Techdirt

Shortly after the Christchurch mosque shooting, the New Zealand government's censorship board decided to categorize almost everything related to the shooting (the shooter's manifesto, his livestream of the shooting, his social media posts) as "objectionable." This wasn't a case of reaching an obvious conclusion. Officially terming it "objectionable" made it a criminal act to distribute any of this content via social media or other services.Having done that, the government wasted no time bringing criminal charges against violators. The first arrest happened only two days after the shooting, netting the government an 18-year-old defendant. The more interesting arrest was the second one, which landed Phillip Arps, a local businessman with some not-so-latent white nationalist leanings.Arps spent the hours after the shooting refusing to condemn the violent act and -- the event triggering the criminal charges -- passing around footage of the shooting. Not all that surprising for a man whose company is named after a German prison camp and who charges $14.88 a foot for insulation installation.Since each count against Arps could have netted him a max 14 years in prison, the final sentence seems comparatively light.

It's been nearly a decade since we last wrote about the Australian aborigine flag and the insane copyright issues surrounding it. That time, back in 2010, it involved the copyright holder of the flag forcing Google to edit the flag out of one of its famous Google doodles, where it had originally been included as part of an Australia Day celebration. The problem, as you might have guessed, is that the flag was designed in the early 1970s "as a symbol of unity and national identity" by Harold Thomas. Because it was the creation of a private individual, and not a government, Thomas claims to hold a copyright on the image. He didn't do much with that copyright for decades, while the flag became an established symbol for indigenous Australians. Then, suddenly, he discovered he held the copyright and started making use of it.Apparently, that's ramped up even more in the last few months after Thomas did a licensing deal with a clothing company, followed by the traditional "sending of the cease-and-desist letters."

The Australian government approved an amended copyright law late last year that made subtle changes to what types of sites ISPs can be ordered to be blocked by the courts, and the process by which that order is obtained. Essentially, the changes amounted to allowing blocking of sites with the primary "effect" being copyright infringement, rather than the primary "purpose", along with an expedited process for getting additional site-blocking orders for sites that set up mirror sites to route around the blocks. Before the ink on the legislation was even dry, just as we warned, Village Roadshow and a bunch of American entertainment companies swooped into the court system to order blocks on all kinds of sites.And now it appears those groups were just getting started. After getting 181 domains blocked late last year, industry groups have decided to expand that with a recent request to block an additional 105 domains.

Live streaming is here to stay, and it seems to be getting more popular by the minute — but for many people, it still seems like a foreign land and evokes a cliched "I feel old" response. This week, Mike is joined by not-so-regular-anymore co-host Dennis Yang, who has been experimenting with Twitch, to get a beginner's perspective on the platform, the community, and the medium of streaming.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.

So, if someone can be sentenced to two years in prison for 40 minutes of newspaper website defacement performed by a party other than himself, it stands to reason someone who took down five websites would be looking at a minimum of ten years in jail.Welcome to the hilarious and tragic world of CFAA-related sentencing. Matthew Keys was hit with a two-year sentence for supposedly sharing his login password (something Keys has steadfastly denied doing), an act that resulted in someone else subjecting the L.A. Times website to a 40-minute inconvenience. The momentary vandalism of the site's landing page suggested Congressional representatives were being pressured to elect CHIPPY 1337. No. Seriously. That was the extent of the "damage."Once the DOJ decided this was worth pursuing under the CFAA, internal L.A. Times' emails regarding the "hack" suddenly cost $225/each to create. The feds wanted five years but settled for two. And while Matthew Keys served his sentence, no one in the federal government made any effort to locate the person who actually performed the website defacement.A more serious hacking -- one that resulted in five news websites being completely unreachable for a short period of time -- has netted the "hacker" involved with a very lenient sentence.

Last fall I wrote about the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case that some argued would allow the Supreme Court to declare that social media sites were public forums thereby limiting their ability to block or ban certain users. A key argument brought forth by many who have been kicked off of various social media platforms is that under a strained reading of both the Pruneyard case (a very narrowly ruled case, establishing malls as public forums) and the Packingham case (which said states cannot create laws that ban people from the internet), is that social media platforms like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are some sort of quasi-public forums, and therefore the 1st Amendment applies to them as state actors... and therefore they can't ban anyone or block content. This has never made much sense, and required a pretty twisted reading of those other cases -- but there was some thought that this new case might allow the Supreme Court to weigh in on the subject.The details of the case are a bit involved -- and you can read the original post for more details -- but the short version is that two producers were fired from a public access channel, Manhattan Neighborhood Network, for criticizing MNN. The two fired producers, DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Melendez, argued that this violated the 1st Amendment, because MNN was set up by New York City's government, as required by New York State. Thus, there was a strong argument that MNN was a public forum, given the state's role in creating it. The 2nd Circuit agreed that it was a public forum and MNN appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the specter that if the ruling were allowed to stand, it could end up being applied to the various social media platforms as well, creating quite a mess.As I wrote in my post about it, this seemed like a stretch as well, since the state's role in creating MNN was a key factor here, and that was not at all true with social media platforms. I also thought that the Supreme Court would likely rule narrowly and avoid the issue of social media platforms altogether -- though, given the political climate, I feared that the Supreme Court would say something stupid on this and create a new mess. Instead, the ruling, which came out earlier this week, went in the opposite direction. While the ruling itself doesn't directly apply to social media, the Supreme Court actually reversed the 2nd Circuit ruling that declared MNN a public forum, and very strongly hinted that it's ridiculous to think social media platforms could be considered public forums. And, for all the so-called "conservatives" who have been the most vocal in promoting the theory that social media sites are public fora governed by the 1st Amendment, it might surprise them to find that it was the so-called "conservative Justices" who decided this one, with Kavanaugh writing the opinion, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch -- and Sotomayor writing the dissent, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan.Indeed, hysterically, it appears that a key argument made by the majority to argue against a finding of a public forum is one from one of the "conservatives" currently suing a platform. Stay tuned for that tidbit. But first, the decision itself. I was wrong in expecting the court to uphold the 2nd Circuit's ruling (and my fear was that they would apply it in a way that was too broad). But Kavanaugh and the majority make it clear that they see public forum doctrine to be very, very, very limited. And it doesn't apply to a public access TV network, even one created by the state.

Unlike other eLearning courses that bog you down with dull voiceovers and boring videos, the Excel Data Analyst Certification School features real, hands-on projects to turn you into an Excel master; and you'll even have access to your own personal mentor to guide you along the way! You'll explore data manipulation, analytics and problem-solving, produce data visualizations and business intel reports, and much more. Complete the bootcamp, and you'll emerge with an interview-ready portfolio and a CPD accredited certification to back up your know-how. 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.

So just over a year ago the FCC quickly rushed to kill net neutrality at telecom lobbyists' behest. As we noted last week, the repeal did far more than just kill net neutrality protections; it effectively freed uncompetitive telecom providers from most meaningful oversight. With a few notable exceptions, most ISPs have tried to remain on their best behavior for two reasons: one, they're worried about the ongoing lawsuit from 23 State AGs that could potentially restore the rules any day now. And two, they don't want to run afoul of the nearly two dozen states that passed their own net neutrality rules in the wake of the repeal.Of course this all occurred because of the Ajit Pai FCC claim that killing the rules would result in amazing broadband growth, competition, and investment. But as people keep digging into the numbers, they've (surprise!) increasingly realized that absolutely none of those promises ever materialized (and aren't likely to without more competition). The latest case in point comes courtesy of longtime journalist Rob Pegoraro, who again noted how that supposed investment boon never happened, and in fact many ISPs are already pulling back on investment thanks to limited competition and tepid regulatory oversight:

You may have seen this story in various forms over the weekend, starting with a big Wall Street Journal article (paywall likely) claiming that Genius caught Google "red handed" in copying lyrics from its site. Lots of other articles on the story use the term "red handed" in the title, and you'll understand why in a moment. However, there's a lot of background to go over here -- and while many Google haters are making a big deal out of this news, after going through the details, it seems like (mostly) a completely over-hyped, ridiculous story.First, a little background: for pretty much the entire existence of this site, we've written about legal disputes concerning lyrics sites -- going all the way back to a story in 2000 about LyricFind (remember that name?) preemptively shutting itself down to try to work out "licensing" deals for the copyright on lyrics. Over the years, publishers have routinely freaked out and demanded money from lyrics sites. As we've pointed out over and over again, it was never clear how this made any sense at all -- especially on crowd sourced lyrics sites. It's not as though lyrics sites are taking away from the sales of the music -- if anything, they're the kinds of thing that connects people more deeply to the music and would help improve other aspects of the music business ecosystem.Over time, however, more and more sites realized that it was just easier to pay up than fight it out in court. One of those sites was Genius -- originally "RapGenius" -- which was called out by the National Music Publisher's Association as one of the "worst" infringers out there a few years back. Genius eventually caved in and agreed to license lyrics, despite incredibly strong fair use claims (since the whole point of Genius was to allow for annotation and commentary).However, in this latest case, it's now Genius that's complaining about someone else copying its content. Except... it's not Genius' content. This is what makes the story bizarre -- which we'll get to in a moment. However, first, it is worth highlighting the somewhat fun way in which Genius apparently "caught" Google using content from the Genius site as its source material. Basically, Genius hid a code in whether it used "straight" apostrophes or curly "smart" apostrophes:

The awful Article 13/17 of the EU's Copyright Directive only seems to have passed thanks to some MEPs voting for it by mistake. But the European Parliament was not the only arm of the European Union where there was strong resistance to the awful ideas contained in the upload filter proposal. Some individual governments were also against aspects of the law. For example, right at the end of the legislative process, in April 2019, no less than seven EU nations expressed their serious concerns. One of them was Poland, which issued a joint statement (pdf) with the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy and Finland, including the following:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just handed down a refresher [PDF] on a few legal issues, most notably what is or isn't "reasonable" when it comes to suspicion. Police officers thought an anonymous tip about a man carrying a gun and someone running away from them created enough suspicion to chase down Daniel Brown, stop him at gunpoint, and search him for contraband.Contraband was found, leading to Brown's motion to suppress. The lower court said this combination -- an anonymous report of a gun and Brown's decision to run when he saw the police cruiser -- was reasonable enough. Not so, says the Ninth Circuit, pointing out the obvious fact that a person carrying a gun can't be inherently suspicious in a state where carrying a gun in public is permitted.

We've noted for many years that (like so many "internet of things" devices) modern smart televisions have the security protection equivalent of damp cardboard. Not only are they often easily hacked (something intelligence agencies are super excited about since it gives them audio access to targets), but the companies that make them have been busted repeatedly for hoovering up user usage data (and even audio from your living room), and then failing to adequately secure it.This week, Samsung took a bit of heat for urging the company's TV customers to, for the first time, occasionally run an antivirus scan on their television sets. The Tweet was online online briefly before Samsung deleted it, apparently realizing it only advertised the fact that you shouldn't be getting viruses on your TV set in the first place:That's amusing for several reasons. One, because customers wouldn't be getting viruses on their television sets if these products had even the most basic security protections, something TV vendors have failed at for years. Two, because it highlights how many modern televisions have become insanely complicated. Not because consumers necessarily want them to be insanely complicated, but because most TV vendors want you using their embedded streaming platforms and as opposed to a third-party streaming device (like Roku, Chromecast, or a game console).And of course they want you using their streaming platforms because they want to monetize your viewing and other profitable data. As a Vizio executive recently acknowledged, this can help subsidize the cost of cheaper TV sets. That creates a dilemma whereby the consumer is forced to pay a premium if they want a TV set that simply displays a god-damned image and doesn't hoover up their personal data:

The process may have taken forever, but Paul "welcome to the big leagues" Hansmeier, who was the apparent mastermind behind the Prenda copyright trolling scam has finally been sentenced to 14 years in prison, and told to repay $1.5 million to 704 victims of his scam. We've been covering the actions of Hansmeier and his partner in crime, John Steele, going back many, many years now. None of us have the time to recount all of the many scams they've pulled, but they took copyright trolling to new lows. They tried using Florida's "pure bill of discovery" rules to try to abuse the system to get names to shakedown based on IP addresses. They sent totally unqualified and unprepared "associates" into courts to try to hide their own involvement in cases, they abused the CFAA by pretending movies they uploaded themselves were "hacked" in an attempt to get around restrictions on copyright trolling, they got someone they threatened to sue to basically take a dive in order to get access to other people to shake down (and then they went after that guy anyway). Oh, and then there was the whole thing about setting up their own fake movie production house, creating their own porn films to upload themselves, and then pretending in court that they were not the owners of the company in questions. And we don't even have much time to get into the time Steele tried to forge the signature of his housekeeper to pretend he was the actual officer of one of those fake shell companies.Over and over and over again, Hansmeier and Steele played every possible game with a single focus in mind: getting names of people to send threatening shakedown letters to. And, apparently, they took in about $6 million over the years -- though a bunch of civil cases have forced them to cough up plenty of that before the criminal charges came down.And there is no indication that Hansmeier had any regrets about all of this. Even after his arrest, he (and his wife) engaged in an analogous scheme of ADA trolling, looking for small businesses who might technically violate the ADA, and demanding cash from them to avoid a lawsuit. Hansmeier is facing an investigation over that as well.Oh, and then there was the whole bankruptcy fraud thing. Seriously, the list goes on and on and on and everytime you think you remember it all, you're reminded of some other really sketchy thing Hansmeier and Steele did.So it should probably come as little surprise that the judge in the case was not impressed, and even said he considered giving him even more time in jail:

This one combines a few stories that we've covered a lot over the years, showing how they're intersecting. For some time now we've been covering the US's evidence-free attacks on Huawei, the Chinese telco equipment giant. Basically, for years, there have been stories insisting that Huawei is too closely linked to the Chinese government, leading to fear mongering stories saying that the company should be effectively barred from the US. However, multiple attempts to find security flaws in Huawei's products have failed to show any kind of backdoors, and the fact that US-based Huawei competitors often seem to be making the loudest noises about the Chinese giant should raise some eyebrows.The other story we've covered a lot is around China and patents. For years and years, US companies (and policymakers) would go on and on about how Chinese companies didn't respect US patents, and demanding that China "must respect our IP." As we've highlighted for years, the Chinese government realized a decade or so ago that since the US kept trying to apply diplomatic pressure to "respect patents," China realized it could just start using patents as an economic weapon. The number of patents granted in China started to shoot up, and (surprise surprise) suddenly in legal disputes, Chinese companies were using patents to block American competitors. And the US couldn't really complain since it was the US that demanded China "respect patents" so much.Just a few weeks ago, we noted that China was gearing up to respond to Donald Trump's ignorant trade war by using patents against US companies.Put it all together, and it should be no surprise at all that Huawei is now demanding $1 billion from Verizon for patent infringement.

The war on fan-made subtitles waged by the entertainment industry has been going on for a long, long time. While fansubs could, and probably should, be viewed as a potential boon to the entertainment industry, allowing those in far-flung lands to suddenly enjoy its products, fansubs have instead been painted as an aid to pirated content overseas or, in some cases, as copyright infringement themselves, given that they essentially copy parts of the content scripts.If nothing else is clear as a result of this introduction, it should be that major industry players absolutely hate fansubs.... Except when they can make use of them, apparently, as Comcast-owned Swiss broadcaster Sky had been found using fansubs in its streaming service in the dumbest way possible.

Listen to your favorite music or podcasts for longer, with fewer distractions thanks to these True Wireless Bluetooth Fitness Headphones. These are some of the smallest and most lightweight earphones on the market. They're ergonomically designed to sit comfortably in and around your ear so you can jog, hit the gym, or do your daily commute without having to worry about them falling out. They're on sale for $45.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Alexis Madrigal, over at the Atlantic has a mostly interesting piece recounting the history of how the big internet companies started calling themselves platforms. The history is actually pretty fascinating:

Every few years or so, giant cable and broadband companies like Comcast will proclaim that they've finally seen the light, and will be spending time shoring up their terrible customer service. Like a few years ago, when Comcast proclaimed it had hired a "Customer Experience VP" who would finally make addressing the company's historically terrible customer service a top priority. CEO Brian Roberts also can be found at least once a year claiming that the company is going to finally address the problem by hiring better people, improving support systems, and generally revisiting the company's policies.But year after year, big cable and broadband companies fail to deliver. Case in point: the latest American Consumer Satisfaction Index was recently released, and ISPs and cable providers continue to see the worst customer satisfaction scores in America. These companies are so bad at what they do, they're routinely bested by even everybody's favorite punching bag: the IRS. When it comes to broadband service on a scale of 100, both Comcast and Charter (Spectrum) continue to see the worst scores in an already terrible sector:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is PaulT responding to a comment that offered a partial defense of ICE with a reminder about human rights:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2014, James Clapper finally admitted that the number of documents Ed Snowden took was probably a lot less than the much-bandied 1.7-million figure, while various former intelligence officials were not happy about Clapper's gag order on talking to the press. A new report examined the reactions to the Snowden leaks from governments around the world, and we noted one big positive result was companies being less ready to help the NSA. But agency defenders were still telling lots of lies, Mike Rogers was calling Google unpatriotic for opposing spying on its users, and we awaited a key vote in congress that would reveal how much it valued people's privacy.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2009, the Swedish Pirate Party surprised everyone by winning a seat in the EU parliament for Christian Engstrom, who used the attention to explain the party (and its name) to an often-confused press. Amidst the push for fashion copyright some smart designers were realizing it would be a bad thing, Bad Science's Ben Goldacre tore apart a bogus study about file sharing, and a UK ISP boss was trying to explain to the industry that it needs to give up on trying to stop all piracy. In France, the consitutional council gutted the recently-passed three strikes program, video game companies were still whining about used game sales, and we saw the beginning of another notoriously silly copyright dust-up when an Australian music publisher claimed Down Under by Men At Work was a copy of the children's song Kookaburra.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2004, people were cluing into the huge learning benefits for kids who use computers — and the fact that over-obsession with "internet risks" can undermine these benefits. We took a look at how being prevented from using a cellphone sparks extreme anger in some, but is embraced as a nice break by others. Television was trying to figure out how to embrace and/or compete with broadband, while the RIAA was complaining that digital broadcasts would make radio too high-quality, and that would be bad. And after a brief flurry of trading with some people shelling out hundreds of dollars for the hyped new email service, Gmail invites flooded the market and tanked the price.

There has been so much discussion lately about the impossibility of doing content moderation well, but it's notable that the vast majority of that discussion focuses on what content to ban or to block entirely. I do wish there was more talk about alternatives, some of which already exist (from things like demonetization to refusing to algorithmically promote -- though, for the most part, these solutions just seem to annoy people even more). But there is something of a flipside to this debate which applies in perhaps somewhat more rare circumstances: what content or speakers to specifically protect.I'm thinking of this, in particular, as Cloudflare has announced the 5th anniversary of its (until now, mostly secretive) Project Galileo offering, in which the company provides free security to around 600 organizations which are likely targets of attacks from well resourced attackers:

A little over a year ago, we discussed Matt Furie, the creator of the Pepe the Frog character that became an alt-right meme sensation, suing Infowars for selling posters featuring his character. That post was fraught with subtle takes, frankly, largely the result of Furie's wishy-washy history over how he protected his creation, or not, and the fact that the other side of the story was Infowars. Infowars is of course a conspiracy-mongering lie-factory run by play-acting assclowns that make gobs of money by getting followers to harass the parents of dead children and then selling those same followers merchandise and diet pills.A better description of the hellscape that is 2019 cannot be found.Still, Furie's decision to sue Infowars despite his previously being cool with people making memes out of the Pepe character made it clear that his reason for suing was a moral one, in that he didn't want Pepe to be used alongside hateful content. Copyright, meanwhile, is meant to be deployed on economic grounds, making this all quite murky. On top of that, meme culture could be threatened by these types of actions, all over a moral dispute that really has no place in terms of copyright enforcement.Well, in keeping with the theme, Furie's moral dispute has resulted in a moral victory of sorts, with Infowars agreeing to settle out of court for $15k and both sides claiming victory. First, the facts on the settlement.

Almost exactly three years ago, we were pleasantly surprised to find that a jury unanimously ruled that Led Zeppelin did not infringe on a song by the band Taurus called "Spirit" with "Stairway to Heaven." We noted that, similar to the Blurred Lines case, if you just listen to bits and pieces of each song, you can hear a similarity, but that does not, and should not, mean it was infringing. As we've pointed out, while Stairway and Taurus can sound similar:... the same is true of Stairway, Taurus... and J.S. Bach's Bouree In E Minor, which you'd better believe is in the public domain:Given all that, we were disappointed last fall when the 9th Circuit suddenly vacated the jury's decision and ordered a new trial, claiming that the jury instructions in the original were incorrect. However, as copyright lawyer, Rick Sanders explained, there were potentially some positives to come out of this, such as some very good reasons for this decision, including that it might fix the 9th Circuit's insanely ridiculous legal framework for determining if there is infringement. Also, there were some very real problems with the jury instructions.However, before the case did go back for a second trial, that decision was appealed, and now the 9th Circuit has agreed to hear the issue en banc (with an 11-judge slate). It looks like there are a number of potentially important issues that the court will get a chance to dig into when it hears the case this fall. The guy who runs the estate of the guy who wrote "Taurus" wants the court to determine whether or not the specific sheet music that is deposited with the copyright lays out the full scope of what is covered (under the 1909 Copyright Act, which applied when the song was written), and also suggests that the court needs to consider the "dire consequences" of its decision "including the seismic disenfranchisement of almost all" musicians of pre-1978 music (which, uh, is quite a bit of hyperbole). Meanwhile, Zeppelin admits that there were some problems with the original jury instructions (though, not as much as the other side claims), but says that it wouldn't have made a difference and that the plaintiff "invited and waived" the mistake in the first place.However, as Rick Sanders noted in his pieces, Zeppelin's lawyers also ask the 9th Circuit to toss out the weird "inverse ratio rule" legal framework that the 9th Circuit uses in determining infringement (to understand that weird rule, go back and read this piece).Of course, this is the 9th Circuit we're talking about, and it has a way of getting copyright law completely screwed up all too frequently. So while it has a chance to do something good, it could also muck things up, and this particular court is especially good at mucking up copyright law.

The lies law enforcement tells about civil asset forfeiture are just that: lies. They may not be intentional lies in some cases. Many law enforcement officials may actually believe the bullshit they spill in defense of taking property from people without convicting them of crimes. But that doesn't change the fact that it's bullshit.If law enforcement was serious about crippling drug cartels, they wouldn't be watching the roads leading out of their jurisdictions for drivers to pull over and shake down for cash. They'd be watching roads leading into the state to seize the drugs before they can be sold. But that's not how it's done. Drug busts are rare. Cash seizures -- especially small ones -- happen all the time.

The Complete Salesforce Lightning Certification Training Bundle has four courses designed to get you up to speed on the new Lightning update for Salesforce and prepare you to take the ADX201 exam. You'll start by learning organization and user set up, and basic security and access. You'll then learn about standard and custom objects, sales and marketing apps, and data analytics. The final course covers reports and dashboards, workflow and process automation, desktop and mobile administration, and AppExchange. The bundle is on sale for $19.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

There are many reasonable complaints making the rounds these days about the big internet companies, and many questions about what should be done. Unfortunately, too much of the thinking around this can be summarized as "these companies are bad, we should punish them, any punishment therefore is good." This is dangerous thinking. I tend to agree with Benedict Evans who noted that there's a similarity between calls to break up big tech companies and Brexit in the UK:

Back in 2016 Russia introduced a new surveillance bill promising to deliver greater security to the country. Of course, as with so many similar efforts around the world the bill actually did the exact opposite -- not only mandating new encryption backdoors, but also imposing harsh new data-retention requirements on ISPs and VPN providers. As a result, some VPN providers like Private Internet Access wound up leaving the country after finding their entire function eroded and having some of their servers seized.Last March Russia upped the ante, demanding that VPN providers like NordVPN, ExpressVPN, IPVanish, and HideMyAss help block forbidden websites that have been added to Russia's censorship watchlist. Not surprisingly those companies balked at the request, and now Russia's moving on to what was the goal from the start: banning these companies from doing business entirely.

Roughly one year ago, we wrote about La Liga, the Spanish soccer league, pushing out an app to soccer fans that allowed the software to repurpose a mobile device's microphone and GPS to try to catch unauthorized broadcasts of La Liga matches. The league publicized this information, which had previously been buried in obscure language in its TOS, as mandated by the GDPR. At the same time, the league attempted to brush the whole thing off as above board, claiming that what was in the TOS informed users of the app enough that their own mobile devices were being compromised and turned into copyright snoop networks.If this all sounds like The Dark Knight Rises for European soccer... you aren't wrong.La Liga apparently was wrong, however, in its claims that all of this was okey-dokey.

The latest in our never ending series of posts on why content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, involves Twitter now claiming that a tweet from the account @TheTweetOfGod somehow violates its policies:

We've noted for years how broadband providers have increasingly imposed arbitrary, confusing, and punitive usage caps and overage fees to cash in on the lack of competition in US broadband. Not only have industry executives admitted these limits aren't technically necessary, they've increasingly been abused to hamstring competitors. AT&T, for example, doesn't impose the limits on its broadband customers who use its streaming video service (DirecTV Now), but will impose the added charges if you use a competitor like Netflix.For more than a decade ISPs have slowly but surely imposed such limits hoping that consumers wouldn't notice (think of the frog in the pot of boiling water metaphor with you as the frog). But as video streaming services have increasingly embraced high-bandwidth 4K streaming, consumer usage has started to collide with this arbitrary restrictions.On the other hand, the rise of game streaming services like Google Stadia is going to blow right past these caps, finally highlighting the problem in stark detail. Services like Stadia eliminate the need for local gaming hardware, with all of the processing occurring in the cloud. The bandwidth consumption of these services will be fairly incredible:

Former revenge porn extortionist and current pro se litigant, Craig Brittain, is one severely-narrowed complaint away from having his lawsuit against Twitter tossed. Brittain sued Twitter over the deletion of several accounts, including those he had whipped up for his Senate run.The court's first pass at the lawsuit moved it to California, a venue shift Brittain explicitly agreed to each time he created another alt account. Terms of service say suing Twitter means suing in California, even if you're an Arizonan Senate hopeful with a closet that contains nothing but skeletons.Contrary to Brittain's fervent and litigious belief, there's nothing illegal about deleting Craig Brittain's multiple Twitter accounts. Brittain's lawsuit tried to make it possible by treating Twitter as both a provider and a publisher, depending of which description worked out better for his arguments. The court decides to let Brittain have it both ways -- and lose both ways. (h/t Adam Steinbaugh)As a service provider, Twitter cannot be held liable for third party content. It can also remove accounts without losing this immunity. Since this isn't about the removal of content, but rather the removal of accounts, Brittain tried to argue Section 230 immunity can't protect Twitter from this lawsuit because removing accounts (and their content) is an editorial activity. The court points out this has zero effect on Section 230 protections. From the decision [PDF]:

Radiohead has always taken a more thoughtful, less kneejerk approach to how it handles the kinds of situations that many others in the recording industry tend to respond to by freaking out. Back in 2007, in the midst of the worldwide freakout over piracy, Radiohead released a surprise album, telling fans they could pay what they wanted to download it (while also selling a more expensive "box set", giving its biggest fans a good reason to pay extra. The band has also been supportive of file sharing and even leaked some of its own tracks via BitTorrent.So perhaps this following story shouldn't be seen as too much of a surprise (though, I imagine it was a surprise to whoever hacked Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke). As noted in that parenthetical, someone apparently hacked Yorke, and somehow got access to a set of 18 minidiscs of somewhat random/eclectic material that Yorke had recorded in the 1996/97 timeframe, when the band was working on its seminal Ok Computer album. The hackers apparently then asked Yorke/Radiohead for $150,000 not to release the material. The band chose not to give in to the hackers, who then did leak the material. However, soon after the material was leaked, the band announced (via Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood's Instagram) that the band was now officially "releasing" that material on Bandcamp for £18 (or more) and donating any funds raised to Extinction Rebellion (a climate change advocacy group).

Eliminate the cable clutter and charge your iPhone, Apple Watch, and AirPods at the same time with AirDock. This power station houses all the needed electronics to power up all 3 of your devices at the same time, including a high power AC Adapter. Using highly efficient components and an advanced chipset, the charger's double coil design greatly increases the device charging speed. It's designed to eliminate the radiation and overheating risks associated with wireless charging and comes engineered with overvoltage protection, temperature control, foreign object detection, and more so you and your iPhone are protected.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 DEA regulates controlled substances, including medications containing controlled substances. The DEA has taken this to mean any number of medical privacy laws don't apply to it. If the DEA was forced to respect the law, well, it might just mean some drug dispensation wouldn't be quite as closely regulated as the agency wants it to be.Since drugs have a war on them, the DEA has been given a long leash to investigate drug use/abuse. The DEA has argued in court that federal law overrules state-level privacy provisions. It has also done less legal things, like impersonate medical board investigators to gain access to denied records and ignored warrant requirements instituted by state legislatures.This last tactic worked -- up to a point -- in Oregon. It resulted in the state suing the DEA for ignoring state warrant requirements when pulling records from Oregon's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. The same thing is happening in New Hampshire. The fed DOJ got stiff-armed by the state DOJ when seeking warrantless access to medical records.

The Ajit Pai FCC has been making the rounds the last few weeks patting itself on the back for its new anti-robocall initiative. But while the tech press has kind of tripped over itself to suggest the plan is a dramatic departure from FCC robocall policies of the past, the reality is there's little to nothing in the plan that's actually new. The biggest change is a new FCC rule adjustment that would let wireless carriers install robocalling blocking tools on consumer devices by default, in contrast to the current paradigm where consumers have to opt in (assuming the tools are offered at all).To hear Ajit Pai tell it in an editorial over at USAToday, this slight policy language shift is a major revolution in robocall enforcement:

US Customs and Border Protection has suffered an inevitability in the data collection business. The breach was first reported by the Washington Post. It first appeared to affect the DHS's airport facial recognition system, but further details revealed it was actually a border crossing database that was compromised.The breach involved photos of travelers and their vehicles, which shows the CPB is linking people to vehicles with this database, most likely to make it easier to tie the two together with the billions of records ICE has access to through Vigilant's ALPR database.The breach involved a contractor not following the rules of its agreement with the CBP. According to the vendor agreement, all harvested data was supposed to remain on the government's servers. This breach targeted the vendor, which means the contractor had exfiltrated photos and plate images it was specifically forbidden from moving to its own servers.According to reports from other news agencies, the breach likely involve Perceptics, a Tennessee-based manufacturer of stationary license plate readers. The Register first reported a breach there on May 23, after being contacted by a hacker possibly involved with the attack on the company's servers. The CBP claims it was not aware of this breach until May 31. But this piece of info from the Register's article seems to indicate Perceptics may be the vendor the agency has refused to name.

We've been talking a lot lately about the fact that people seem incredibly confused (i.e., mostly wrong) about the history, purpose, and even language of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. No matter how many times we try to correct the record, it seems that more people keep getting it wrong. We've talked a few times about Jeff Kosseff's excellent new book called The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet, and, as Kosseff explains, part of his reason for putting together that book is that some of the early history around CDA 230 was at risk of disappearing.And now Kosseff has teamed up with professor Eric Goldman to create an archive of documents related to key Section 230 cases.

It appears the FBI's facial recognition program will never live up to the minimal expectations its oversight has placed on it. The FBI's database went live in 2014, far preceding the Privacy Impact Assessment that was supposed to be delivered in 2012.Two years after its debut, the Government Accountability Office found the FBI's database -- which went live with a 20% failure rate -- was still a mess. The FBI showed little interest in improving the accuracy of its searches. It also showed little interest in periodically testing the system to see if it was improving or, quite possibly, getting worse.The FBI's hands-off approach to facial recognition only applies to its oversight of the program. Otherwise, it's an enthusiastic participant. At the time of the GAO's examination, the FBI's database contained 411 million photos, drawn from both criminal and non-criminal databases. Indicative of the FBI's lackadaisical approach to facial recognition was a bank robbery case in Colorado, where the feds pitched in to help arrest the wrong person twice.A year later, the House Oversight Committee noted nothing had improved since the GAO's 2016 recommendations. Input and output remained flawed, and the FBI still showed little interest in fixing the problems reported by the GAO.Two years later, it's deja vu all over again. The GAO's latest report [PDF] says the only thing that's really changed is the size of the database. Since it's last assessment, the FBI has added 230 million photos, bringing the total to 641 million face shots. But otherwise, there's been little improvement. The GAO made six recommendations in 2016. To date, the FBI has only fully implemented one, and has taken no action at all on three of them.As for the Privacy Impact Assessment the FBI was supposed to deliver in 2012? It's still in the works seven years later.

While the FCC has indicated it's more than eager to approve T-Mobile's $25 billion merger with Sprint (despite an endless list of red flags), other regulators have proven to be a harder sell. The DOJ, for example, seems a bit sheepish on signing off on a deal that will reduce already semi-tepid US wireless competition by 25%. They're correct to worry: US telecom is awash with examples of how such consolidation tends to devastate employment, and results in significantly higher rates for consumers and businesses alike.Granted with the DOJ now run by former Verizon attorney Bill Barr, it's still very possible the DOJ approves the deal anyway. But even then, the deal is going to have to get past a new coalition of 10 state attorneys general, who say they've joined forces and will file a lawsuit to block the deal whether the DOJ approves it or not. New York Attorney General Letitia James and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra were fairly blunt in a statement announcing the move:

A few years back, thin-skinned thug/President of Turkey Recep Erdogan paid the US a visit. He brought his security detail with him, which isn't unusual. World leaders always travel with security. What was more surprising were the actions of his security team. When faced with protesters hurling dangerous words in the direction of Erdogan, his security personnel decided "when in Rome" wasn't applicable. Acting as though they were on their home turf, Erdogan's bodyguards began physically assaulting protesters and journalists covering the protests.This put Washington DC police in the awkward and novel position of protecting protesters and journalists from beatings. It also put Erdogan and his security officers under the heading of "Defendants" in a federal lawsuit. Erdogan's off-the-cuff defense of his bodyguards' actions -- that they were right to retaliate against insults targeting the president -- appears to be the defense the Republic of Turkey is using in its attempt to get this lawsuit dismissed. (h/t Adam Steinbaugh)The motion to dismiss [PDF] alleges a lot of things. It claims protesters were dangerous. It claims the DC Metro Police did not keep protesters as far away from Erdogan as Erdogan felt they should be. It claims anti-Turkey protesters injured pro-Turkey supporters. But mostly it claims the use of force was justified.

The Complete Ethical Hacking Certification Course covers 18 of the most current security domains any ethical hacker needs to know. This course covers over 270 attack technologies commonly used by hackers, showing you how to defeat each. You'll learn key issues plaguing the information security world, incident management process, penetration testing, and much more. It's on sale for $13.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.

Earlier this week, I posted about a silly new organization that claims it's going to "save journalism" mainly by whining about how evil Google and Facebook are. As I noted in that piece, even if you believe Google and Facebook are evil, it's not clear how whining about them being evil provides any new journalists jobs. But the news industry as a whole has been on this weird "blame someone else" kick for way too long. The "News Media Alliance" (formerly the Newspaper Association of America) has been on a weird anti-tech protectionist kick for years now, and on Monday published a "study" claiming that Google made $4.7 billion from news -- a number that was then trumpeted loudly by the NY Times, which just happens to be one of the larger members of the News Media Alliance.There's just one tiny problem. The "study" is no study at all and basically everyone in the media business is laughing at the NY Times for publishing such a ridiculously bogus study without highlighting how bogus it was. The $4.7 billion is not based on any careful research. It's based on one off-hand comment from over a decade ago by an exec who hasn't been at Google in years, and then extrapolated forward. Really.

One year ago the FCC ignored a bipartisan majority of the public and killed popular net neutrality consumer protections at lobbyist behest. But contrary to conventional wisdom the FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order didn't just kill "net neutrality": it neutered the FCC's authority over ISPs, ceding much of its remaining power to an FTC that lacks the authority or resources to really police bad behavior in telecom (the whole point). Those who continue to insist the repeal couldn't have been that bad because the internet didn't immediately explode only advertise their ignorance to the scope of what the telecom lobby actually accomplished.Again, the telecom industry didn't just eliminate net neutrality rules (after allegedly trying to stuff the FCC website comment ballet box using fake and dead people), they eliminated most oversight of some of the most predatory, uncompetitive, and disliked companies in America. We effectively took the very ideas that helped create monopolies like Comcast, and doubled down. Should it be allowed to stand, the FCC's repeal leaves telecom giants (with two decades of anti-competitive behavior under their belts) free from both competition and meaningful regulatory accountability.If you don't see the problem there, you probably haven't spent much time looking at your broadband bill, watching AT&T do business, or talking to Comcast customer support.With a few exceptions (like AT&T using its usage caps to harm competitors like Netflix, or Centurylink blocking internet access to spam its own security products), most ISPs have tried to be on their best behavior in the year since. Why? They're worried about state laws that popped up to protect consumers in the wake of FCC apathy. They're also worried about the lawsuit by 23 AGs filed against the FCC, a ruling in which is expected any day now. Should the FCC lose, the FCC's 2015 rules could be fully restored. ISPs don't want to significantly change their business models at scale only to have the rules pop back up declaring them in violation.As a result ISPs are just biding their time, waiting for the full green light to behave anti-competitively. They've spent some of that time getting their biggest sycophants in Congress to push bogus net neutrality laws framed as serious attempts at "bipartisan consensus" intended to "put the issue to bed." In reality these bills, literally written by industry, only serve one purpose: pre-empt tougher state or federal efforts to protect net neutrality. Such bills are filled with loopholes and the tech policy equivalent of a head fake.In reality, this Congress has made it very clear it will never pass a net neutrality law with any real teeth.Case in point: some lawmakers spent the repeal anniversary trying to get Mitch McConnell to floor a genuine, three-page bill (the Save the Internet Act) that would simply restore the FCC rules. But while that bill passed the House last April, it has little to no hope passing the telecom-campaign-cash-slathered Senate, where McConnell has declared the bill "dead on arrival." As such, the best hope for restoring the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules rests with the ongoing lawsuit.Should the lawsuit fail, the onus lies with voters to 1) purge Congress of Luddites and telecom lackeys that have repeatedly made it clear that the public interest and Democratic process does not matter to them, and 2) push this new Congress to pass a real net neutrality law down the road.Either way, this is a problem that's not going away for the telecom industry or anybody forced to do business with them. With US telcos refusing to upgrade or repair their aging DSL lines, cable giants like Comcast and Charter are securing bigger regional monopolies than ever across much of the United States (and no, 5G wireless isn't going to magically fix the problem). Emboldened by a lack of regulatory oversight and little real competition, they won't be able to help themselves, and will inevitably try to take full advantage in new and creatively stupid ways.For example, it's not hard to envision some if the controversial "zero rating" shenanigans we've seen in the video space impacting innovative, emerging businesses like game streaming. ISPs are busy cooking up their own challengers to cloud gaming efforts like Google Stadia (which eliminates home hardware and devours bandwidth by moving all processing to the cloud). Given precedent, you can be fairly sure ISPs will ensure usage caps apply to competing services, but not their own products. They're already doing it with video, why wouldn't they elsewhere?Those who have foolishly claimed net neutrality rules weren't important because the Earth didn't immediately stop rotating on its axis don't understand that this has always been a slow death by a thousand cuts scenario. First, ISPs get consumers used to monthly usage caps and overage fees that have no valid technical justification. Then, they begin using those caps to disadvantage their competitors (which again is already happening). From there, they get consumers used to being nickel-and-dimed by charging you more money to view HD video streams as intended, or to avoid having your games, music, or video throttled.We're already well down the rabbit hole, and most of these "net neutrality doesn't matter" folks haven't even noticed (or worse, are foolishly cheering as they stumble and bumble their way down the slippery slope).Anti-competitive shenanigans aside, the FCC's 2015 rules also required that ISPs be more transparent about what kind of connection you're buying. The repeal made it harder to determine whether services will be throttled or banned outright, because ISPs no longer face any real penalty for lying to you. And with the FCC's authority eroded and the FTC too busy to police telecom seriously, nobody will do much about other bad behavior in the sector, be it wireless carrier abuse of your location data, or the ISP tendency to sign customers up for scam services they never asked for.While States may pick up some consumer protection slack, the FCC's repeal also attempts to strip states of that ability as well. The telecom lobby goal is no competition and no federal or state oversight. A perfect vacuum. See the problem yet?While Facebook's issues are undeniable, the recent exclusive fixation on Facebook as the root of all evil in tech policy circles has been a huge gift to the telecom lobby. Telecom lobbyists have been pushing for the hyper regulation of companies they hope to compete with in the video ad space, hoping you don't notice they just convinced government to obliterate oversight of their own businesses, despite its natural monopoly problems and ad ambitions every bit as problematic as Facebook's.Silicon Valley and telecom share many of the same problems, including the abysmal treatment of consumer privacy. But telecom is always going to be unique in that its customers are entirely captive. You might be able to fix this by simply pushing for policies that bring more competition to market, but history has repeatedly shown how that's difficult with a Congress slathered in campaign contributions from the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Spectrum.Those "bored" by the net neutrality debate miss the broader implications. And those applauding the rules' demise are usually oblivious to not only what the rules did, but the fact they're actively cheering against their own best self interests. Net neutrality isn't something that just goes away with the passage or the elimination of rules, and violations are just another in a long line of symptoms of a broken telecom market we refuse to fix due to rampant corruption. No period in tech and telecom policy history has done a better job driving that point home.

Over the last few weeks there's been a silly debate over whether or not Facebook made the right call in agreeing to leave up some manipulated videos of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that were slowed down and/or edited, to make it appear like she was either confused or something less than sober. Some Pelosi-haters tried to push the video as an attack on Pelosi. Facebook (relatively quickly) recognized that the video was manipulated, and stopped it from being more widely promoted via its algorithm -- and also added some "warning" text for anyone who tried to share it. However, many were disappointed that Facebook didn't remove the video entirely, arguing that Facebook was enabling propaganda. Pelosi herself attacked Facebook's decision, and (ridiculously) called the company a "willing enabler" of foreign election meddling. However, there were strong arguments that Facebook did the right thing. Also, it seems worth noting that Fox News played one of the same video clips (without any disclaimer) and somehow Pelosi and others didn't seem to think it deserved the same level of criticism as Facebook.Either way, Facebook defended its decision and even noted that it would do the same with a manipulated video of Mark Zuckerberg. It didn't take long to put that to the test, as some artists and an advertising agency created a deep fake of Zuckerberg saying a bunch of stuff about controlling everyone's data and secrets and whatnot, and posted it to Facebook-owned Instagram.And... spoiler alert: Facebook left it up.

The border surge is upon us. Apparently. Since the 2016 election, actually, if we're honest about it. Trump wasn't a single-issue candidate but has sort of morphed into one since taking office. The swamp remains undrained. Hillary Clinton remains unjailed. But BUILD THE WALL has become the calling card of Donald Trump as he seeks to rid the nation of pesky brown people. Good times. To be fair, ICE and CBP have always sucked. But their moment in the spotlight has only increased the intensity of their sucking.The problem with declaring the border a national security threat/war zone/flashpoint for a trade war/whatever is that you have to be ready to deal with the problem you're causing. If you think America's greatness is measured by the number of people we capture and detain, you have to have a plan in place to deal with this influx of eventual deportees.We do not have a plan in place. ICE may be enjoying the extremely rare experience of being a presidential administration's favorite agency, but it definitely had no idea what it was in for. For months, ICE scrambled around knocking heads and fudging numbers to back Trump's claim that the United States was swimming with dangerous undocumented immigrants.ICE performed raid after raid in major cities, hoping to score a batch of hardened criminals. CBP also stepped up enforcement, detaining more people than usual in hopes of sending a message to outsiders about America's not-all-that-open borders.The problem is you have to put all of these people somewhere. ICE is in charge of that and it doesn't particularly relish any part of the job but locking people up. It farmed out some of this work to contractors. Whatever it doesn't handle poorly itself is handled terribly by third parties. ICE rarely inspects its facilities and even more rarely makes sure the few problems it notices are addressed.This has led directly to the problems found by ICE's Inspector General. IG investigations of ICE detention centers have found a shitload of inhuman conditions that we, the people, are funding with our tax dollars. First, an inspection [PDF] of a facility in El Paso, Texas, discovered ICE and CBP are just shoving as many detainees into a room as inhumanly possible, resulting in standing-room-only detentions that can last for several days.Here are a couple of photos taken by investigators. Each white block is covering a face… or faces, since there's not a lot of room between detainees.Part of the problem is a spike in apprehensions, apparently triggered by presidential rhetoric.These agencies (ICE, CBP) view detainees as subhuman, much in the way prisons view prisoners.Here are the numbers, according to the IG investigation:

We've talked for some time about the increasing trend in professional sports for athletes to seek trademarks on anything and everything that might possibly be branded. This trend has actually spilled over into some professional sports teams themselves attempting to get trademarks for the athletes that play for the team. It is all frankly very irritating and smells purely of the kind of money-grab that was absolutely not the point of trademark law to begin with, but at least we can say for most of these cases that the slogans and nicknames for which trademarks are sought are fairly unique.This is most certainly not the case for Tom Brady, who's company, TEB Capital, has applied for a trademark on one of his nicknames, "Tom Terrific", for trading cards, sports merch, and clothing. There's only one problem: Tom Terrific is indeed a well-known nickname... of former NY Met Tom Seaver.

Last Friday, the DC circuit appeals court issued a mostly good and mostly straightforward ruling applying Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) in a perfectly expected way. However, the case is notable on a few grounds, partly because it clarifies a few key aspects of CDA 230 (which is good), and partly because of some sloppy language that is almost certainly going to be misquoted and misrepresented by those who (incorrectly) keep insisting that CDA 230 requires "neutrality" by the platform in order to retain the protections of the law.Let's just start by highlighting that there is no "neutrality" rule in CDA 230 -- and (importantly) the opposite is actually true. Not only does the law not require neutrality, it explicitly states that it's goal is for there to be more content moderation. The law explicitly notes that it is designed:

Amazon wants you to be part of its dish network. Yes, it's a play on words (and not a good one!). This network springs from Amazon's Ring doorbell -- the doorbell with a camera inside and a cozy relationship with law enforcement! What are your neighbors and strangers up to? Give the dirt to law enforcement and trust their better judgment!Good times await those who find themselves looking dark or suspicious (but also suspicious because they're dark) in front of a Ring doorbell. Have you ever wanted to be an internet celebrity, with or without your permission? Ring has you covered.

Meet MOFT, the lightest adhesive laptop stand around. Tailored perfectly for mobile working, MOFT allows every road warrior to work absolutely anywhere with ease and comfort. MOFT is unseen when attached, unfelt when worked on, and unnoticed when carried. You'll never be troubled by forgetting to take a laptop stand when going out, because MOFT acts as a natural, seamless appendage of your computer. It can support up to 18 pounds, is adjustable, and fits up to 15.6" laptop. It's on sale for $20.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 been a few years since this kind of argument has come up, but it's one that we've had to swat down a few times in the past: it's the argument that somehow if a company offers a service for free, it means that they'll absolutely snarf up all your data, and that requiring services be paid for directly by users somehow would fix that. This is easy to debunk in multiple directions and yet it still pops up here and there.The latest is from the technology columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Christopher Mims (whose work I usually enjoy). His latest (possibly paywalled) piece is called, Why Free Is Too High a Price for Facebook and Google with the subhead reading: "Most of the ills traced to these companies are a direct consequence of their no-cost business models." Here's the crux of the argument: