Techdirt

San Francisco is getting out ahead of the tech curve. Instead of waiting until after law enforcement had already deployed a suite of surveillance tools, city legislators have passed a ban on facial recognition tech by government agencies.

Yesterday, there was a big process, called the Christchurch Call, in which a bunch of governments and big social media companies basically agreed to take a more proactive role in dealing with terrorist and violent extremist content online. To its credit, the effort did include voices from civil society/public interest groups that raised issues about how these efforts might negatively impact freedom of expression and other human rights issues around the globe. However, it's not clear that the "balance" they came to is a good one.

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.

After months of fact-free complaints about bias against conservatives on social media, the White House has finally decided to engage in a fact-finding mission. And by "fact-finding mission," I mean "knock together a shitty webform to collect complaints." Or build a mailing list for the 2020 election run. Who knows. But here it is in all of its "will this do" glory.It opens with this statement before it starts harvesting personal info.

Buried underneath the blistering hype surrounding fifth-generation (5G) wireless is a quiet but growing consensus: the technology is being over-hyped, and early incarnations were rushed to market in a way that prioritized marketing over substance. That's not to say that 5G won't be a good thing when it arrives at scale several years from now, but early offerings have been almost comical in their shortcomings. AT&T has repeatedly lied about 5G availability by pretending its 4G network is 5G. Verizon has repeatedly hyped early non-standard launches that, when reviewers actually got to take a look, were found to be barely available.If you looked past press releases you'd notice that Verizon's early launches required the use of $200 battery add on mod because we still haven't really figured out the battery drain issues presented by 5G's power demands. You'd also notice the growing awareness that the long-hyped millimeter wave spectrum being used for many deployments have notable distance and line of sight issues, meaning that rural and much of suburban America will not likely see the speeds you'll frequently see bandied about in marketing issues, and many of the same coverage gap issues you see with current-gen broadband are likely to persist.If you looked past the headlines you'd probably noticed that even Wall Street was concerned that 5G was being over-hyped and wasn't yet ready for prime time. Those concerns continue to be expressed largely in industry trade magazines, where you'll often find stock jocks noting that most of the purported promises of 5G remain well over the horizon:

I thought this was America, but whatever. Secrecy in all things government, despite the (often misheld) presumption that our public servants will be open and honest about issues that affect us.It's no secret voting systems and databases are not secure. These are problems that date back 15 years, but have shown little improvement since. Election interference is just another tool in the nation-state hacking kit, and the US is far from immune from these attacks.Federal agencies investigating election interference are at least speaking to officials in states affected by these efforts. But those officials are apparently not allowed to pass on this information to those affected the most: voters.

UPDATE: Alex Howard reports the DC Council has tabled this amendment so it is no longer being considered during this round of budget debates.Buried at the bottom of Washington, D.C.'s 2020 budget report [PDF] is a gift to legislators who value opacity. The so-called "Freedom of Information Clarification Amendment" would make it much more difficult for requesters to obtain the documents they're seeking.The amendment to the district's FOIA law would require requesters to know exactly what documents they're seeking when they request them. It's a nearly-impossible bar to hurdle -- one that turns FOIA requests into games of Battleship.

Buried at the bottom of Washington, D.C.'s 2020 budget report [PDF] is a gift to legislators who value opacity. The so-called "Freedom of Information Clarification Amendment" would make it much more difficult for requesters to obtain the documents they're seeking.The amendment to the district's FOIA law would require requesters to know exactly what documents they're seeking when they request them. It's a nearly-impossible bar to hurdle -- one that turns FOIA requests into games of Battleship.

Sex-trafficking victims in California are suing Salesforce, claiming the company helped the now-defunct website Backpage, a classified ads website, in enabling prostitution. Whatever your view on the harm to the plaintiffs, this suit could hurt American innovation. By holding Salesforce accountable for the actions of its customer, the suit opens the door for other innovators to be held responsible when users post illegal content – a dangerous precedent in today’s internet era.The question of who is responsible for online content is a difficult issue. Intermediary liability protection is the common-sense idea that internet platforms are not responsible for content posted by users. Enshrined in Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, this law allowed American companies to be the innovators of the internet. In fact, the internet as we know it functions because of Section 230. Without Section 230, any site hosting user-generated content would have to screen every submission to avoid lawsuits.On a practical basis, doing this in real time would be impossible due to the sheer amount of content created: Twitter alone hosts 350,000 tweets per minute; 200 billion tweets per year. Similarly, YouTube would be liable for any of the content its 1.9 billion monthly users might upload. If any single user post could lead to legal action against the social media platform, that platform would shut down.Today's internet experience would be virtually impossible.And so Section 230, the cornerstone of today’s innovative internet, was considered inviolable – until 2018, when Congress was approached by groups representing victims of sex trafficking (and quietly backed by Hollywood studios, the hotel industry and others who saw the chance to weaken online competitors that were taking their customers and disrupting their businesses). While some groups advocating for sex-trafficking victims opposed it, many of these proponents pushed FOSTA/SESTA into law, which allows trial lawyers to sue social media sites that “facilitate” sex trafficking – and, although undoubtedly well-intentioned, the bill takes aim at Section 230.Though (oddly), the Salesforce lawsuit doesn't invoke FOSTA/SESTA, the law's hastily written language was so broad and vague it could potentially impose liability to any website with a comments section. And immediately, internet services began pulling down popular forums featuring consumer-generated content. Other websites eliminated sections or imposed broad filters. Congress made the internet experience less rich for users and more difficult for entrepreneurs, all while doing very little to protect actual victims of sex trafficking.For all the damage done to free speech online, FOSTA/SESTA has had little upside. Backpage was seized by the FBI before the bill was signed into law, proving that FOSTA/SESTA was not necessary to take down wrongdoers. More, FOSTA/SESTA forced sex traffickers underground, making it harder for authorities to identify and rescue victims.Fortunately, our nation knows how to choose freedom over fear and innovation over regulation. Consider the successful SOPA/PIPA protests of 2012, which pushed back against overbroad copyright laws that would have crushed the burgeoning digital economy. Thanks to the protests, websites with user-generated content continue to flourish today.Section 230 is the legal foundation of the internet – not a shield for criminal liability. But it remains an important protection to encourage entrepreneurs and innovators to start internet businesses. We can't allow misguided rulemaking and ruinous litigation to discourage that. We must keep the internet open for innovation.Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the U.S.trade association representing more than 2,200 consumer technology companies, and a NewYork Times best-selling author. He is the author of the new book, Ninja Future: Secrets toSuccess in the New World of Innovation. His views are his own.

For years we've noted how as a product of the cable and broadcast industry, Hulu spent many years going out of its way to avoid being truly disruptive. Past owners 21st Century Fox, AT&T, Disney and Comcast/NBC spent a lot of time ensuring the service wasn't too interesting -- lest it cannibalize the company's legacy cable TV cash cow. As a result, Hulu spent a good chunk of the last decade stuck in a sort of existential purgatory, with a rotating crop of execs trying to skirt the line between giving consumers what they actually want, and being a glorified ad for traditional cable television.As cable and broadcast executives slowly realized that cord cutting was a threat that wasn't going away, things began to shift. More recently, owners like 21st Century Fox and AT&T have headed to the exits to focus on their own streaming efforts. That exodus continued this week with Comcast announcing it would be giving up full operational control of Hulu to Disney effective immediately.You might recall that Comcast was banned from meddling in Hulu management as a condition of its 2011 merger with NBC/Universal, with regulators worried that the company would attempt to undermine Hulu to protect its traditional cable TV revenues. Comcast being Comcast, the company largely ignored those conditions, one of several reasons regulators balked at its attempted acquisition of Time Warner Cable years later.Under the terms of this new deal, Comcast has the option of selling its entire stake to Disney by 2024:

Back in December, we wrote about how Rep. Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which is in charge of any copyright reform proposals, was hosting a party for music industry lobbyists at the Grammy's this year (along with Chair of the Democratic Caucus, Hakeem Jeffries). To party with Nadler and Jeffries at the Grammys -- the recording industry's biggest event of the year -- you "only" had to pay $5,000 per ticket. A bargain.Whether or not you believe this is outright corruption, it certainly meets Larry Lessig's definition of "soft corruption." That is activity that may be perfectly legal, but to the vast majority of the public certainly feels corrupt, and raises questions about who's influencing our elected officials. Nadler, of course, has long been deeply in the bag for the recording industry. Years back, he pushed a bill that was little more than a bailout for the RIAA, and he's attacked the idea that if people buy something, they then own it as "an extreme digital view."But it appears that the more mainstream media is beginning to notice Nadler's conflicts. His hometown NY Daily News has a whole article that talks about Nadler's money grab at the Grammys as well as much, much more.

In sad but unsurprising news, Canada is no better than the US when it comes to ignoring its citizens' rights at the border. The Canada Border Security Agency (CBSA) has also been given the green light to perform invasive, warrantless searches of people's devices at the border. And, like its US counterpart, it seems to be using this power frequently.

Between our smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, and the like, we tote around a wide variety of gadgets on the daily. And, keeping them all energized is next to impossible, unless you're willing to lug a tangled mass of chargers wherever you go. Enter SCOUT Portable Charger. Sporting a built-in wall charger, built-in cables, quick-charging USB port, and intelligent charging technology, SCOUT is hands-down a good way to juice up your entire tech collection. It even supports Qi-compatible devices. It is on sale for $40.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

The American Law Institute, among other things, publishes various "Restatements" of law, which it describes as follows:

Despite endless government initiatives and countless promises from the telecom sector, our national robocall hell continues. Robocalls from telemarketers continue to be the subject the FCC receives the most complaints about (200,000 complaints annually, making up 60% of all FCC complaints), and recent data from the Robocall Index indicates that the problem is only getting worse. Consumers continue to be hammered by mortgage interest rate scams, credit card scams, student loan scams, business loan scams, and IRS scams. 4.9 billion such calls were placed in April alone.There's plenty of blame to go around when it comes to fixing the problem. The FCC, now little more than a rubber stamp for industry under Ajit Pai, has been lax in holding carrier feet to the fire. Carriers in turn have blamed everyone but themselves for their own lax response. Similarly, many carriers have been slow to offer customers free robocall blocking tech, and even slower in adopting call authentication technology (like SHAKEN/STIR), which would go a long way toward hampering the call spoofing at the heart of the problem. This John Oliver segment is worth a watch:Enter FCC boss Ajit Pai, who has been increasingly under fire for not doing more to expedite solutions to our great, national robocall apocalypse. This week Pai proclaimed that he has "demanded" that carriers finally adopt call authentication technology this year, something that isn't much of a "demand" since most carriers have said they'd already planned to deploy the technology this year. His other solution popping up this week is being framed by media outlets fairly inaccurately as well. For example. Pai is allowed to insist via Reuters that carriers haven't deployed automatic call blocking technology because they didn't think the FCC would allow it:

Axon -- formerly Taser -- is betting big on police body cameras. It doesn't care much about the hardware. That's the just the foot in the door. The real money is subscription and storage fees. These contracts are worth far more than the hardware, which Axon is willing to give away to secure a far more profitable revenue stream.Axon not only charges for storage of recorded footage but also for access. It provides a front end for law enforcement agencies to search uploaded footage. It also makes defense lawyers do the same thing -- putting itself (and a lot of contractual language) between accused criminals and the evidence they're legally entitled to have.Emails obtained via a public records request show Axon plays hardball with municipalities who decide they'd rather use a different vendor. When a California city decided to take its business elsewhere after four years with Axon, its representatives responded by threatening to trash the city's credit rating. Beryl Lipton has the details for public records request powerhouse MuckRock.

Since 2016, when the Chicago Cubs became magically relevant in baseball again, the team has also become relevant in intellectual property discussions. The Cubs have gone to war with the street vendors that have long set up shop near Clark and Addison, and the team has been party to an ongoing battle with roughly all the uses of the letter "W" in commerce.But as the team's lawyers appear to have been invigorated by its on the field success, that isn't to say that every single trademark dispute it initiates is one in which it's the bad guy. For instance, one Iowa man decided to trademark the term "Cubnoxious", but apparently didn't have any actual plans to use it when the Cubs came calling.

Last week we wrote about how annoying it was that major media publications were misrepresenting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and suggesting -- completely without merit -- that the law was designed to keep platforms "neutral" or that they were mere "pass through" vehicles, rather than actively engaged in moderation. We pointed out that online trolls and grandstanding politicians were making this incorrect claim, but it was not an accurate statement of the law, and the media should know better. In our comments, some people called me out for not suggesting that the media was being deliberately dishonest, and in response I noted that there wasn't any evidence of deliberateness from most of them (not so much with the trolls and especially grandstanding politicians like Ted Cruz, who have been told, repeatedly, that they are misrepresenting CDA 230). I hoped that it was just a mistake that would be corrected.Perhaps surprisingly, the author of the Vox article that I called out, Jane Coaston, did exactly that. After a few others called out her article, including Harvard's Jonathan Zittrain, Coaston has now apologized and done a massive rewrite on the original article to make it more accurate:

For years we've noted repeatedly how in the modern era you no longer truly own the things you buy. From game consoles that magically lose important functionality post purchase, to digital purchases that just up and disappear, we now live in an era where a quick firmware update can erode functionality and overlong EULAs can strip away all of your rights in an instant, leaving you with a hole in your pocket and a glorified paperweight.The latest case in point: Adobe this week began warning users of its Creative Cloud software applications that they are no longer authorized to use older versions of the company's software platforms (Lightroom Classic, Photoshop, Premiere, Animate, and Media Director). In the letter, Adobe rather cryptically implied that users could risk copyright infringement claims by mysterious third parties if they continued using older versions of these platforms and refused to update them. End users, not surprisingly, were equal parts confused and annoyed:

Bloomberg has really been on a roll lately with getting security stories hellishly wrong. Last fall it was its big story claiming that there was a supply chain hack that resulted in hacked SupermMicro chips being used by Amazon and Apple. That story has been almost entirely debunked, though Bloomberg still has not retracted the original. Then, just a few weeks ago, it flubbed another story, claiming that the presence (years ago) of telnet in some Huawei equipment was a nefarious backdoor, rather than a now obsolete but previously fairly common setup for lots of equipment for remote diagnostics and access.The latest is an opinion piece, rather than reporting, but it's still really bad. Following yesterday's big revelation that a big security vulnerability was discovered in WhatsApp, opinion columnist Leonid Bersidsky declared it as evidence that end-to-end encryption is pointless. This is, to put it mildly, a really, really bad take. The whole article is a confused jumble of mostly nonsense, mixed with stuff that was already widely known and irrelevant:

If your face can be found online, chances are it's now part of a facial recognition database. These aren't the ones being utilized by law enforcement, although those are bad enough. The ones used by law enforcement are littered with millions of noncriminals, all part of a system that works worse than advertised 100% of the time.The faces aren't in those databases (yet!), but they're being used to train facial recognition AI with an eye on selling it to law enforcement and other government agencies. Another photo storage company has been caught using users' photos to fine tune facial recognition software… all without obtaining consent from those whose faces became fodder for the tech mill.

Take a deep dive into Machine Learning and Data Analysis across 8 courses and 48 hours of content for only $35. The Machine Learning and Data Science Certification Training Bundle will introduce you to Python, TensorFlow, Keras, and R data science. You'll explore deep neural networks (DNN), convolution neural networks (CNN)and recurrent neural networks (RNN), harness the power of Anaconda/iPython for practical data science, Create data visualizations like histograms, boxplots, scatterplots, barplots, pie/line charts, and more.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.

Last week we wrote about Facebook co-founder Chris Huges' long, but remarkably uncompelling argument for why Facebook should be broken up. The post itself was quite long, but could be summed up in that Hughes listed out a variety of problems he attributed to Facebook, and then suggested breaking the company up and regulating speech on the internet in response. However, some of the problems he attributed to Facebook are not, in fact, because of Facebook, and he made no effort to show how his proposed solutions would actually solve any of those problems (indeed, there are arguments it might make some of them worse).Dare Obasanjo tweeted a quite insightful tweet in response to Hughes' piece, noting that a lot of Hughes' (and others') concerns about Facebook can be traced back to the fact that Donald Trump won the election, and a lot of people believe that Facebook helped create that result:

Wireless carriers are coming under increasing fire for failing to protect their users from the practice of SIM hijacking (aka a port scam). The practice involves posing as a wireless customer, then fooling a wireless carrier to port the victim's cell phone number right out from underneath them, letting the attacker then pose as the customer to potentially devastating effect. Last year, a customer sued T-Mobile for failing to protect his account after a hacker pretending to be him ported out his phone number then stole thousands of dollars worth of cryptocoins.Subsequent reports have shown how identity thieves use SIM hijacking to do everything from cleaning out bank accounts, to stealing valuable Instagram usernames and selling them for Bitcoin. Reports often showed how these scams were being helped with the willful help of some cellular carrier employees, something wireless carriers haven't (understandably) been particularly keen on talking about.That was confirmed again last week when the DOJ accused nine people of allegedly being part of a crime ring known as “The Community.” The organizations' specialty was SIM hijacking, which involved having three former employees at AT&T and Verizon steal user identities (and subsequently several million dollars):

The regulatory nightmare known as GDPR continues to wreak havoc. The data privacy law enacted by the European Union has possibly helped protect the data of Europeans, but the thick cloud of smoke rising from the collateral damage makes it impossible to say for sure.Regulating the internet isn't as simple as the EU Parliament thought it would be. The first reaction many US sites had to the new law was to block every user appearing to originate from a covered country. The EU Parliament couldn't even comply with GDPR properly. Its own website didn't anonymize incoming users correctly, allowing the Parliament's site to hoover up IP addresses to send through to Google Analytics. The EU Commission responded to this gaffe by exempting itself from the law.Meanwhile, European citizens were experiencing the downsides of mandated data export. The law requires all user data collected by tech companies to be available on demand to European internet users. In theory, a wonderful idea. In practice, it means if someone hacks one of your accounts, they can start requesting your data as well. Even without being hacked, your personal data can be sent to someone else because tech companies are just as prone to clerical errors as anyone else.This latest incident is more of the same. Another debacle powered by GDPR. This time, the problem created wasn't composed of 1s and 0s. This time the side effects could be felt physically.

To take you back through the entire history since Suburban Express made it onto the Techdirt radar would take more words than I care to spend, but we'll do the short version. Suburban Express runs van lines between Chicago and a couple of local universities. It also, somewhat oddly, regularly goes to war with its own customers, as well as the wider internet. The internet side is mostly well-worn assholery: bitching about review sites, bitching about Reddit, and threatening everyone in between with legal actions. Where the company blazes new trails is when owner Dennis Toeppen gets arrested for harassing critics and customers online, sends out blatantly racist advertisements, and gets itself sued by the Illinois AG for roughly all of the above.This whole saga of stupid has featured guest spots like government employees, law enforcement officers, and even Ken "Popehat" White. But, as all such sagas go, it had to eventually come to an end. And that end comes in the glorious form of Suburban Express shutting down.

On Friday, Mark Zuckerberg went to France, just in time for the French government to release a vague and broad proposal to regulate social media networks. Similar to Zuckerberg's pleas to Congress to ramp up its regulation of the company (and because he knows that any pushback on regulations will likely be slammed by the world of Facebook-haters), Zuckerberg tried to embrace the plans.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled (mostly as expected, though with some caveats) in Apple v. Pepper, a case concerning whether or not iPhone users could sue Apple for antitrust concerning how it controls pricing in the iOS App Store. Most of the news on this focuses either on how this could have a big impact on Apple and other marketplaces, or on how this case (somewhat oddly) split between the two Justices appointed by President Trump, with Justice Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) and the dissent written by Justice Gorsuch (joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas and Alito).It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but my first impression is that this case may not prove to be that big of a deal long term. It is not saying anything, really, concerning whether or not Apple's practices are an antitrust violation. It is merely letting a case go forward. And, to some extent, I think that Justice Gorsuch may be correct that all that this case will end up doing in the long run is getting Apple and other platforms to change their contracts in terms of how the money flow officially goes.The key in this case is that Apple sought to have the antitrust case tossed, saying that iPhone owners were not the "direct purchasers" from Apple, and thus had no standing to sue. An earlier case, Illinois Brick v. Illinois, said that only direct purchasers could sue for antitrust violations, rather than those further down the supply chain. Here, the majority said that Illinois Brick doesn't exclude iPhone users, because they did, in fact, make the purchase from Apple, and thus were "direct purchasers."

It seems like only yesterday that the TV sector was busy insisting that TV cord cutting was a "fiction." Once that claim was proven hollow by the data, plenty of industry folks shifted toward claiming that the trend was being over-hyped and only temporary. Many claimed the trend would reverse itself once the housing markets stabilized (didn't happen) or Millennials started to procreate (didn't happen). Often, angry users who cut the cord (usually due to high prices or terrible customer service) were brushed side by executives and analysts as being irrelevant nobodies.And while many in the TV sector now like to insist they saw the problem coming all along, it's genuinely embarrassing how many industry execs tried to wish the rise of additional competition away, believing that if they stuck their head deeply enough in terra firma, this major industry trend would just somehow go away.It's not going away. With 2019's first quarter earnings in the books, data indicates that cord cutting continues to heat up, with another 1.28 million American consumers ditching traditional cable TV in the first quarter alone.American cable giants like Comcast and Charter Spectrum were hard hit, but not quite as badly as satellite TV providers, who are losing customers in droves:

If someone at your police department has leaked a sensitive documents, how should you respond?

StackSkills Unlimited is an online learning platform for mastering today's most in-demand skills. Now, with this exclusive limited-time offer, you'll gain access to 1,000+ StackSkills courses for life! Whether you're looking to earn a promotion, make a career change, or pick up a side hustle to make some extra cash, StackSkills delivers engaging online courses featuring the skills that matter most today like beginner to advanced courses in IT, development, graphic design, finance, business, marketing, and much more. Best of all, StackSkills' instructors are experts in their fields and are passionate about sharing learnings based on first-hand successes and failures. It's on sale for $59.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.

What is it with plastic surgeons suing their former customers over negative reviews? We've written stories with that basic plotline over and over and over again. The latest involves Miami-based plastic surgeon Dr. Leonard Hochstein, who the article lets us know, has appeared on "The Real Housewives of Miami." Except, now he's getting attention for suing two of his former clients who left negative reviews online. Even though there's now a law, the Consumer Review Fairness Act, that bars anyone from forcing customers to sign a non-disparagement clause, Hochstein did so anyway. He insists he only recently became aware of that law. But he won't stop suing those customers.His quotes are truly a work of art.

We've noted repeatedly that if you're upset about Facebook's privacy scandals, you should be equally concerned about the wireless industry's ongoing location data scandals. Not only were the major carriers caught selling your location data to any nitwit with a checkbook, they were even found to be selling your E-911 location data, which provides even more granular detail about your data than GPS provides. This data was then found to have been widely abused from everybody from law enforcement to randos pretending to be law enforcement.Throughout all this, the Ajit Pai FCC has done absolutely nothing to seriously police the problem. Meaning that while carriers have promised to stop collecting and selling this data, nobody has bothered to force carriers to actually confirm this. Given telecom's history when it comes to consumer privacy, somebody might just want to double check their math (and ask what happened to all that data already collected and sold over the last decade).Compounding carrier problems, all four major wireless carriers last week were hit with a class action lawsuit (correctly) noting the carriers had violated Section 222 of the Federal Communications Act by selling consumer proprietary network information (CPNI) data:

Because our government enjoys punishing people far more than it enjoys accountability, the DOJ is prosecuting another whistleblower. A former language analyst for the Air Force and NSA has been charged with espionage for leaking documents detailing the government's drone assassination program to The Intercept.31-year-old David Hale is the whistleblower at the center of the DOJ's latest prosecution. This now puts the Trump Administration at the top of the list for most journalist sources prosecuted for espionage, according to the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Thad with a thought about the YouTube ContentID fail that took down Beat Saber videos after the game was featured on Jimmy Fallon:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2014, the push for one of two NSA reform bills went somewhat sour as the better bill was watered down so much it got the support of NSA apologists and passed out of the House Judiciary Committee. Meanwhile, the new NSA boss was making extreme understatements about the agency's situation while the former boss (who was also setting up a cybersecurity consulting firm) was defending everything he did. In the UK, at least, parliament finally admitted Snowden's revelations revealed that oversight of the GCHQ was broken.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2009, anti-Google hysteria reached a fever pitch with comparisons to the Taliban, a grandstanding attorney general was threatening Craigslist's management with criminal charges, and pharma giant Merck was caught having created a fake science journal to praise its products. Some folks were making wild estimates about an unknowable number to support their copyright agenda, claiming the leak of the Wolverine film cost millions at the box office, the RIAA was demonstrating the meaninglessness of its recent promises by continuing to file lawsuits, and we saw the formation of a famous copyright nonsense triangle when Cat Stevens stepped in to say Coldplay copied him, not Joe Satriani. We also took a look at all the ways Italy had been demonstrating a very troubling view of the internet.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2004, while lots of people were grappling with the unresolved legal implications of WiFi, one smart commentator was cluing in to the fact that camera phones provided the public a way to fight back against surveillance by watching the watchers and filming things like, say, police misdeeds. The mess that was (and is) the patent system was getting some mainstream media attention, as was the ongoing failure of record labels to adapt to the internet (them being too busy suing a grandmother who decided to fight back). The Google IPO had everyone excited about the company (enough to start gobbling up every domain name with "Google" in it), while a meaningless but amusing clerical error led to Microsoft patenting a new breed of apple.

For many, many years now we've been talking about why Congress needs to bring back the Office of Technology Assessment that existed from 1972 until 1995 when Newt Gingrich defunded it as part of his "Contract with America" which apparently (who knew?) included making Congress more ignorant and less informed about technology. Year after year, some in Congress have proposed bringing back the OTA, but it keeps getting voted down. Just recently, we had two Congressional Representatives -- Rep. Mark Takano and Rep. Sean Casten -- write a piece here at Techdirt arguing why we need to bring back the OTA.And it might actually be happening. While Gingrich defunded the OTA in 1995, the law creating it is still on the books. Congress doesn't need to pass any new law to bring it back, it just needs to fund it again. And, perhaps surprisingly, the House put forth an appropriations bill that includes $6 million towards reviving the OTA.Earlier today, a very broad coalition of organizations and individuals (including our sister organization, The Copia Institute) sent a letter to the Senate urging it to support this small level of funding to better educate themselves on technology and technology policy issues. This is not a partisan issue in the slightest (as should be obvious from the coalition of signatories on the letter). This is an issue about spending a very small amount of money to make sure that our legislators actually know what the fuck they're talking about when they're trying to understand and regulate around technology issues.

A few years ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration brought down the heat on itself by teaming with local law enforcement to set up roadside blood/saliva draws. The plan was to compile data on impaired driving, but the "voluntary" sample stations were staffed by cops who flagged motorists down, leading many to believe this was just another DUI checkpoint.Now that the NHTSA is out of the picture, local law enforcement is taking care of this itself. Only it very definitely is mandatory and any data-gathering would be incidental to the real purpose of these checkpoints: arresting impaired drivers. It's 2019 in America and we can only now proudly say we're the Home of the Roadside Blood Draw.

While copyright trolling has continued to be a scourge across many countries, America included, there have finally been signs of the courts beginning to push back against them. One of the more nefarious trolls, Strike 3 Holdings, masquerades as a pornography company while it actually does the far dirtier work of bilking internet service account holders based on non-evidence. Armed typically with nothing more than IP addresses, the whole trolling enterprise relies on using those IP addresses to have ISPs unmask their own customers, under the theory that those customers are the most likely infringers of Strike 3 content. The courts have finally begun catching on to how faulty the very premise is, with more than one judge pushing back on IP addresses even being actual evidence.It's a list that continues to grow, with one Judge in Florida apparently taking issue with the use of IP addresses entirely.

Update: Paul Levy has now put up his own blog post about the case, with many more details. It is worth reading.We've written a few times now about copyright troll Higbee and Associates, which has a long track record of sending highly questionable (to outright bullshit) copyright demands to various people on the internet. Many of the demands are absurd. Frequently the images don't have a registered copyright. Sometimes, it's not even clear if the "client" holds any copyright at all. The demand letters usually come with misleading and threatening language -- often demanding way more than any license would ever bring in.Public Citizen's Paul Levy has been tracking Higbee for quite some time now, and representing a few people who have been hit by Higbee letters. And now he (along with Stanford's law clinic) are taking Higbee to court for declaratory judgment of non-infringement on yet another bogus and exaggerated Higbee threat. The background is quite interesting. Kevin Schlossberg runs a forum website about knives called Blade Forums. Way back in 2007, a user of Blade Forums wrote about the use of wood burls for knife handles -- and in the process deeplinked a photograph taken by Quang-Tuan Luong, and posted on Luong's own website, Terra Galleria.Schlossberg did not host the image. Schlossberg actually had no idea about the deeplinked image at all until Higbee showed up demanding $2,500. In response, he did change the hotlinked image into just a URL, but Higbee still demanded $2,500. Schlossberg did a bit of internet sleuthing and pointed out that this clearly wasn't infringement since he wasn't hosting the image, and pointed to the various Perfect 10 cases. In response, Higbee doubled down, and insisted that the Perfect 10 rulings had been narrowed recently (they have not), that fair use doesn't matter, and that since Schlossberg had only just registered a DMCA agent, that he was not at all protected by the DMCA's safe harbors.At this point, Paul Levy stepped in and wrote one of his standard letters to Higbee detailing how almost everything that Higbee's staff was claiming was wrong. As per usual, it's worth reading the entire letter (which is at the end of the filing as the final exhibit), but here's a snippet:

Early this March, documents obtained by NBC San Diego showed the DHS was targeting journalists. activists, and immigration lawyers for enhanced screenings and device searches by the CBP. The previously-secret database held dossiers on people suspected of doing nothing more than participating in Constitutionally-protected activity.The DHS provided no explanation for this collection of dossiers. The CBP attempted to explain its participation in rights violations by first claiming it was necessary to secure the border. Then it said every one of the 59 journalists, lawyers, and activists in the leaked documents were "present" during "violence" that "broke out at the border" last November. That these people would be present at such an event is unsurprising, given the amount of attention being paid to our southern border and immigration in recent months. That the CPB would decide this justifies dossiers, enhanced screenings, and invasive device searches is a bit more disturbing, as it has the potential to negatively affect a number of Constitutional rights.The Center for Democracy and Technology -- along with dozens of humans rights activists and journalist entities -- have sent a letter to the head of the DHS, demanding this surveillance stop immediately and that an investigation be opened to determine this effort's origins, as well as its extent. It also demands DHS and CBP hand over all policies, guidelines, and documents detailing what information the agencies collected during this possibly-unlawful surveillance.But there's more to the letter than demands and expressed concerns. CDT's letter also recounts further details that have come to light over the past couple of months, including ICE joining the unconstitutional party to engage in immigration and customs enforcement by… surveilling political protests?

The Microsoft Network and Security Fundamentals Certification Bundle has two courses to help you study and prepare for Microsoft Networking Certification Exams. The first course covers all 3 domain objectives of the MTA 98-366 certification exam. The second course prepares you for the MTA 98-367 certification exam. The bundle is on sale for $15.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.

For a few years now we've been covering an absolutely ridiculous copyright lawsuit against Conan O'Brien claiming he and his staff had "stolen" jokes from some guy making silly one-liners on Twitter. As we noted at the time, most of the jokes at issue in the trial were topic jokes that likely lots of people might come up with. Here's one example of one of the key jokes in the case:

We've talked often about how the nation's phone companies, now fixated on video and online advertising, have effectively just been letting their DSL and phone networks fall apart while still charging exorbitant rates. Not only did these companies take billions in taxpayer dollars to build these older copper-based networks, they took billions more in subsidies for fiber upgrades they never fully deployed. Yet increasingly we've watched as they've refused to upgrade or even repair their networks across countless states, leaving customers trapped with expensive service that often doesn't even meet the FCC's standard definition of broadband (25 Mbps).This problem has often been exemplified by Frontier Communications in West Virginia, where local Charleston Gazette reporter Eric Eyre has quietly done an amazing job the last few years chronicling the state's immense corruption and dysfunction, from the state's use of broadband stimulus subsidies on unused, overpowered routers and overpaid, redundant consultants, to state leaders' attempts to bury reports supporting allegations that Frontier engaged in systemic, statewide fraud on the taxpayer dime.Though not quite as profound, similar problems have plagued Frontier's operations in the state of Minnesota. The Minnesota Attorney General's office has been investigating whether Frontier violated state consumer-protection laws for a while now, and not long ago issued a 133 page report (pdf) detailing how terrible the company is at maintaining and repairing its network despite endless taxpayer subsidies. The report clearly illustrated a pattern of the company letting outages go on for months at a time, often putting paying customers at risk:

One of the biggest wins for the general public in recent years was when the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), the region's highest court, ruled in 2014 that the 2006 Data Retention Directive was "invalid". That naturally didn't go down too well with many of the governments in the EU, who were keen to keep it for surveillance of their populations. Almost immediately, the European Commission began to "examine the best options for the way forward as regards the retention of telecommunications data", as Erich Möchel reported in 2015. More recently, Statewatch published a draft of an internal document from the Council of the EU (pdf), outlining the EU's plans to re-instate obligatory data retention, while an updated version was obtained and released by ORF.at (pdf). The differences between the two versions give a hint of how the EU might try to play this. The earlier one says:

Apple, the company, has long made it known that it believes that only it can use an apple, the fruit, in a corporate logo. This rather incorrect belief has led the company down some rather silly trademark roads, including disputes with all kinds of companies in unrelated industries, as well as disputes with some political parties for some reason. It's all been delightfully insane and all led by Apple's insistence that it has trademark rights that are far more broad than is the reality.But just when you think it can't get more absurd, Apple goes ahead and files an opposition and sends out cease and desist notices...over a German bicycle path. I fear some explanation may be necessary.

Via the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals comes a depressing tale about how cheap life is in jail, even for those who haven't been convicted of a crime.It starts with a family argument. Jose Luis Garza was intoxicated and arguing with his brother. His mother expressed her fear for his safety to the Donna police officers she had called, stating she "feared for his life" and was "afraid he would hurt himself." The officers provided the only assistance they knew how to give: they arrested Garza, charging him with "assault by threat."Garza was taken to the PD's holding facility -- not a prison or jail but somewhere for cops to stash arrestees until they were moved to an actual prison/jail. Garza was placed in a cell with a camera, but soon after being put there, he blocked the camera. The person monitoring the cameras did not notice it had been blocked. This DPD employee claimed watching the cameras wasn't her job once the jailers started their shifts.The jailers started their shift at 8 a.m. They were required to check on detainees every hour. These officers -- Esteban Garza and Nathan Coronado -- may or may not have heard Jose Garza banging on his cell door to get their attention. The record simply doesn't show. The jail log shows a cell check was performed at 8:10 a.m., but there's reason to doubt this check was ever performed. More on that in a bit.When the jailers arrived, they began the important work of… making posters. From the decision [PDF]:

Lots of folks are talking about a new opinion piece in the New York Times by Chris Hughes, one of the small group of college buddies of Mark Zuckerberg who are often called "co-founders" of the company. Hughes left pretty early, and has dabbled (unsuccessfully) in politics and (unsuccessfully) in media. The key point of the opinion piece is obvious from the title: It's Time to Break Up Facebook.It is absolutely worth reading and thinking about. It's also does not make a very compelling argument. It does seem to have people who already think Facebook should be broken up declaring that it's a compelling argument, but that's because it's confirming their prior feelings, not because of anything in the article. To be clear: I'm actually on the fence about the idea of breaking up Facebook. I've previously discussed why I think Elizabeth Warren's plans to break up all of the big internet companies don't make sense, but as a short version, my main issue is that I'm not sure any of these plans actually solve the problems people think they will solve (for a debate on this, listen to my podcast with Cory Doctorow where he and I disagreed over this point).Facebook's value comes from the fact that it's a global service in which everyone can reach everyone. So, you couldn't break up "Facebook" in a way that separates the company into, say, geographic regions or that limits the overall reach of the company. Instead, most of the focus is on splitting off some of its big acquisitions, mainly Instagram and Whatsapp, to create "competing" social media and messaging platforms. Again, I'm not totally against this idea -- it's the cleanest possible setup and at the very least would create some greater competition -- but I'm not convinced that it actually solves any of the "problems" people are really concerned about, such as the company's sucking up lots of data on everyone and (sometimes) exposing some of that data to those who shouldn't have it. It is possible that a broken up Facebook faces more competitive pressure to be a better actor in the space, but I'm not really sure how true that is. For all the claims of people being concerned about privacy, their own actions don't show that in practice. If people were truly concerned about these issues, we'd see more movement to other kinds of platforms, but we haven't yet seen that.So, I'm not convinced that cleaving off Instagram and Whatsapp would necessarily be bad, but I'm equally confused as to how it would actually help deal with any of the concerns people normally raise.That's my bias. Now, let's dig into Hughes' piece.

Fear sells.Fear has always sold. It has sold wars to the public, both real and imagined. It has propelled the endless funding of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. It has sold the killing of unarmed citizens by police officers to courts. It has sold the diminishment of our Constitutional rights, most notably at our borders. It has sold surveillance creep -- the steady encroachment of cameras in public areas, increasingly coupled with tech that makes anonymity a historical relic.It has sold newspapers and brought eyeballs to newscasts. As the public has shifted its news consumption to the web, the fear salesmen have followed, ensuring what bleeds still leads, even online.The public still buys it, even when the facts don't back up the narrative. A decade of historically low crime levels has made little dent in the public perception that we live in a country overrun by drug cartels, sex traffickers, and assorted lowlifes hellbent on separating us from our possessions and lives.All of this information is a Google search away, but it's ignored in favor of what still brings viewers to websites and funding to government agencies. This would all be sad enough if it weren't for a new wave of tech companies behaving like newspapers riding the fine line between information and sensationalism.Rani Molla's report for Vox about the rise of snitch apps and the use of "neighborhood" platforms to encourage racial stereotyping under the guise of "safety" is a depressing read. But it's a worth a read nonetheless. People apparently love to be afraid, and there's a long list of tech companies willing to indulge this urge.

GlassWire Elite is an all-encompassing safety solution, monitoring your network completely, tracking host change, erecting a secure firewall, and displaying everything visually so you have ultimate control. It'll even track the network activity occurring while you're away, so you can always be in the know of just what your computer has been doing. You can get a 3 year subscription for only $30.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.