Future of The Internet: A Symposium for John Perry Barlow. Edited by Jamie Boyle, with some amazing contributions from folks like Cindy Cohn, Cory Doctorow, Yochai Benkler, Pam Samuelson, Jessica Litman, Jonathan Zittrain and more, it's absolutely worth reading, no matter where you stand on Barlow and his legacy. It is not -- as you might think -- a hagiography designed solely to praise Barlow. Indeed, it contains quite a few essays that are critical of Barlow -- arguing that he was over-optimistic, that he didn't recognize the downsides of the internet, and that he was misguided in his views of how the internet and (especially) copyright law might change over time.There is much in this collection of essays that are thought-provoking and challenging (just as Barlow himself often was). Boyle's own contribution, which I'd argue is incorrectly titled Is The Internet Over?! (Again?), might be seen as a summation of all the papers in the rest of the collection, but I actually think it's much more important than that. Towards the beginning of his piece, Boyle laments the fact that so many of his law students don't actually understand how the internet works. And, that's a much bigger problem than you might think:

The Python Power Coder BONUS Bundle has 8 courses to help you master Python. Python is an excellent first programming language because of its simple syntax, coding principles, and easy readability. You'll learn how to build a name generator, a website URL timed blocker, a face swapping app, a subnet calculator, and more. It's on sale $34.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 North Carolina Appeals Court has revised its earlier decision finding that retaliatory arrests over free speech are a thing that is right and good and supported by case law.A man flipped the bird at a state trooper while passing him as he performed a traffic stop. The trooper decided this needed further investigation and pursued the passing vehicle. After demanding the rude passenger's identification (and being rebuffed), the trooper arrested him on contempt of cop charges (obstructing a public officer).The man sued. The appeals court reached the weird-as-fuck conclusion that the officer had probable cause to initiate a traffic stop because one man's extended middle finger could have conceivably resulted in an eventual disturbance of the peace.The court had to do a lot of work on behalf of the state trooper to reach this conclusion as there were several logical and legal hurdles to jump. It released this opinion to universal derision. Seemingly chastened by the backlash (and a seething dissent), the appeals court hastily withdrew the decision.Well, it's back now. And nothing has changed [PDF], outside of some additional text that pounds the table slightly harder during the court's re-assertion of its twisted take on free speech protections. (h/t T. Greg Doucette)The court revamps the opening to quote from one of its own decisions -- one that decided to rewrite a state statute on the fly by determining that it may violate state law to refuse to identify yourself during a valid stop. This 2017 ruling expanded the law to cover stops instead of just arrests. It works out well for law enforcement, which now has the leverage to force anyone to ID themselves. Refusing to ID yourself is now an arrestable offense. And once you're under arrest, you're definitely obligated to cough up identification.That's what the court hangs its new ruling on: that the arrest was due to the failure to identify, not in response to the extended middle finger. But it still has to find the stop valid. And so it does… because that's what it did last time. The court expands its rationalizing on behalf of the sued officer to ensure a future free of consequences for cops who engage in retaliatory stops/arrests.

Facebook has continued to do the most Facebooky of Facebook things. Faced with almost entirely baseless claims of "anti-conservative bias" in how it moderates content, Facebook claimed to be doing something useful: bringing in a big outside law firm with big name partners (lead by former Republican Senator Jon Kyl) to analyze those claims. In response, they published... a whole lot of nothing. Kyl released an 8 page report that nearly anyone could have written (at much lower hourly rates, I'm sure). In it, it details areas that 133 different conservative users expressed concerns about how Facebook's platform operates.But the report does literally nothing to say (or better yet, show) whether or not those concerns are valid. It just lists them out. Yes, the "conservatives" interviewed were "concerned" that hate speech designations might disproportionately impact them. Duh. But did it? The report doesn't say. Even more importantly, did such designations lead to disparate treatment for analogous behavior? Again, the report fails to say. it just lists out what "concerns" were raised. Which is about as totally fucking useless as you can imagine. In short, it's Facebook's standard operating procedure.And, of course, this was announced in a meaningless way by former UK politician Nick Clegg, who is now Facebook's VP of Global Affairs and Communications. Seriously, read this blog post and tell me what useful information you can glean from it. It's nothing. It's nine paragraphs of "if we're doing something biased, we'll try to fix it, but we're still studying if we are." This is the weakest sauce from a company that only seems to know how to make weak sauce.Not surprisingly, no one's happy about it. Conservatives hate it because it doesn't say that Facebook is biased against them. Liberals are annoyed because it doesn't say that the claims of bias are nonsense. That's why the whole thing is not just useless, but literally counterproductive. By simply stating the concerns, but making no effort to say whether or not they're accurate, this is like the worst kind of "view from nowhere" reporting. He says this. She says that. Which one is right? Who can tell?Facebook is bending so far over backwards not to upset either side of the traditional political aisle that it's pissing off everyone. Just suck it up, do a real study, and show what the results actually say. Chances are they'll show absolutely no evidence of legitimate "anti-conservative bias," because to date, no credible studies have found any such evidence. But if the study did find something that would be useful to know. Instead, it releases this garbage.

We've long explored how the nation's phone companies don't really even want to be in the broadband business. They routinely refuse to upgrade their networks despite millions in subsidies, yet often lobby to ensure nobody else can deliver broadband in these neglected footprints either. US telcos have a bizarre disdain for their paying customers, delivering the bare minimum (slow DSL) at the highest rates they can possibly charge without a full-scale consumer revolt. It's not surprising then that many telco DSL customers are fleeing to cable, assuming they even have a second broadband option.This dynamic often results in some absurd dysfunction. Like in West Virginia, where incumbent telco Frontier has repeatedly been busted in a series of scandals involving substandard service and the misuse of taxpayer money. The graft and corruption in the state is so severe, state leaders have buried reports, and, until recently, a Frontier executive did double duty as a state representative without anybody in the state thinking that was a conflict of interest.Things haven't been much better for the telco in states like Minnesota, where it's under investigation for failing to upgrade -- or even repair -- its shoddy networks. The same thing is also going on in New York, which just opened a renewed investigation after being inundated in complaints about terrible service:

We've been discussing the new PC gaming platform wars that kicked off with Epic releasing their own Epic Store to rival Valve's Steam and attempting to power it with game exclusives built on a more generous split with publishers. There has obviously been a lot to talk about in this new rivalry, from Steam's response, to Epic's flubbing of its store's main purpose, to the effect Epic's exclusivity deals are hampering the use of crowdfunding to get more games made. But one of the most interesting aspects of this whole ordeal is how clearly Epic's leadership has attempted to frame this all as a PR war above all else. Essentially, Epic is combating the public's natural distaste for exclusivity deals by pointing the finger back at Steam, stating that none of this would be an issue and the exclusive deals could go away tomorrow if Steam mirrored Epic's revenue splits. The argument is that what Epic is really after is a better gaming industry that makes more and better games, something that should benefit the very fans now complaining about the company's tactics.So, how's that PR battle plan working? Not terribly well, judging by some of the peripherals. For instance, when part of the announcement for a game publisher releasing exclusively on Epic includes the company begging gamers not to hurl vitriol at it in response, that's an indication the gaming public hasn't been swayed.

Inside Attorney General William Barr's long rant about the lack of respect for police officers in this nation was a shot or two at recently-elected District Attorneys (like Philadelphia's Larry Krasner). Barr feels -- like many of the police union reps he was speaking to -- DAs that institute reforms, reduce incarceration, and punish police officers for misconduct are on the wrong side of history.

For the better part of two years, I've been noodling on a post (I've half written it a bunch of times) talking about how perhaps the biggest problem with so much of what we see today can be tied up in two related concepts: "fiduciary duty to shareholders" and the idea of "maximizing shareholder value." I talked a little about this a few weeks back in highlighting how almost all of the problems that people talk about when they complain about big tech can really be traced back to Wall Street and this idea of maximizing shareholder value.Conceptually, maximizing shareholder value makes some sense, but only if you don't think about it for more than a few minutes. Because the whole thing falls apart as soon as you ask "over what time frame?" I first wrote about this back in 2006, in what I called the "time function of profits," in trying to understand why so many people were claiming that Craigslist's approach to grow slowly (but massively) by leaving most of their site free and not doing all sorts of icky stuff, was seen by some as "leaving money on the table" or even being anti-capitalist. As I pointed out then, that only made sense if you thought in the very short-term. Taking a longer term view suggests that "maximizing" profits in the short run is likely to create significant problems in the long run, whether it be competition or customers annoyed at you and the like. In a follow up post I did in 2008, I pointed out that maximizing profits shouldn't mean screwing your customers. The real issue is the time frame. If you want to maximize profits for just this quarter, then, yes, screwing over your customers is a viable strategy.However, if it's more long term, then the incentives should change quite a bit. It's just like the Prisoner's Dilemma. If you are playing that game once, the incentives are heavily weighted towards cheating. However, if you're playing it many, many times, the incentive structure changes, and it should move to a more cooperative model. For some reason, however, this hasn't happened that much in real life. Many businesses (and many folks on Wall Street) assume that having a "fiduciary duty" to "maximize shareholder value" or "shareholder profits" means squeezing out every penny of profits right away, with no concern for the future.Perhaps stating this backwards thought process most clearly was former big record label exec Dick Morris who once famously told Wired magazine that if someone is asking you to give up some money now to make more later, it means that "someone, somewhere, is taking advantage of you." And, of course, one of the foremost proponents of this theory was Milton Friedman, who argued that the only responsibility of a company is to its shareholders, and that companies need to maximize the return to those shareholders. Friedman trashed the idea of social responsibility for corporations, but he, himself, didn't seem to recognize how the long term played against the short term here. Ignoring any sense of social responsibility, in favor of short term maximization, would lead not just to long term social harms, but also to limits on the long term value for shareholders.In recent years, we've started to see some pushback on these ideas. A few months ago, there was the announcement of a new Long Term Stock Exchange, designed to respond to these challenges, by giving companies more time to accomplish stuff than the usual quarterly heartbeat. But perhaps much bigger news is that the Business Roundtable, a gathering of top CEOs, has now put out a letter saying that shareholder value cannot and should not be the only focus of a corporation.I'd argue that the letter is not that well-written, and given the signatories, I'm sure it went through millions of dollars worth of lawyering before anyone agreed to sign onto it. However, it does set up a much more thorough framework for thinking about all of the stakeholders that a company should consider in doing business: customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders. It's signed by a bunch of big company CEOs (the letter itself is one page, then there are 11 more with signatures).Of course, it pays to be cynical about such things. It's one thing to say all of this, another thing altogether to actually walk the walk. And, certainly, some of the signatures come from CEOs who run companies who don't exactly have a strong history of paying attention to most of the stakeholders listed above. Indeed, if you want to find some of the worst behaving companies -- especially towards customers, employees, and communities -- this is a ready-made list (I mean, AT&T's and Comcast's CEOs, Randall Stephenson and Brian Roberts, both signed on to this). So, no one should take this as a real commitment to change.That's only going to come if the companies are seen to be putting this into action, and that's where the public (and the media) need to come into play. When companies -- especially those who signed onto this document -- are seen behaving badly, it should be called out, and this letter should be referenced. Yes, it's quite probable that many signed onto this thinking that it's a good PR effort to pretend to be good corporate citizens for a day or two. But if we want to enact real change, and have companies get past the short term view of screwing over everyone to "maximize shareholder value," it's only going to happen if these execs are held to the very standards they claim to support.

Snitches no longer get stitches. In the year of our lord two-thousand-nineteen, snitches get street surveillance gear from Amazon.Amazon's Ring doorbell -- which sports a handy camera to catch all those package thieves -- has swallowed up more than 200 police departments with its charm offensive. Cops get doorbell cams at a discount and hand them out for free to locals with the assumption residents will repay the favor by granting officers warrant-free access to footage any time they ask.To decrease friction, Ring -- which has final edit approval on police publicity efforts -- nudges people towards its snitch app, Neighbors, which encourages users to post any suspicious footage they capture. Ring also nudges law enforcement towards more social media interaction with Ring users to blur the line between sharing with neighbors and sharing with government employees.The push continues. Amazon sees a market worth cornering and cops see a handy way to turn multiple doorsteps into extensions of their existing surveillance network. Win-win for all involved, I guess, except those who want to secure their homes without feeling obligated to hand over footage whenever the government thinks it might be helpful.The advantages for law enforcement are obvious. And that has led to more… um… proactive efforts by law enforcement to spread the good word about these doorbell cameras. Louise Matsakis reports for Wired that a California law enforcement agency recently offered Ring doorbells to citizens in exchange for some help with their cop work.

Just days after publishing yet more anti-internet nonsense, the Wall Street Journal, at least, allowed Andy Kessler to publish an excellent opinion piece calling our Senator Josh Hawley's ridiculous "big government" approach to regulating internet companies.

The How to Hack from Beginner to Ethical Hacking Bundle has 8 courses designed to teach you the skills you need to become an ethical hacker. you’ll learn how to diagnose different kinds of cybersecurity attacks and how to defeat them. You'll practice all the skills and techniques in real-time using an ethical hacking lab so you can put your learning to the test. 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.

An elaborate scheme involving a fake college set up in New Jersey by ICE has, unsurprisingly, resulted in a lawsuit by some of the foreign students swept up in the sting operation. Apparently having given up on rooting out the worst of the worst non-citizens, ICE is contenting itself with arresting and charging foreigners for attempting to stay in the country legally by continuing their education.The fake university looked pretty real to applicants. It had a website, a Facebook page, and -- most importantly -- accreditation by a national accreditation service. The school's website told students the fake school was certified by the DHS's Student and Exchange Visitor Program to "educate international students."It all looked legit. None of it was. ICE claims it was targeting people who defrauded students or universities by brokering illegitimate educational offerings meant to allow visitors to overstay their visas. That doesn't explain why ICE accepted registration fees from interested students. Nor why it arrested a bunch of students trying to do something they were legally allowed to do.ICE ended up with about eight criminal suspects from the hundred-plus arrests resulting from the sting operation. Some of the others caught up in the sting had their visas cancelled, supposedly due to "fraudulent enrollment." So, in the government's eyes, the people ICE tricked into enrolling in its very real-looking fake college are every bit as criminal as the criminals the government is actually prosecuting.The lawsuit deals with these suddenly-cancelled visas. The issue is the government's arbitrary decision to turn people they first referred to as "victims" into accused criminals solely for the purpose of stripping them of their visas. This determination comes without any form of due process attached, so it's up to federal courts to field these challenges, as the Appeals Court points out.The Appeals Court delves into administrative minutia to counter the government's arguments and point out where the lower court went wrong. But it also spends some time dealing with the government's contradictory assertions. After sending letters calling the duped students "frauds," the government argued in court it didn't actually mean what it said in the letters informing the students they were no longer welcome in this country. From the decision [PDF]:

Earlier this year, we wrote about a legal fight in New Hampshire, where patent trolling firm ATL, had sued a bunch of critics for defamation for calling them a patent troll. As we noted in February, this was an incredibly weak argument, as it's a statement of opinion. Thankfully, the New Hampshire Supreme Court got this one right and ruled that calling someone a patent troll is not defamatory.The ruling is a pretty straightforward, by-the-books ruling on a bogus defamation claim on an opinion statement. It cites all the usual cases -- mainly Phantom Touring -- to point out that "patent troll" is just an opinion that can't be defamatory, because there's no objective standard by which you would prove it true or false. People can (and do!) disagree over what constitutes a patent troll, and the court system is not there to settle that debate.

While the Trump administration's war on Huawei may be largely fueled by evidence optional protectionism, that certainly doesn't mean Huawei is an ethical company. Like any good telecom and networking giant, it can routinely be found helping governments engage in behavior that's less than, say, moral. For example a damning report emerged this week in the Wall Street Journal (paywall, here's a non-paywalled video report and a fairly decent alternative take) showcasing how Huawei technicians have helped African leaders intercept encrypted transmissions of their political opponents:

With the chief hurdle for infringement in trademark law being potential public confusion as to the source of a good or service, we sometimes toss that standard around as a blanket sort of thing. And, in trademark law, it kind of is just that binary. But the combination of the protectionist view of trademark law taking hold in America and the unfortunate habit of many people attempting to trademark their own names in one fashion or another, I wonder if the law might need to be updated in some ways. For example, we've seen several instances of intra-family trademark spats that arise from a person or business looking to trademark or simply use their own names. Any system of trademark enforcement that results in broadly disallowing someone to use their own name in the marketplace feels like a clear step too far, if only from a common sense perspective.Yet it keeps happening. The latest iteration of this involves a lawyer, George Sink Sr., suing his own son, George Sink Jr., for using his own name for his law firm and marketing material. The court overseeing the matter just this week issued a restraining order barring George Jr. from using his own name to advertise his firm.

As you'll recall, last year, the White House tried to remove CNN reporter Jim Acosta's press pass over a silly made up controversy claiming that he had "assaulted" an intern in trying to hold onto the microphone while the intern had tried to pull it away. CNN sued and a court sided with them in blocking the White House's action. Soon after, the White House released new rules, that we mentioned left them open to future 1st Amendment challenges.Well, here we are. On Friday, the White House removed Playboy reporter Brian Karem's press pass, claiming it was about some sort of weird yelling match Karem had with ex-Trump official Sebastian Gorka at Trump's silly social media troll summit back in July. Karem immediately said he'd sue over the removal and his attorney Ted Boutrous has sent a series of letters to White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham over the last few weeks. The opening of the first one lays everything out pretty nicely.

Last week, we featured part one of our discussion with lawyer Joshua de Larios-Heiman, about the details of the FCC's Facebook settlement, beyond the headline-grabbing fine. It was a long conversation that we cut off right in the middle, so be sure to listen to part one first and then come back for part two, in which we finish picking apart the settlement item by item.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.

As announced by the Copyright Office's General Counsel, the DOJ and the Copyright Office have now filed an amicus brief in the 9th Circuit in support of Led Zeppelin in its never ending legal dispute with the estate of Randy Wolfe (aka Randy California) over whether or not Led Zeppelin infringed on the copyright of the Spirit song "Taurus" with their classic "Stairway to Heaven." We've discussed this case at length over the years. If you were to just listen to the recordings of Taurus and Stairway to Heaven, you can definitely hear some similarities. Yet, as we noted, you can hear the same similarities in J.S. Bach's Bourree in E Minor, which I believe predates both of those other songs. This video also shows a bunch of other songs (most predating Taurus) that have the same basic melody.There were a lot of issues in the case, including the unfortunate fact that the original court did make some mistakes, even if the overall outcome -- that Led Zeppelin didn't infringe on the Taurus composition -- seemed like the appropriate outcome. The 9th Circuit in reopening the case, has a chance to fix the problems of the original. But it also has the chance to muck things up.The case is so strange that even the RIAA and the NMPA stepped in to warn against overprotection by copyright. Let me repeat that. The RIAA argued to a court that you could go too far in protecting copyright. Really.And here, the Copyright Office and the DOJ are on the right side again. The government's brief is focused on the more narrow issue of what the copyright at issue here actually covers. As we've discussed, for musical works prior to 1973, you could only get a copyright in the "composition" and not the recording. One of the arguments in this case is that Randy Wolfe's estate argued that the copyright of Taurus, registered in 1968, somehow did encompass the recording (and that said recording should be played at the trial), as opposed to just showing the sheet music of the composition that had been deposited with the Copyright Office. As we discussed in earlier posts, this is crazy, as the composition copyright and the recording copyright are two separate things, and there was no sound recording copyright in 1968... so you don't just get to pretend that the composition copyright magically covers the sound recording.Even more to the point: playing the recording can be completely misleading, because it would include non-copyright covered material, but a jury would be unlikely to be able to parse out which parts are covered by copyright and which were not.And -- perhaps surprisingly -- the Copyright Office and the DOJ agree. In fact, they note that the various performance elements are not covered by copyright, and when you remove them, what's left is fairly basic and not covered by copyright either:

The "law and order" administration is flexing its muscles. New Attorney General William Barr has been particularly vocal since his appointment, going after device encryption and the supposedly-dangerous "disrespect" for police.Barr's public statements -- the latter of which was delivered to a very receptive audience composed of police union reps -- have made it clear his DOJ is going to carry out Trump's back-the-blue mandates. Law enforcement officers will receive the federal government's seal of endless approval, as well as its benefit of a doubt when things go badly.Things go badly quite often. Cops are still killing more than 1,000 people (and nearly 10,000 dogs) every year, even as crime rates remain at historic lows. Barr's message to America was: comply, shut up, stop complaining. If you do somehow still feel your rights have been violated, you're welcome to lawyer up and attempt to sue your way past layers of immunity and multiple, ultra-flexible warrant exceptions.But while this administration talks a good game about respect for law and order, it certainly doesn't show the respect it believes is owed to the nation's law enforcement officers. Marcy Wheeler points out this hypocrisy to devastating effect in her post dissecting (and recasting) Barr's pro-police, anti-everyone else rant.Barr wants the public to comply immediately and without question when interacting with government employees empowered to enforce the law. But that's something he's not interested in doing himself. Replace "police" with entities empowered to police the Executive branch -- as Wheeler does here -- and Barr starts looking like the Great Unwashed he's complaining about. (Wheeler's alterations to Barr's original speech are in bold.)

The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle has six courses designed to help you master Excel. You'll learn about Macros, VBA, Pivot Tables, advanced formulas, and more. You'll also learn about Excel's powerful data modeling and business tools Power Query, Power Pivot, and Data Analysis Expressions (DAX), and the when, why, and how to use each Excel Chart or Graph type. It's on sale for $34.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

We've talked in the past about how Section (f) of the DMCA Section 512 is more or less a dead letter. 512(f) is the part that is supposed to stop bogus DMCA takedowns, by saying that you can be liable for "misrepresentations" in takedowns. In practice, though, courts never seem to award anything for bogus takedowns, meaning that it's a "free" way to censor anyone you'd like. Or worse. Earlier this year, we covered how some had taken the DMCA abuse process so far that they were using bogus YouTube DMCA takedowns as part of an extortion scheme. Literally, people would contact popular YouTubers (often those who made videos about Minecraft) and threaten to DMCA their videos if they didn't receive payment.It appears that YouTube was actually paying attention, and it has now filed a 512(f) claim against at least one of the people doing this, a guy in Omaha, Nebraska named Christopher Brady -- who probably is not having the best week. You can read the complaint here. It's pretty straightforward:

Earlier this year, Techdirt wrote about an intriguing tweet from the account of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland, which announced: "Tomorrow #Poland brings action against copyright directive to CJEU". The hashtags for the tweet made clear what Poland was worried about: "#Article13 #Article17". However, at that time, no details were forthcoming about this potentially important legal move. It was disappointing that nothing more has been heard about this unexpected development since then -- until now. A notice on the Official Journal of the European Union includes the following: "Case C-401/19: Action brought on 24 May 2019 -- Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union". The corresponding entry indicates that the Polish government believes that the upload filters required by Article 13/17 represent an "infringement of the right to freedom of expression and information" guaranteed by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:

G/O Media is the latest incarnation of Gizmodo Media, after it was sold by Univision to private equity firm Great Hill Partners earlier this year. Univision, of course, acquired "Gizmodo Media" out of the remnants of Gawker Media, after that company was forced into bankruptcy by a bogus lawsuit and a bad court ruling. There had been plenty of indications that the reporters and editors at G/O Media were chaffing under their new bosses (despite Great Hill putting media exec Jim Spanfeller in charge) as they very quickly laid off some of their best reporters, including Kashmir Hill.Last month there were reports that the staff were "enraged at the new CEO's 'insane' direction" and the details of all that flooded out -- in classic Gawker fashion -- on one of their own sites, Deadspin, which posted a truly incredible piece of journalism entitled This Is How Things Work Now At G/O Media. It's a really damning report. And it's long. It talked a lot about how the new bosses brought in a bunch of old friends (all white men) often replacing (or simply ignoring) women who were already in those jobs. It's full of choice quotes like the following:

We've talked ongoing about how ridiculous and aggressive many universities are becoming on trademark matters. Now colleges and universities do many, many annoying things, but their tendency towards trademark bullying certainly ranks up there near the top of the list. Not as high, of course, as Ohio State's neverending insistence that everyone call it "THE Ohio State University." The school likes to point out that the "the" (sigh) is actually part of the school's legal name, when the reality is that the school is simply being haughty and pedantic.Well, now these two worlds are colliding in what might just be the dumbest trademark application I've ever seen. You'll never guess what single word OSU wants to trademark.

Leaving aside the ridiculous and ignorant suggestions from some that no internet platforms should moderate anything, many, many people seem to believe (incorrectly) that the various internet companies refuse to moderate anything because it goes against their bottom lines. We've heard this from a number of politicians -- especially among those seeking to change Section 230, arguing (again, incorrectly) that because of Section 230 there's somehow no incentive to moderate content on their platforms.This is wrong on multiple levels. There is tremendous business, political, moral, and social pressure to moderate content on these platforms. When they get it wrong, they get criticized. They can lose users. And (importantly) they can lose advertisers, partners, customers and investors. There is demand for "healthy" platforms, and it's Section 230 that allows them to experiment and moderate accordingly. That's why it's notable to me that both Twitter and Facebook announced the removal of what appears to be a coordinated attempt to abuse both platforms to push disinformation against protesters in Hong Kong. Here's Facebook's announcement:

Originally, the Moviepass business model seemed like a semi-sensible idea, though we were quick to wonder if it would ever actually make a profit. Under the model, users paid $30 (eventually $10) a month in exchange for unlimited movie tickets at participating theaters, provided they signed up for a full year of service. There were of course caveats: you could only buy a ticket per day, and could only buy one ticket per movie. It also prohibited users from viewing 3D, IMAX, or XD films. Still, the proposal was widely heralded by some as a savior for the traditional, brick and mortar, sticky floor movie industry.While it looked like the effort was going well, that appears to have been a ruse. A four month investigation by Business Insider (warning possible paywall) is well worth a read, documenting how the effort was bleeding money due to many of the issues Mike asked questions about back in 2012. The outfit went to great lengths to mislead investors that the effort was going well when it was really losing millions of dollars after blowing a fortune on trying to build technology that could easily and quickly geo-match users with theaters in their neighborhoods.A 2017 price drop to $10 per month resulted in all kinds of breezy press coverage, but all but ensured the project would never make money. In reality, the outfit was struggling so much it couldn't even keep pace with the demand for membership cards:

Late last week, the North Carolina State Court of Appeals released an astounding decision. Ignoring a number of precedential rulings finding otherwise, the court decided it was okay for state law enforcement officers to engage in retaliatory arrests, so long as they could find something to charge a citizen with.In this case, a car carrying a passenger who flipped the bird to a trooper engaged in a traffic stop was pulled over for… um… "disturbing the peace." Apparently, all hell was on the verge of breaking loose due to the enthusiastic bird-flipping in the direction of the officer. By the time the stop was over, the passenger was arrested for obstructing an officer. This was because the passenger refused to ID himself, which isn't actually a crime in North Carolina.The court looked at this retaliatory traffic stop and eventual arrest and said, yeah, I guess it's "reasonable" to assume a drive-by birding is a criminal act in the making, even if the supposed initiating factor (the finger) was protected expression.The dissenting opinion was the only reasonable thing about the decision. It pointed out one person's obscene gesture was highly unlikely to result in disturbed peace and that the traffic stop was nothing more than a fishing expedition to find something to charge the bird-flipping passenger with.The dissent may soon become the official opinion of the court. Owen Barcala points out on Twitter that the Appeals Court has withdrawn the opinion. Here's what's up at the court's website instead of its ridiculously harmful take on the First Amendment.

Earlier this year it was revealed that Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke was a member of the Cult of the Dead Cow when he was a kid. To lots of folks in the tech world, this was a big deal. cDc was the original "hacking group." And while it doesn't sound like o'Rourke actually did that much hacking while in cDc, at the very least, it suggested that he was tech savvy and might actually understand the internet. Apparently not. On Friday, Beto revealed his plan to deal with gun violence -- and apparently, that plan is to take away Section 230 protections from large internet companies.If you're thinking, "wait, what does Section 230 have to do with gun violence?" well, you're correct. But apparently Beto hasn't figured that out yet. The plan, in true Beto fashion, is quite short on details. Here's what it says:

The Google Analytics certification is more than just a bullet point on your resume. This credential tells employers you're a data-driven guru capable of mining solid, helpful insights from any page with the web's premier analytics tool. Designed for complete beginners, this course will prepare you to ace the free exam. The Google Analytics Training course is on sale for $14.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

So, we had just pointed out that the "fired ex-Googler whistleblower" whom everyone was pointing to last week as "proof" of "anti-conservative bias" at Google, didn't look so good when you got to see the details (which included statements that certainly read to be pretty supportive of white nationalists, rather than support for, say, the free market and lower taxes). You'd think that peddlers continuing to push this theory with the next person would take more time in the vetting process. But... of course, if it's Project Veritas we're talking about, it appears the only vetting they like to do is "can we spin this the way we want so that idiot suckers will buy it?" And that's what's happened.The usual folks in our own comments who insist there's anti-conservative bias at Google have been yelling at me for the past few days, claiming that I'm "ignoring" this proof because I just can't take it or something. Or... more accurately, because it's total garbage. First, let's talk about the "whistleblower." If you thought the last guy was bad, well, get a load of Zach Vorhies:

The NSA decided to abandon its phone data collection earlier this year, stating that it was having all sorts of technical issues collecting only the stuff it was asking for. In the good old days prior to the enactment of the USA Freedom Act, the NSA simply asked for everything. "Reasonable articulable suspicion" now guides the record collection -- something that appears to be too tricky for the NSA to wrap its collective collection powers around.It's not all the NSA's fault. The telcos now hold the records and only hand over what's asked for when the NSA approaches them. Easier said than done, apparently, as over-collection continues and the NSA seems unable to prevent collecting records it's not actually trying to correct.But it's also the NSA's fault because it's had plenty of time to get used to the new rules and develop better practices/software to sort through collected data. Of course, the NSA has also hinted the program is of limited usefulness and has seemed willing to give it up for years now, especially if the token sacrifice saves other, far more intrusive programs from the Congressional chopping block.Is it really shut down, though? That's been a tough question to answer. The NSA did recommend the program be shut down and claims it's just gathering dust at the moment, but there's been nothing definitive delivered to its oversight. Until now. Charlie Savage reports for the New York Times that there's finally official confirmation of the program's (possibly temporary) demise. Exiting Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats' unclassified letter makes it clear the NSA has shut down the program indefinitely.

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is HegemonicDistortion with a response to the FBI's latest encryption fearmongering:

Five Years AgoThe fight for government transparency continued this week in 2014, with a judge giving the DOJ until the end of the month to submit a declassified FISA court opinion explaining the justifications for Section 215, the exposure of regular fraud and abuse by patent examiners that the USPTO tried to hide from the Inspector General, and new revelations from Ed Snowden including the fact that Syria's 2012 internet outage was the result of an NSA hack gone wrong, and that the agency abused its internet metadata program just like every other program. But the biggest battle was for the CIA torture report, which the intelligence community began warning would "inflame anti-US passions" in the Middle East if it was released.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2009, there was an earlier story of USPTO misbehavior in the form of bilking people out of money. The Encyclopedia Britannica yet again lost in an attempt to abuse a patent that it claimed covered basic GPS functionality, one judge blocked sales of Microsoft Word over patent infringement (in a ruling that had no hope of sticking) while another banned Real from selling RealDVD (sadly not so simple), and yet another overturned the ruling that allowed DVD jukeboxes. While the DOJ was defending the $80,000/song award in the Jammie Thomas lawsuit, a poet who tried to sue Oprah Winfrey for the even-more-insane sum of a trillion dollars saw his lawsuit thrown out — while another author was trying a similar approach to cash in on the success of Twilight.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2004, the number one culprit on the EFF's list of bogus patents was being wielded against universities and just about everyone else who streamed any kind of content online, while Microsoft was keeping the wheel turning with a newly granted patent on storing then automatically uploading data, and we talked about how innovation and IP hoarding don't mix. Meanwhile, Google was ramping up for its IPO (after giving some stock to Yahoo to settle outstanding legal disputes) and worrying its emails might be filtered as spam, while smaller investors tried to figure out if they could get in on the action and other companies quietly delayed their own IPOs to avoid getting lost in the Google hype.

There's this weird thing in the video game industry in terms of how the industry reacts to fans doing things with their games. On one side, you have publishers that strictly control what fans can do with their games, even going the legal threat route at times. Other publishers are more permissive with game IP and are then shocked at what fans manage to do with their games. Still other publishers proactively create tools within their games to allow fans to create wildly cool productions within the games and then celebrate those fans. And, of course, there are fans manipulating properties such as original soundtracks to create new music as an homage to the original score.There is a wide spectrum of what fans want to do to express their fandom with video games, in other words, and also a spectrum of ways publishers respond to these dedicated fans. The original Doom, for instance, was created nearly three decades ago, but an active modding community has kept the game relevant by building on that original work. In the case of System Shock 2, however, it turns out the game originally released in 1999 is essentially only playable on modern machines due to the dedication of one single mystery fan.

How many chances does the government get to try to convict a couple of people for selling a drug analogue the DEA's own chemist said wasn't "substantially similar" to any controlled substance? Apparently the government will get at least one more swing at the plate, having batted .500 during its first two tries.In 2012, the DEA raided Zencense, a business owned by Charles Ritchie and Benjamin Galecki. They were charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substance analogues. The "spice" made by Zencense used XLR-11 and UR-144 as active ingredients. The government claimed these were analogues of JWH-018, which is a controlled substance.The defendants argued that their spice was not an analogue of a controlled substance. If true, this sunk the government's case, because the conspiracy charges relied on the "knowing" distribution of illegal drug analogues.The government claimed XLR-11 and UR-144 were pretty much the same thing and pretty much identical to JWH-018. This testimony was undercut by one of the DEA's own chemists, who had stated in other prosecutions that UR-144 was not an analogue of JWH-018. Not only that, but the chemist's professional opinion on this subject was freely available online, as part of a handout on litigating synthetic drug cases.The defendants hoped to have the chemist testify on the differences between these substances, which would likely have resulted in them being found innocent of the conspiracy charges. The trial court denied this request, resulting in the defendants' first appeal.On appeal, the Fourth Circuit sided with the defendants, finding the government could not claim the chemist's testimony was "privileged" -- not when it had relied on it in other prosecutions. It sent the case back down to the district court to reconsider the admissibility of this exculpatory evidence.The case is now back in the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court, thanks to the lower court deciding once again that this testimony isn't relevant and would have had no effect on the outcome of the case. That the outcome was one mistrial and one hung jury (one that was un-hung with an Allen charge) seems to have escaped the attention of the court.The Appeals Court [PDF] wants to make sure this doesn't happen again. The lower court looked at the testimony that directly contradicted the assertions made by the government and shrugged.

Remember a year ago when lots of people were blaming WhatsApp for violence in India, and demanding that there needed to be new laws passed to deal with WhatsApp? Well, if the actual problem is societal, it's not much going to matter how you target a particular platform. Wired now has an article talking about another, super popular platform, TikTok, and arguing that it is "fuelling India's deadly hate speech epidemic." This, of course, is the same language that was used to discuss WhatsApp over the past few years.TikTok, as you may know, is the rapidly growing newish social media platform that is owned by the Chinese firm ByteDance. Of course, its rapid rise in popularity should already challenge the narrative that the big social media platforms -- Facebook (along with Instagram and WhatsApp), YouTube, and Twitter -- are so dominant that it's impossible for new entrants to make a play. But, even more importantly, it shows that if the problem everyone is debating is a societal one, blaming the service providers in the middle for not magically stopping societal problems is not helpful. These problems will just keep appearing on each successive platform.

The first documented case of the NYPD using reverse warrants to find criminal suspects has been revealed. It made its appearance in perhaps the most 2019 of cases: the trial of two members of the Proud Boys facing assault charges for allegedly attacking members of Antifa.Reverse warrants work this way: law enforcement agencies approach tech companies with geographic coordinates, asking for phone data for all phones within the geofenced area during a certain time frame. Using this data, law enforcement works its way backwards to probable cause, sifting through records to find what phones were in the area when the alleged crime was committed.Obviously, this is a highly-imperfect way to track down suspects. For one, GPS data collected by companies like Google isn't exactly precise. For another, "fenced-in" areas will always contain numerous people who aren't criminals or even suspects, but the data turns them all into suspects until investigators sort them out. The more heavily-trafficked an area is, the more likely the chance officers will pursue the wrong phones/people.This case was made a bit trickier by the victims' unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation. As George Joseph reports for Gothamist, the lack of victims to question nudged the NYPD towards deploying the legally-dubious tactic.

Get the $19 Linux Power User Bundle and start on your way to becoming a Linux expert. The bundle features over 22 hours of courses covering core concepts, commands and jargon essential to learning how to make Linux work for you. It also covers Linux alternatives to Windows apps and LAMP stack solutions to ensure your sites and apps run smoothly.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

We've spent the last year and a half or so pointing out that, while it may have been well-intentioned, there are all sorts of consequences -- whether intended or not -- to the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), including giving more power to the giant internet companies (when many argued the GDPR was necessary to curb their power), censorship of media, and a way for the rich and famous to harass people. But, of course, some might argue that those are worthy trade-offs if it did a better job protecting people's privacy.About that... Last year, we pointed out that one consequence of the GDPR was that, in making it easy to "download" your data, it could open up serious privacy consequences for anyone who has their accounts hacked. In that story, we talked about someone having their Spotify account hacked, and having all the data downloaded -- a situation that might not be that impactful. However, last week, at Black Hat, James Pavur, a PhD student at Oxford, explained how he exploited the GDPR to access a ton of private info about his fiancee.

So a few years ago we wrote about Alex Nguyen, one of the only folks to file a formal net neutrality complaint (pdf) with the FCC. Before the rules were killed, users could file a free complaint, of which there were thousands. But if you wanted to actually have your complaint looked at by the FCC, you needed to pay $225, submit an ocean of paperwork, and kick off a long-train of procedural and legal fisticuffs most consumers simply didn't have time for. But Nguyen took the time, and filed a lengthy complaint outlining how Verizon Wireless had a long history of anti-competitive, restrictive behavior that harmed innovation and competition.With 300 citations across a 112-page document, Nguyen documented Verizon's ugly history, including banning mobile payment services that competed with Verizon's own payment offerings, blocking tablets from working on its network to promote its own tablets, and even banning devices from using GPS to -- you guessed it -- force subscribers to use the company's own subscription GPS services. Most of these efforts violated not just net neutrality, but the "Carterfone" conditions affixed to Verizon's spectrum to ensure the company would treat all devices and services fairly.Verizon's long history on this front is fairly indisputable, and the company has never been held seriously accountable for any of it. And while Nguyen hoped he'd be the one to help hold Verizon to account, the regulatory capture in the telecom sector had other ideas.Nguyen formally submitted his detailed complaint back while the net neutrality rules were still active (July of 2016), so the Pai FCC was mandated to take a look at the complaints. But instead of actually taking the only formal net neutrality complaint made seriously, the Pai FCC (surprise!) forgot completely about it for years. Last week the agency remembered it needed to at least respond, and (surprise!) broadly declared that the complaint lacked any compelling evidence whatsoever:

Back in October last year, Techdirt wrote about some unfortunate developments taking place in the African digital world. Governments across the continent are bringing in levies and taxes on Internet use, making it more expensive and thus harder for ordinary people to access the Internet at a time when the digital ecosystem in Africa is starting to take off in a big way. In February of this year, we reported on some evidence that the social media tax in Uganda was indeed causing fewer people there to use the Internet, and for the total value of mobile transactions to drop. Quartz Africa has a post about a new report from Brookings on the steep rise in taxes on mobiles and data in Kenya, and the harms it is likely to cause. Here's how things have gone from bad to worse:

Our posts on famed gaming giant Nintendo will likely give you the impression that the company has a very strange distaste for its own fans. Your brain will probably try to convince you that this doesn't make any sense, since Nintendo fans are what makes Nintendo money. Your brain is wrong. Nintendo has demonstrated over and over again that if forced to choose between maximum control over its intellectual property and allowing fans to do fan-things, it will choose control every single time.YouTube in particular tends to find itself in Nintendo's crosshairs, what with the site being the natural place for fans of Nintendo to share Nintendo-y things with other fans. It's worth noting again that, on matters of copyright at least, there's really no reason why Nintendo must issue takedowns for anything that even barely could be seen as infringing on its IP. Such is the case with the recent spate of takedowns the company issued against a YouTube channel which had the singular purpose of celebrating Nintendo game music.

President Donald Trump set the tone for his administration as soon as he took office. Less than a week after his inauguration, he issued this statement:

So, this is interesting. Every time we talk about alleged "anti-conservative" bias on various internet platforms, people who believe it's true (and who yell at us for daring to ask for evidence) tend to do two things: (1) cite Dennis Prager and his claims of YouTube's anti-conservative bias and (2) insist that there is no equivalent on the more liberal end of the spectrum that received similar treatment. We've discussed in great detail why both of those claims are laughably wrong, but we never quite expected the very same lawyers who filed Prager's failed lawsuit against YouTube -- the very same lawsuit that Prager himself just used on the pages of the Wall Street Journal to insist was proof of anti-conservative bias -- would now file a nearly identical complaint against YouTube... but on behalf of various LGBTQ+ YouTube channels.In both cases, the plaintiffs are represented by Peter Obstler and Eric George of the law firm Browne George Ross law firm. And this new lawsuit has basically as much chance of succeeding as Prager's lawsuit did. Of course, it strikes me as rather ironic that this very lawsuit seems to undermine the basic claim of the Prager lawsuit, that the "only" reason why Prager's videos could have been put into restricted mode were because of the conservative viewpoints they represented. Yet, here, in this lawsuit, there are lots of claims about how Google/YouTube are purposefully discriminating against the LGBTQ+ community.

The Purrtec Encryption Key is a hardware solution that encrypts digital files with one click. Unlocking the files requires a physical key and password, so you are assured that others can’t access or read your files and data. Purrtec protects your data with government-grade AES 256- BIT hardware encryption, and no data is hosted externally. Lastly, this encryption key is very simple, just connect Purrtec to your computer, select the files you want to encrypt, drag and drop them into the Purrtec window, type your password, and you’re done. The exact same process works for decryption. The 2 pack is on sale for $80.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.

Over the last few months we've witnessed a veritable flood of misleading to simply false articles about internet companies showing up in mainstream sources. There were misleading articles in Vox and the Washington Post. And then, just recently, we saw not one but two NY Times pieces that went out of their way to misrepresent the law. And, then of course, there's the Wall Street Journal that has been misrepresenting Section 230 for ages. To date, the only one of these publications to run a serious correction (and to continue to help debunking misrepresentations) is the smallest of those listed above: Vox, who did some research and published a big mea culpa.This has gotten many in the tech industry to begin to wonder. It's one thing for (cross aisle) grandstanding politicians like Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Nancy Pelosi, and Richard Blumenthal to totally misrepresent the law. But when the mainstream media is doing so on a regular basis -- it's causing a lot of talk behind the scenes about whether this is a coordinated hit. Some, like the excellent reporter Anna Wiener, recently more or less dismissed this theory as being "mostly... a facile argument," though I think she mixes up two separate issues. First, it is absolutely true that many startup founders don't know how to deal with the press well, and get personally offended by bad press coverage. And, for those entrepreneurs: fuck 'em. They should grow up and learn what the press actually does, when done right -- which includes researching and debunking nonsense (and there's a ton of nonsense in Silicon Valley).But, that's a separate issue from whether or not there's a coordinated campaign to undermine the foundations of the internet by a few larger, legacy industries who have failed to adapt to a changing time. Indeed, we saw significant evidence of Hollywood's top lobbyists working behind the scenes (though, it occasionally slipped out publicly) to push for FOSTA, the first bill that significantly undermined Section 230.And there's plenty more evidence of legacy industries -- mainly legacy media and entertainment companies -- plotting to take down internet companies by making use of the news. Remember, during the Sony Pictures hack, that MPAA emails were leaked, revealing "Project Goliath," which was specifically a plan to damage Google through any means necessary -- and that included using a smear campaign placed in the Wall Street Journal and on the Today Show. In an email sent to an official in Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood's office by then MPAA "director of external state government affairs" official (and former ICE official) Brian Cohen, Cohen admits the "proposed plan" is to place an anti-Google smear campaign: