Techdirt

We've long noted how community broadband networks are often an organic response to the expensive, slow, or just-plain unavailable service that's the direct product of a broken telecom market and regulatory capture. While you'll occasionally see some deployment duds if the business models aren't well crafted, studies have shown such local networks (there are 750 and counting now in the States) offer cheaper, faster service than many incumbents. Chattanooga's EPB, for example, was rated the best ISP in America last year by Consumer Reports.This direct grass roots threat to incumbent revenues is a major reason why ISP lobbyists have passed protectionist laws in around 20 states trying to block your town's ability to even consider the option. It's why industry cozy FCC officials have falsely tried to suggest community broadband is an ominous assault on free speech. And it's why you'll find an endless parade of telecom-linked think tankers, consultants, and lobbyists routinely trying to portray this organic response to market failure as "vile socialism" or an inevitable boondoggle.Enter Bernie Sanders, whose new broadband plan was released last week and appears to have been cobbled together from the collected nightmares of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast executives. The plan would not only restore the FCC's net neutrality authority and the agency's authority over ISPs in general, but it would restore the FCC's broadband privacy rules scuttled in 2017 by telecom lobbyists. It would also ban arbitrary and unnecessary broadband usage caps and overage fees, and ban the sneaky fees ISPs use to covertly jack up the advertised price post sale.But the plan takes some extra time to highlight how a Sanders administration would embrace community broadband, including the elimination of protectionist state laws, and the doling out of $150 billion to be used largely toward building alternatives to the private sector telecom status quo:

Copyright continues to serve its purpose as a tool for censorship, it seems. This week there was some hubbub over Apple's highly questionable decision to send a DMCA takedown notice over a tweet by a security researcher who goes by "Siguza," and who appeared to publish an iPhone encryption key on Twitter:

More nonsense is being perpetrated in Tennessee, the recent home to an inordinate amount of stupid defamation lawsuits. The timing on this one is a bit off. Tennessee just adopted a new anti-SLAPP law -- one that actually has some teeth.After receiving a stinging -- but not apparently defamatory -- review of his services, Dr. Kaveer Nandigam of Nandigam Neurology decided to sue his patient for $25,000. Here's the review (which is still live on Yelp) that prompted the lawsuit:

Project Management Professional (PMP)® is the most important industry-recognized certification for project managers. Whether you are new to Project Management or on your way to completing your 35 hours of study to sit for your PMP Certification Exam, this PMP 6 Training Course will give you the skills you need. This class is delivered on-demand and allows you to spend as much time as you need on each of the subject areas. The delivery of the course is interactive and comes with games, over 1,000 exam prep questions and much more. It's on sale for $79 and if you use the code MERRYSAVE15 at checkout, you'll receive an additional 15% off.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Various health fads come and go. One particular one that I guess has been around for a bit is the idea of drinking "green smoothies." This was made popular by Robyn Openshaw, who is called "The Green Smoothie Girl" and has written a bunch of books, all around her views on approaches to losing weight and health, including the aforementioned green smoothies, and various "detox" plans. There's also something about "vibrations," but that's about as deep into the weeds as I was going to get on her views on staying healthy.I have no opinion on whether or not any of that stuff works or is good for you (do your own research!) but it does appear that the Green Smoothie Girl, Robyn Openshaw, is not at all happy about negative reviews. People who merely posted on Facebook saying that Openshaw's claims were "unproven" among other things, started receiving threatening messages demanding that these mildly negative reviews be taken down or they would face lawsuits:

Unless you're in fairly stark denial, it's clear the Trump Federal Communications Commision has been a rubber stamp for the every fleeting whim of the telecom sector, be it the agency's decision to effectively neuter itself at telecom lobbyist behest, or the attack on net neutrality rules with widespread bipartisan support. But such revolving door regulation has more subtle casualties, as well. The Wall Street Journal this week for example offered up an interesting deep dive into how ISPs successfully pressure the FCC to ignore slower broadband speed test data when analyzing whether ISPs are delivering the speeds they promise:

To add to all the bad news that is Ring camera's life cycle to this point comes the report that a group of malcontents has been exploiting default/weak credentials to gain access to cameras. Joseph Cox has the this-would-be-funny-if-it-weren't-so-scary details at Motherboard.

You may have noticed something of a steady stream of posts from us on the topic of a "Taco Tuesday" trademark held by the chain Taco John's. Taco John's has used this descriptive trademark to bully all kinds of other restaurants into not advertising their own taco Tuesday offerings, while also leaving alone the vast majority of small purveyors of tacos on Tuesdays. The ubiquity of Taco Tuesdays is mostly what has everyone confused as to why Taco John's is acting like Taco Jerks: the term is descriptive and, even if it weren't, fully generic at this point.It was enough to, and I can't believe I'm saying this, get LeBron James involved. You see, just like dragons, LeBron loves tacos. And he likes promoting his own consumption of tacos on Tuesdays and he very much thinks that everyone should be able to use the phrase as they please. To that end, LeBron took to the Trademark office pretending to want to trademark "Taco Tuesday" for himself when he was actually hoping to get denied due to the generic and descriptive nature of the mark... which is exactly what happened. We said then that it was now only a matter of time before someone decided to go on the offensive to take Taco Tuesday back by inviting Taco John's to issue a threat so that this hero group could point to the Trademark Office's denial of LeBron's trademark, with the ultimate goal being invalidating the Taco John's trademark.Well, that has now happened. The Orange County Restaurant Association has gone all in, going so far as to by the tacotuesday.com domain.

A good ruling [PDF] has been issued by a Florida Appeals Court -- one that not only affirms its earlier warrant requirement for Stingray use, but also reminds law enforcement that the good faith exception isn't as expansive as they think it is. (via FourthAmendment.com)In 2018, the same court said the use of cell site simulators required warrants. Unlike collecting cell site location info from third parties (which was fine until the Supreme Court's Carpenter decision), Stingray devices turn the government into the second party, coercing location info from phone users by forcing them to connect to law enforcement's fake cell towers.That decision doesn't bring precedential force to this case, which deals with events that happened six years before the state appeals court's 2018 ruling.

There are very few things in life that former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden and I agree on. For years, he was a leading government champion for trashing the 4th Amendment and conducting widespread surveillance on Americans. He supported the CIA's torture program and (ridiculously) complained that having the US government publicly reckon with that torture program would help terrorists.But, there is one thing that he and I agree on: putting backdoors into encryption is a horrible, dreadful, terrible idea. He surprised many people by first saying this five years ago, and he's repeated it a bunch since then -- including in a recent Bloomberg piece, entitled: Encryption Backdoors Won't Stop Crime But Will Hurt U.S. Tech. In it, he makes two great points. First, backdooring encryption will make Americans much less safe:

The Inspector General's report [PDF] on the FBI's investigation into Russia's connection to the Trump election campaign has been released. In the 480-page report, there's enough to satisfy both sides of the argument. Those who believe the investigation was never politically-driven will have their hunches confirmed. Those that believe there's a concerted Deep State effort targeting Trump will find just enough in it to affirm those beliefs as well.The Inspector General behind the report, Michael Horowitz, has never been afraid of calling bullshit on the numerous agencies he oversees. These agencies, on the other hand, do everything they can to thwart his investigations, so if anything crucial seems to be missing from this report, you can probably blame the FBI.The report clears the FBI of any wrongdoing, at least as far as the "politically-driven" allegations. The IG concluded the FBI did things badly, but did not do them for anti-Trump reasons.That being said, the more disturbing aspects of the report deal with the FISA court and the FBI's casual abuse of its surveillance authorities. Not much is known about the FBI's domestic surveillance efforts -- at least not those authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. While the FBI routinely performs "backdoor" searches of domestic communications harvested by the NSA's foreign-facing surveillance efforts, we have yet to see an actual FISA affidavit from the FBI.The affidavits reviewed by IG Horowitz involved the surveillance of Carter Page, hat-wearer and foreign policy advisor for the Trump campaign. The super-secret process has rarely been this closely examined before. What it shows is the FBI playing fast and loose with its surveillance powers. Here's Charlie Savage's take for the New York Times:

Perhaps one of the more annoying points that people like to make when you point out that certain services are "free" is for them to point out, pedantically, "but you pay with your data" or some other such point. This is annoying because it's (1) obvious and (2) not the point. When people say something is "free" in this context, they don't mean "free of all consequences." They mean "it doesn't cost money." However, it appears that Hungary's Competition Authority is playing this pedantic game on a larger scale and has fined Facebook approximately $4 million because it advertises its services as "Free and anyone can join" on its front page:The Hungarian Competition Authority claimed that this was misleading because Facebook profited from their data:

The Learn Amazon Alexa Development Bundle has 10 courses to help you learn how to get the most out of Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant. You'll learn how to customize Alexa by integrating APIs and AWS, how to use Alexa with both Arduino and Raspberry Pi, how to integrate your Google Actions with the Firebase database, and much more. It's on sale for $25, and use the code MERRYSAVE15 for an additional 15% off.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

At Techdirt we're no strangers to people disagreeing — often, let's say, vehemently — with our views on copyright. But I've still often been surprised by how angry some people get about the simple, factual observation that copying is not theft. We've made the point many times (and it remains true even if you think copyright infringement is a dastardly crime), and a few years ago we put it on a t-shirt and some other products via the print-on-demand platform Teespring, where we sell a bunch of gear. But you won't find the shirt at those links anymore, because last week we received notice from Teespring that it had been taken down... supposedly for copyright infringement.At first, it seemed like this was likely a simple error from an automated system (the takedown notification explained that it was not based on a complaint from a third party) and I suspected we had been caught up in Teespring's response to an unrelated (and amusing) phenomenon that was taking place at the same time: a bunch of artists and others online were aiming to prove that there are bots out there copying artwork from social media and selling it on print-on-demand sites, by spreading funny and extremely-infringing images which did, indeed, show up on several print-on-demand t-shirts soon afterwards.

It seems like only yesterday that AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson was promising on live television that if Trump followed through on his tax cuts, the company would dramatically boost investment, in the process creating thousands of new jobs. Not "entry-level jobs," mind you, but "7,000 jobs of people putting fiber in the ground, hard-hat jobs that make $70,000 to $80,000 per year." Each $1 billion in new investment, AT&T insisted, would result in 7,000 new jobs. "Lower taxes drives more investment, drives more hiring, drives greater wages," Stephenson said.Yeah, about that.Here on planet Earth, AT&T has revealed that the company's slated CAPEX for 2020 will actually be decreasing by about $3 billion next year. The company is also preparing to engage in a new round of significant job cuts as it fights off an ongoing investor revolt triggered by the company's bumbling obsession with merger mania, and a continued exodus of video subscribers caused by relentless price hikes and branding incompetence.It's unclear how many employees will lose their jobs and/or benefits with this latest round of cuts (one of several in just the last few years), but the scale isn't expected to be subtle:

Be careful what you wish for when you demand that internet platforms police the internet for any and all bad stuff. There was a lot of fuss and cringing when this story broke that part of TikTok's content moderation strategies included suppressing videos by disabled, queer, and fat creators.

Earlier this year, after Netflix released an iteration of its Black Mirror series entitled Bandersnatch, which allowed the viewer to choose their own story path through the narrative, the company behind the famed Choose Your Own Adventure books from our childhood sued. Chooseco, armed with a trademark registration for "Choose your own adventure", claimed that Bandersnatch infringed on that trademark, first because the film has a nod of homage to the literary series within the script, and second simply because many in the public compared the film with the books of their youth. Meanwhile, thanks to the renewed attention that Netflix gave CYOA books -- for FREE! -- , Chooseco inked a deal with Amazon to create CYOA style narratives for the Alexa device.That success hasn't stopped Chooseco's bullying ways, however. Recently, itch.io's leadership has publicly warned indie game developers to stop describing their games as choose your own adventures on the site after Chooseco issued several takedowns of games that did so. In case you were concerned that the facts before the public didn't perfectly convey how absurd this all is, never fear:

The Blurred Lines lawsuit is the case that just keeps on giving... if the gift you're looking for is legal shenanigans and ridiculous situations. As you'll recall, that was the case in which Marvin Gaye's family suggested that because the Pharrell/Robin Thicke song "Blurred Lines" paid homage to Marvin Gaye's "Got To Give It Up" with a similar groove, that it was infringing on Gaye's copyright. The whole thing was crazy -- and somehow the court bought it. Despite there not being any actual copying of any copyright-protected content, just the mere similarity of feeling in the song is enough to infringe.This has created quite a frenzy of nonsense, with artists now afraid to even mention their inspirations, lest they get sued, and sued again for every song they release. The situation has gotten so insane that even the RIAA has stepped in to say that perhaps copyright has gone too far in protecting works. Yes, the RIAA said that copyright may be protecting too much. This is pigs flying, snow in hell, cats and dogs living together, madness.And, believe it or not, the original case apparently is not fully over yet. During the original case, Pharrell gave a deposition claiming that he didn't intend to copy Marvin Gaye:

More than a quarter-century ago, then-Attorney General William Barr gave the DEA something it shouldn't have had and something it certainly hadn't earned. The War on Drugs was a forever war and it demanded an expansion of the government's powers. AG Barr OK'ed it: the warrantless bulk collection of multiple third party records, including call records, banking information, and the tracking of purchases.Twenty-seven years after the fact, the DOJ's Inspector General released its review of these programs, finding they had been crafted and deployed with no underlying legal basis. Some of these programs are defunct. Others have been codified into quasi-legitimacy by War on Terror-related government power expansions.Twenty-seven years later, William Barr is Attorney General once again. And he's likely just as interested in expanding law enforcement surveillance programs (without worrying too much about how legal they are) as he was three decades ago. He has shown no love for the public nor their rights since he took office, making it crystal clear that neither the administration he works for nor the law enforcement agencies he oversees should be questioned by other branches of the government, much less the public they're supposed to be serving.More questions are on the way, though. Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Pat Leahy want some answers from the DOJ about Barr's past legal misadventures and what he's doing now to address the findings of the long-delayed Inspector General's report.

As Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham has continued his latest quest to undermine encryption with a hearing whose sole purpose seemed to be to misleadingly argue that encryption represents a "risk to public safety." The Defense Department has weighed in to say that's ridiculous. As you may recall, the DOJ and the FBI have been working overtime to demonize encryption and pretend -- against nearly all evidence -- that widespread, strong encryption somehow undermines its ability to stop criminals.However, it appears that other parts of the government are a bit more up to date on these things. Representative Ro Khanna has forwarded a letter to Senator Graham that he received earlier this year from the Defense Department's CIO Dana Deasy, explaining just how important encryption actually is. The letter highlights how DoD employees rely on the kind of strong encryption found on mobile devices and in VPN services to protect the data of their employees, both at rest (on the devices) and in transit (across the network).

An all-in-one solution to your computing needs, this certified refurbished Apple iMac brings a wallop of processing power packed inside a 21.5" HD LED display. It sports an Intel Core i3-2100 Dual-Core 3.1GHz CPU with 4 GB of DDR3 RAM for next-level multitasking, and a 250 GB SATA hard drive for storing all of your important files and media. It's on sale for $349 and use the code MerrySave15 for an additional 15% off.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

With the DOJ (run by former Verizon lawyer William Barr) and the FCC (run by former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai) eager to rubber stamp Sprint's $26 billion, competition-eroding merger with T-Mobile, a lawsuit from a bipartisan coalition of states is now all that stands in the way in the deal.That lawsuit began Monday, with state AGs making it very clear that every meaningful economic metric indicates the deal will erode competition, raise rates, and result in thousands of layoffs as redundant employees are inevitably eliminated. While Sprint and T-Mobile (and the army of consultants, lobbyists, think tankers, and government officials paid to love them) insist the deal will be wonderful for America, financially independent economists paint a decidedly different picture. One in which ongoing consolidation in the space only drives up wireless data pricing for American consumers who already pay some of the highest prices in the world for what's routinely ranked as mediocre service (whether we're talking about speeds or overall video quality).But underneath the deal's marketing veneer, industry giants know very well the reduction in competition will let them charge higher rates. You'll notice that AT&T and Verizon haven't lifted a finger to thwart the deal, suggesting they're perfectly fine with its impact (something that wouldn't be happening if they actually thought the end result would be a more competitive sector). And at the trial this week, AG lawyers highlighted that Sprint executive emails make it perfectly clear they know the deal will raise rates:

It looks like Twitter is making a bet on protocols over platforms for its future.

Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy highlights a very unusual court order that seems to think the First Amendment is only for people who haven't pissed off judges.The background of the case is this: Davin Eldridge frequently attended proceedings at the Macon County Courthouse. Despite signs stating that recording devices were prohibited in the court, Eldridge brought in recording devices and recorded proceedings.He was caught on more than one occasion, with Eldridge's latest attempt at not-all-that-much-subterfuge-tbh interrupted by the presiding judge. From the court order [PDF]:

You will recall that last month we discussed the latest iteration of T-Mobile's ongoing war to defend its trademark on the color magenta, as well as close variants of that color. While there are instances in which a particularly unique color or shade of color can be trademarked by a company, this case involved T-Mobile's parent company, Deutsche Telekom, bullying insurance company Lemonade out of using the color magenta in its branding. Given that the insurance and mobile phone industries are quite disparate, this never should have been a dispute, regardless of how ridiculous it is for a company to have exclusive rights to a color like magenta.The folks at Lemonade appear to agree. While the company complied with Telekom's C&D, it also launched a PR blitz to highlight how insane this all is. First, Lemonade launched its #FreeThePink campaign to raised public awareness, and is taking its case to EUIPO to try and invalidate the trademark. But that wasn't all. The staff of Lemonade has now released a Chrome browser extension that, ahem, helps enact T-Mobile's vision of being the only purveyor of pink out there.

There still remains little to no evidence that the silly games played by Cambridge Analytica actually did anything at all to influence voting practices in the US. However, Facebook allowing the company to get a bunch of data was a big part of the basis for hitting the company with a $5 billion fine earlier this year. The FTC also went after Cambridge Analytica, targeting the company, its CEO Alexander Nix, and the academic/app developer Aleksandr Kagan, whose app was used to grab all that Facebook data.Of course, Nix and Kagan settled with the FTC a while back and Cambridge Analytica shut down in 2018. The company -- whatever is left of it -- completely ignored the FTC, and thus the FTC has now issued a mostly meaningless opinion, saying that the company violated the already problematic EU-US Privacy Shield agreement around transferring data across the Atlantic, and because of that Cambridge Analytica (which, I should remind you, is no longer around) is now barred from doing this again.

The DHS continues with its social media vetting program targeting foreign visitors despite questions about its Constitutionality and its effectiveness. Once a government agency decides to do something, it's difficult to talk it out of it, even if it appears to be throwing money down an unconstitutional hole.That's not to say a government agency can't be deterred from doing something awful. It's just that deterrence seems to be more effective prior to deployment than after a program is already in place.Speaking out against social media vetting hasn't really gotten us anywhere, so it's time to start suing. The Knight First Amendment Institute and the Brennan Center for Justice are suing the DHS on behalf of two US-based documentary film organizations, the International Documentary Association and the Doc Society. (via Just Security)It's not just the privacy side of the Fourth Amendment that's affected by the DHS's social media deep dives and demands for account passwords. It's also the First Amendment. There's a definite chilling effect being felt now that the DHS can demand access to accounts during the visa application process or at the border when incoming foreign visitors arrive. From the lawsuit [PDF]:

On Monday morning, the Washington Post released The Afghanistan Papers, an incredible (though, tragically, not surprising) collection of unpublished notes and interview transcripts revealing that the past three administrations -- Trump, Obama, and Bush -- all lied consistently and repeatedly about how bad things were going in Afghanistan, pretending that various actions were succeeding, while the reality was they knew it was an unwinnable war.

A handful of Congress members seem to think we need a War on Porn to go with our War on Drugs and our War on Terror. They think they have the right person in the DOJ to get this war machine mobilized.Yes, it's Bill Barr. The same man who decided the DOJ should start pushing obscenity prosecutions back in 1992 when he was Attorney General is being petitioned by a moral minority in the House to Make America Unconstitutional Again.The letter, signed by Reps Jim Banks, Mark Meadows, Vicky Hartzler, and Brian Babin, asks Bill Barr to turn the DOJ into an anti-porn organization again. A statement accompanying this attempted First Amendment broadside was sent to the National Review by Rep. Banks. It includes two links to Fight The New Drug -- the group of non-medical/psychological experts behind the push to label porn a "public health crisis" -- and one to the UK's infamous Daily Mail, to give you some idea what sources these reps consider credible.

The A to Z Cyber Security and IT Training Bundle has 12 courses and over 114 hours in training to get you up to speed on the latest security techniques. The courses cover ethical hacking, the Art of Exploitation, SQL injection, penetration testing, and more. You'll also get test prep for the CISSP Exam, CCSP Exam, CISM Exam, CISA Exam, CompTIA Security+ Certification Exam, and CompTIA CSA+ Exam. It's on sale for $39 and use the code MerrySave15 to get an additional 15% off.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Verizon's often sad efforts to pivot from curmudgeonly old telco to sexy new Millennial advertising giant have not gone as the company had hoped. From the failure of its Go90 streaming service to its clumsy effort to turn AOL and Yahoo into a Facebook-killing ad empire, Verizon often can't get out of Verizon's way. The "consumer comes last" executive mindset of the government-pampered telecom monopoly is frequently reflected by its policies, like Verizon's decision to acquire Tumblr, ban one of the most compelling aspects of the service (adult content and art), then turn around and sell it at a massive loss.When archivists attempted to try and preserve a lot of the adult-themed art that Verizon was jettisoning, Verizon responded by banning archivist IP ranges for no coherent reason. Much like Facebook, Verizon positively adores looking at a controversial situation, then coming up with the worst possible policy and PR response. You know, like that time they hired a fake journalist to pretend the company wasn't trying to kill net neutrality.Another case in point. Back in October, Verizon and Yahoo informed users of Yahoo Groups that the 20 year community would be shut down coming this December 14. Archivists set about trying to catalog and store the decades of conversations, images, and content on the platform. But Verizon being Verizon, those archivists now say the company is actively undermining their efforts, including banning Archive Team email addresses being used to archive content, and actively blocking tools used for the same purpose:

France was the most vocal supporter of the EU Copyright Directive's upload filters provisions (originally known as Article 13, but Article 17 in the final version). Despite promises that the law wouldn't require a filter, right after the Directive passed (which only happened after the French negotiators strong-armed Germany into a questionable deal), French officials promised that it would be be first in line to "transpose" Article 17 into a new law.While it wasn't quite as quick as they initially promised (there was talk of having it ready last summer), France has now proposed to put Article 17 into law in that country and it's just about as bad as you could possibly imagine. Indeed, the law appears to simply ignore wholesale the already weak requirements that were put into Article 17, promising that the laws would protect user rights. That's not what France was pushing for it. Instead, it was all in on the copyright maximalism, so user rights -- the rights of the public -- can apparently be ignored.

"You know what would be cool," said the consumer product that wished it was a cop? "If everything we made catered to law enforcement rather than the end user." That's the Ring business model: make inroads with security-conscious homeowners by inserting them into a toxic ecosystem that includes a snitch app that amps up the worst aspects of humanity, and breaks down the walls between "sharing" and "giving law enforcement agencies footage they can keep and distribute forever without limitation."Ring doorbells have 95% of the doorbell camera market. That's a lot of "fuck you" market share. Ring says all doorbell camera footage belongs to homeowners, even as it renders homeowners extraneous by handing over footage stored in the cloud in response to subpoenas. Ring says it cares about the privacy of its customers, even as it tallies up doorbell rings and partners with law enforcement in sting operations.The never ending negative news cycles continues for Ring with these details tucked away in another long, scathing report on the the doorbell company that wants so badly to be deputized, it's willing to cross lines most tech companies aren't willing to cross.Caroline Haskins of Vice has been tracking Ring's incestuous relationship with law enforcement for several months now, using a slew of public records requests to make the things Ring and law enforcement don't want to discuss publicly public.In her latest post -- one that should be read start to finish, especially if you haven't kept current with Ring's endless deluge of self-owns -- Haskins points out some more reprehensible behavior by the home security company that thinks it's a domestic surveillance contractor.Being a good citizen involves more than flying an American flag over your driveway.

We've talked quite a bit over the years about Rozcomnadzor, the Russian agency in charge of policing the internet for copyright infringing content... and really anything else that the Russian government decides it doesn't like. The agency operates exactly as deftly as you would expect, routinely blocking entire sites that are in regular use in Russia over a tiny percentage of "illicit" use. The problem, of course, is that Rozcomnadzor often interprets "illicit" uses of the internet to mean embarrassing public Russian figures with ties to the government, criticizing the government itself, or using basic internet security tools such as VPN to keep the Russian government out of one's internet use. This makes it all the more infuriating that American groups such as the MPAA have happily signed on with the Russian agency in an effort to protect copyright content, despite the agency's more widespread aims.It keeps happening. Recently, stock photo site Shutterstock -- all of it -- suddenly appeared on the Russia banned sites list. You might be assuming that this is a copyright issue, but it isn't.

A little over a year ago when cave diver Vern Unsworth sued Elon Musk for defamation, we noted that (unlike many defamation cases), it did not appear to be an out-and-out SLAPP case. That said, we noted that many of the claims in the lawsuit did not look to be about defamatory speech at all, and that would make much of the lawsuit an uphill battle. The part that appeared to be the most problematic for Musk, however, was the emails he had sent to Buzzfeed reporter Ryan Mac after the initial tweets, in which he made more detailed accusations, including what appeared to be factual statements implying deeper knowledge about Unsworth.However, as the case played out, Unsworth dropped any defamation claims regarding the emails. It appears that Musk had hit back on those claims by suggesting that if they were defamatory, they were actually Buzzfeed defaming Unsworth, since it was Buzzfeed that had published Musk's quotes. Perhaps to avoid getting bogged down in that fight, Unsworth's legal team chose to focus just on the tweets, and not the email -- even though the email seemed to go closest to the line (if not over) of defamation. Musk's legal team still then asked for the Buzzfeed emails evidence to be excluded from any damages calculation, which the judge allowed. In the end, the focus was just on his tweets, and that allowed for a courtroom explanation of how insults fly freely on Twitter, suggesting that most people engaged on Twitter know better than to take random accusations and insults as factual statements.In the end, the jury sided with Musk with the reasoning more or less being the "subtweet defense." Because Musk didn't directly name Unsworth in his tweets, they couldn't reach the high bar of defamation:

Attorney General Barr to America: Fuck you, you ungrateful bastards. You're on your own.

For many years we've been covering the rather disturbing revolving door between the US Copyright Office and Hollywood. This includes a bunch of copyright maximalists going back and forth between entertainment industry lobbying organizations and government positions. It seems to happen over and over and over again. Indeed, the former head of the Copyright Office, Maria Pallante, now leads the Association of American Publishers, where she's been advocating for ever more ridiculous copyright laws.And, now we find out that the current head of the Copyright Office, Karyn Temple, a former RIAA VP, who only just became the official Copyright Register (after a few years of being the "interim" Copyright Register after Pallante was fired), has jumped ship to the MPAA. Because of course.

The whitest boy on the beach, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, has decided to bring his beach-grabbing exploits to the attention of everyone.Of course, that's not what Huckabee actually wanted to do. He wanted his privatizing of the area where water meets land to remain as unnoticed as he wishes his front yard was. But if we've learned anything at all over the years, it's that the more you try to stop people from talking about your beachfront property, the less likely it is that you'll get them to stop talking about it.Huckabee's $6 million mansion in the Florida panhandle proves money can't buy quite as much happiness as it used to. Huckabee thought he had purchased a chunk of beach to go with his beach house. Florida beachgoers felt otherwise. They used "his" beach like they used the beach anywhere else along the coast.Andy Marlette of the Pensacola News Journal has compiled a few choice quotes from Huckabee regarding the disrespecting of his $6 million beachfront property.

The Ultimate 2020 Web Designer and Developer Bundle has 6 courses geared to teach you the latest in web design and development. You'll become familiar with Adobe Photoshop, Bootstrap, HTML, CSS, Ruby, Python, and more. You'll learn the essentials of visual and web design, and then practice programming and web development skills. It's on sale for $29 and if you use the code MerrySave15, you'll save an additional 15% off.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Last week we wrote about the sketchy, sketchy deal in which UNC gave some racists $2.5 million to settle a lawsuit that was filed after the agreement was made, and settled moments later. More and more details keep coming out, making the whole situation look even sketchier (and even less legal). However, for our purposes, we're focused on the copyright angle of this story. As you'll recall, the lawyer who tracked down many of the details, T. Greg Doucette, also got his hands on a letter from the racist group, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, explaining the whole deal, including them admitting flat out that they didn't have standing to sue, and any lawsuit would be thrown out almost immediately. That is, unless you've set it up so that the University has already agreed to give you millions of dollars. Doucette posted the letter to his Dropbox account, where he had posted other documents regarding this mess.Then, the Sons of Confederate Veterans sent a DMCA takedown notice over the letter, and Doucette's Dropbox is (as I type this) still limited. However, late last week, Doucette hired lawyers Marc Randazza and Jay Wolman to send quite a letter to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, arguing that the DMCA takedown was a violation of 512(f) of the DMCA. The initial letter (linked here and embedded below) was sent to lawyer Boyd Sturges, who represented the Sons of Confederate Veterans in their "negotiations" with UNC. However, I've been told that Sturges refused to accept the letter, claiming he had nothing to do with this aspect, and so a second (though, nearly identical) letter has been sent directly to R. Kevin Stone, the "Commander" of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.We'll jump straight to the punchline. After spending a few pages in typical Randazza-style flowery language explaining just how bullshit the takedown was (and just how sketchy the UNC deal was), Doucette (via Randazza) say that they will go to court to argue that the takedown violates Section 512(f) unless the following happens:

While the telecom sector often enjoys crowing about the superiority of U.S. wireless, the reality is we're not all that superior. While the U.S. was among the first countries to deploy 4G LTE, US 4G speeds tend to be fairly pathetic, with one study ranking the US 47th out of 77 countries studied. US wireless data prices are also significantly higher than a long list of other developed nations, thanks in no small part to regulatory capture and revolving door regulators.This week the US wireless sector was shamed further via a new report by OpenSignal, which found that US wireless video streaming quality also remains somewhat underwhelming. According to the study, the U.S. is ranked 68th out of 100 when it comes to video streaming quality, someplace between Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. The crowdsourced study is based on 94,086,045,513 measurements from 37,671,772 devices running Opensignal’s software between August 1 and October 30. The authors, by and large, place the lion's share of the blame at the feet of insufficient spectrum:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous comment making the simple, undeniable point that ICE's fake college sting really isn't surprising:

Get 25% off your copy of CIA: Collect It All

Show of hands: who remembers SecuROM? Alright, put your hands down, we can't see each other anyway. So, SecuROM was a really bad DRM used by several publishers to "protect" video games, by which I mean it mostly just annoyed legitimate buyers, got some of those publishers sued, and ultimately made the game unplayable on modern operating systems. The track record is enough to make you wonder why anyone would use DRM at all after this whole debacle.But... it's still happening. Back in 2010, Disney released the game Tron: Evolution. The game was laced with SecuROM and suffered many of the same problems as previously described. As an example of how you don't really own what you buy anymore, the game simply bricked when Disney decided not to renew its SaaS subscription for SecuROM software.

The California Supreme Court has overturned 17 years of questionable case law, restoring a bit of the Fourth for drivers in the state. (via Courthouse News)For nearly two decades, state law enforcement officers were able to search a vehicle without a warrant if the driver could not provide identification. While traveling on public roads in your car lowers your expectation of privacy, vehicle searches still require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the very least. Officers have a few other options to bypass warrant requirements, including inventory searches if the vehicle is being impounded and the ever-popular "probable cause of four legs" K-9 units to bypass warrant requirements.California judicial precedent gave officers another way around warrant requirements by allowing searches of vehicles if the driver didn't have their ID on them. That's no longer the case in California, thanks to this recent ruling [PDF].In this case, a vehicle search following demands for identification resulted in officers discovering methamphetamine in the driver's purse. That evidence -- along with this terrible precedent -- is no longer usable by law enforcement.The trial court said the search was unconstitutional because none of the acceptable justifications for vehicle searches incident to arrest were in use here.

Like most of the infamous "internet of things," (IOT) smart TVs are a security and privacy dumpster fire. Numerous set vendors have already been caught hoovering up private conversations or transmitting private user data unencrypted to the cloud. One study in 2017 surmised that around 90% of smart televisions can be hacked remotely, something intelligence agencies, private contractors and other hackers are clearly eager to take full advantage of.This week, the FBI, that bastion of sage privacy and security advice, issued a blog post out of its Portland field office warning cyber Monday shoppers that their smart TV is a little too smart, and likely watches you as much as you watch it. The post is filled with some handy tips to help you protect your privacy:

Get 25% off your copy of CIA: Collect It All

Where the Fifth Amendment ends for device owners largely seems to be determined by their favored security measure. If it's a password keeping a device encrypted, courts seem more willing to call compelled production a Fifth Amendment violation. If it's a biometric feature -- most commonly fingerprints or faces -- the courts are more likely to consider body parts non-testimonial.There's not enough of a consensus either way to make it a clear choice, but courts seem to feel faces/fingerprints are like "keys" and passwords like "combinations" when it comes to the metaphorical lockbox that is your phone.Adding to the case law that is "fingerprints are lockbox keys" is this decision [PDF] from a federal court in Illinois. (via FourthAmendment.com) The court says the Supreme Court says this is how it must be, even if the Supreme Court has yet to field a device encryption case.The government wants to look in the defendant's phone for evidence of his threats against a confidential informant. There's a built-in limit to this, although it's not one of the government's making. Investigators want to apply the suspect's fingers and thumbs to the seized iPhone to unlock it. The suspect's mind is being taken out of the equation (as it were), which could result in the government getting what it wants in this request without actually getting what it wants from the man's iPhone.

Are you a practicing professional but wanting to learn more? Learn new skills and knowledge at your own pace with Whizlabs. Whizlabs is a pioneer among online training providers across the world. They provide online certification training in various disciplines such as Cloud Computing, Java, Big Data, Project Management, Agile, Linux, CCNA, and Digital Marketing. 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.

Earlier this year, we wrote about what we referred to as "the dumbest gotcha story of the week", in which the annotation site Genius accused Google of "stealing" lyrics from their site -- which they "discovered" by a modestly clever use of curly apostrophes and straight apostrophes as hidden markers in their own posting of lyrics, which they then spotted on Google. As we explained, the actual evidence did not suggest at all that Google was copying the lyrics from Genius. Instead, as became obvious, Google (like most other lyrics sites on the internet), licenses lyrics from LyricFind. Indeed, it later came out that basically every site that uses LyricFind had the same "watermarked" lyrics.In our original post, we went through all of the various legal arguments that some were suggesting Genius could use against Google, and highlighted how each of them was laughable. The copyright doesn't belong to Genius, so there's no copyright claim. Also, as we noted in the original post, when sites like these "license" lyrics from publishers, they're often just licensing the ability to guess at what the lyrics are. The publishers themselves often don't have their own lyrics. Indeed, we pointed out that some publishers use the various lyrics sites as the source for their own lyrics that they licensed. So everyone's just kind of making it up as they go along, and there's no proprietary right to your version of the lyrics vs. someone else's.However, for reasons I do not understand, Genius has decided to go ahead and sue both Google and LyricFind over this. The complaint is in state court in Brooklyn, and... it's bad. I mean, if people were to put the complaint on Genius and "annotate" it, most of it would just be people laughing at how bad the arguments are.And, honestly, this entire lawsuit is strategically idiotic for Genius -- a site that regularly takes content from elsewhere on the internet for the purpose of annotating it. Indeed, I used to regularly see Techdirt posts hosted on Genius for others to annotate (though now I'm looking and it appears that Genius has gone back to focusing just on lyrics, and stopped hosting annotated blog posts).There are no copyright claims, of course, in the complaint, because Genius holds no copyright here. Instead, the claims are just grasping for anything. And I can't see the lawsuit getting very far. The strongest claim (and it's not that strong) is that there's a competition issue with Google displaying lyrics in its "one box" at the top of search results. The argument is that by providing this information directly, rather than passing you on to a link to Genius, Google is somehow being anti-competitive: