Techdirt

Last year, a federal court offered its sympathies -- but only limited recourse -- to a photographer who suffered a bogus "stop photographing us" arrest at the hands of a Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) cop.Avi Adelman, a freelance journalist, was photographing EMS personnel responding to an apparent overdose. DART officer Stephanie Branch decided this just wouldn't do. She approached Adelman and got between him and the scene he was photographing. The officer then started laying down bullshit about "establishing a perimeter" and how his documentation was violating the HIPAA rights of person being attended to.(If this crap about "HIPAA violations" sounds familiar, it's because law enforcement officers either don't understand how HIPAA works or they hope the person whose Constitutional rights they're violating doesn't understand how HIPAA works. This was the same excuse used by a Denver cop to detain a journalist who was recording the apparent arrest of a naked mentally-ill person in the middle of a public street. Just in case there are any cops lurking here, HIPAA violations occur when someone releases private medical info to unauthorized parties. It never happens when someone is suffering a medical emergency in a public area.)Back to the DART case: despite Officer Branch including twenty-three false or inaccurate statements in her account of the arrest, she managed to dodge being directly held responsible for her violation of Adelman's First Amendment rights. Since the Fifth Circuit didn't clearly establish a right to record public servants until 2017, Adelman's 2016 arrest happened too soon for him to use that precedent to pierce Branch's qualified immunity. But Officer Branch was still on the hook for the Fourth Amendment violation. She appealed, but going up a level hasn't changed anything for the officer.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit has upheld the lower court's decision, preventing Branch from eluding responsibility for violating Adelman's Fourth Amendment rights. Branch claimed she was unaware of the photography policy DART had put in place in 2014, which expressly permitted the actions Adelman was engaged in when Branch decided to arrest him.But Officer Branch's actions were so obviously unreasonable, another officer and an EMT had this conversation while Branch was hassling the journalist. From the decision [PDF]:

Last week, we wrote about the confusion of both the US's Solicitor General and Oracle's lead litigator, Annette Hurst, in insisting that APIs are no different than software (and even that they're executable, which they are not). But, what's kind of incredible in this case is that, even as Oracle is so obsessively focused on bringing down Google, if it actually wanted to help bring it down, it should want to lose this case.That may sound backwards, but let me explain. I've been talking a lot lately about the concept of protocols over platforms as a way to limit the dominance of giant platforms -- indeed, it's the only reasonable way I can see of leading to real competition in a world of network effects. Any traditional "break up" plan doesn't work, because you can't "break up" a global network in the same way you could break up many historical companies. But, what you can do is get them to open up their APIs or to make it easier to get data out of their systems in a way that is interoperable with other platforms.But that's much, much harder if APIs are locked down with copyright, as Oracle is pushing for. To be fair, Google itself has always been much more open than lots of other companies in similar situations, but if we want true adversarial interoperability, as Cory Doctorow has highlighted, one way to help that along is to make sure that APIs can't be locked down, and that reverse engineering compatibility is free for anyone. That's how you build true competition -- and Oracle's case might shut down that important avenue.

The DOJ's anti-encryption summit went off without a hitch. And why wouldn't it? No one who had anything good to say about encryption was invited. The only speaker without a history of criticizing encryption was John Walsh of "America's Most Wanted," who detailed the kidnapping of his son -- an event that took place long before encryption was viewed as an impediment to law enforcement.Using a bit of the FOSTA playbook, but skewing it younger to facilitate appeals to emotion, the "summit" attempted to discuss the "creation" of "lawless spaces" resulting from end-to-end encryption. Facebook was front and center as the recent recipient of a letter from Attorney General William Barr, asking it to ditch its plans to encrypt Messenger communications.Barr (who's already made his feelings about encryption clear) was joined by Deputy AG Jeffrey Rosen, FBI Director Chris Wray, UK Home Secretary Priti Patel, and Australia's Minister of Home Affairs Peter Dutton. No one representing the tech industry was included. Nor were any encryption experts. This was a preach-to-the-converted type of event and the speakers all made the most of it.FBI Director Chris Wray offered his unsurprising take on encrypted communications: he's against it. Not that his opinion should be considered in any way an "expert" opinion. He runs an agency that can't even correctly count the number of encrypted devices it has in its possession. And it's the same agency where officials did everything they could to avoid unlocking a seized phone in a mass shooting case in hopes of securing favorable court precedent. Wray frequently presents the hardest skew on the issue (at least at the federal level), and his comments at the summit were no exception.

The Aunu Audio M50 True Wireless Headphones can get up to 6 hours of music playtime at a time and up to 150 hours of battery life with the charging case before needing to be plugged in. The graphene-powered drivers will deliver great sound and the ergonomic fit ensures they won't come off during a workout! The Bluetooth 5.0 true wireless earphones are IPX7 water-resistant and come with dual microphones for taking calls on the go. When paired with the companion Aunu language app, these earphones can translate more than 33 languages on the go, allowing you to get around more easily while you're traveling the world. They're on sale for $100.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.

This was wholly predictable, of course. Back in 2015, we released a detailed analytical report showing that the absolute easiest and most effective way to reduce piracy was to to enable more and better licensed services that actually gave users what they were seeking for reasonable prices and fewer restrictions. The data in that report showed that focusing on greater legal enforcement had no long term effects on piracy, but more and better authorized services did the trick every time. Then, earlier this year, we released another report showing that the music industry is in the midst of a massive upswing thanks almost entirely to the rapidly increasing success of licensed music streaming platforms. It was incredibly dramatic to look at the numbers.Put two and two together, and you'd full expect to see a corresponding dramatic drop in piracy. And, indeed, it appears that's exactly what happened, but the recording industry doesn't want you to realize that. In IFPI's latest release, they play up the idea that piracy is still this huge existential problem.Sounds bad, right? Later in the report it insists that:

The federal government's anti-encryption push is starting to turn into a really weird movement. Yanking pages from the FOSTA playbook, Attorney General William Barr threw an anti-encryption party featuring him, FBI Director Chris Wray, Deputy AG Jeffrey Rosen, and some overseas critics of secure communications.It was full of loaded language, beginning with the conference's name:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Matthew Cline, responding to two parts of a comment from a defender of a proposed ag-gag law in Australia:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2014, while Roca Labs was going off the rails in a case that kept getting more and more bizarre, we saw a mixed bag of court decisions: Warner Bros. was ordered to reveal its automated DMCA takedown notice process, a judge adjusted the MP3Tunes ruling while blasting both sides for their approach, and the music labels unsurprisingly won their suit against Grooveshark — with the silver lining that the ruling didn't screw up DMCA safe harbors like it could have.Meanwhile, Eric Holder was employing some disgusting FUD in his fight against phone encryption (and wasn't alone), as it became clear just how little he cared about digital rights.Ten Years AgoLast week, the Lily Allen saga flared up, got weird, then mostly concluded. But there was still one development remaining, and the only truly positive thing to come out of the whole affair — this week in 2009, Dan Bull namedropped Mike in his excellent song Dear Lily in what would become a brief trend of such "open letters" from the UK musician and spark an ongoing friendship with Techdirt:Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2004, because nothing in this realm ever changes but the digit, folks were talking about the need to chill out on the 5G 4G 3G hype, and quite possibly the mobile TV hype too. A growing number of doctors were calling for an end to mobile phone bans in hospitals, while the New York Times, in typical fashion, was finally realizing that schools had gotten rid of such bans and dutifully bringing us this amazing breaking news. And a lot of newspapers were starting to get nervous about Google News, leading some to rightly suspect that they'd sue if Google monetized it. Meanwhile, we saw a surprisingly good call from the Patent Office when it rejected Microsoft's patent on the FAT file system (though unsurprisingly they would manage to get it approved two years later, eventually enabling their infamous lawsuit against TomTom).

Perhaps because the stories we routinely do on Nintendo doing the Nintendo come out at a clip somewhat spread out, and perhaps because the ultimate reality is that Nintendo's Nintendo-ing is legally something it is allowed to do, I believe the wider world really doesn't understand just how much cool stuff the public is deprived of. If you don't know what I'm talking about, some percentage of Nintendo's rabid fanbase likes to try to do cool stuff with Nintendo properties as an expression of their fandom. This means creating interesting new games, or trying to get Nintendo classics to work on laughably aged hardware just for funsies. Or celebrating Nintendo game soundtracks. The point is that fans do fan things, right up until Nintendo's lawyers come calling and shut it all down as copyright infringement.Again, just so we're absolutely clear: Nintendo can do this. But it doesn't have to. Plenty of other gaming companies have carved out space and methods by which they can still protect their intellectual property but allow fans to make fan creations. Nintendo refuses to do this and the result is that we lose the opportunity to see and have cool stuff. One example of this was a group in Australia's attempt to get the original Donkey Kong game working using only some recent tools Facebook provided.

Qualified immunity has been stretched to cover a wide variety of rights violations, law enforcement misconduct, and excessive force deployments. Every so often, a federal court will refuse to extend this courtesy to sued officers, but these decisions are relative rarities.Every so often, officers engage in such egregious violations that no court is willing to give them a pass on their bad behavior. This case [PDF], handled by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, is one of those. It details a case where officers went out to put someone in protective custody and ended up killing some random person's dog. In between, officers went to the wrong address and entered a house without a warrant. Here's how it started:

By now you're likely aware that Donald Trump tweets. Like, a lot. An unfortunate amount, actually. And he also often takes a break from tweeting his own authored... I don't know, let's call them thoughts... to instead simply retweet any sycophanitic content he can find out there. Sometimes, in fact, he retweets things that may be infringing upon copyright.And sometimes what he retweets is more innocent, at least in the context of intellectual property.

What the fuck is up with the NY Times when it comes to reporting on important laws about the internet? While they did, thankfully, publish Sarah Jeong's piece mocking everyone for failing to read Section 230 and totally misrepresenting it, they have since published three separate stories that completely get Section 230 wrong -- often in embarrassing ways. First there was the laughable piece by Daisuke Wakabayashi that claimed that Section 230 is what made hate speech legal online -- leading to the NY Times having to run a hilarious correction saying "oops, we actually meant the 1st Amendment." Then the NY Times opinion section let internet-hater Jonathan Taplin publish an anti-internet screed. Taplin has a history of misguided histrionics about copyright law, and it appears that he must have had an anti-DMCA safe harbor screed ready to go... but since everyone was hating on Section 230 (which is very different than DMCA 512) they just tried to swap it in... in a way that made no sense at all.So you might think that the NY Times and especially its Opinion section editors would be a bit more careful any time Section 230 came up, but... nope. Instead, the NY Times has a ridiculously dumb new article by Andrew Marantz who (coincidentally, I'm sure) has a brand new internet-hating book coming out. The title of the piece is Free Speech Is Killing Us, so you just know it's going to be good (and by good I mean, really, really, really, bad). It delivers.

Order your copy of Working Futures today »On Wednesday we officially launched our Working Futures anthology, which is available at Amazon as both an ebook (for $2.99) or a paperback for ($9.99) or both together ($10.99). I really recommend the paperback, because it looks great. So far, we've been blow away with the support we've received and the excitement over the collection. The book has shot up the various best seller lists on Amazon, reaching in the teens for science fiction anthologies, and reaching #12 in the "new releases" category.In the launch post earlier this week, I profiled the first three stories, so today I want to explore the next three -- which has some names that Techdirt readers will recognize... starting with me:The Nole Edge Economy: I've been talking a lot about protocols over platforms lately, and wanted to explore such a world in a fictional context -- and combined two other elements: the incredible wealth of DIY info found totally free online such as on YouTube (I was inspired to write this after learning how to rebuild a carboretor via YouTube videos) and also the odd dependencies created by shareable, reusable code. Also, there'a little nod towards SLAPP suits as well. In short, this is a story that hits on a lot of regular Techdirt points.eMotion: by our very own Timothy Geigner. He kept telling me he was too busy to write something, and then at the last minute delivered this wonderful story exploring what the world might look like when artificial intelligence is granted its own rights -- and starts to require what probably can't be called "human" resources any more when dealing with job changes and transitions. But, in such a world, certainly the line begins to blur between who gets to make decisions for whom. And, I mean, how do you let a military artificial intelligence know that its services are no longer needed...Genetic Changelings: by Keyan Bowes was one of the few stories we received that didn't focus on artificial intelligence, but rather started exploring a world where genetic engineering has taken off to fairly spectacular levels. It's a world that will seem quite familiar to today's... but with a few potentially startling differences. I mean, when a story starts out in its first line discussing a child's tail, you know it's going to be a bit different.We'll continue describing more stories next week, and we'll have some fun other stuff, including some of the authors on our podcast. I also wrote a short guest post at Boing Boing about the project, and wanted to highlight one point I made over there. These stories don't paint a dystopian or a utopian future -- but mostly somewhere in between. Indeed, some of the stories are being interpreted in very different ways, with one author letting me know that he thought his story was really optimistic, but someone who read it reacted the opposite way. As I wrote for Boing Boing:

This RC070C is the latest 7-inch portable HDMI LCD monitor with a high resolution of 1024x600. This 7-inch monitor comes with a 2.0MP front camera that allows taking photos or video chat. It’s compatible with the latest Raspberry Pi 3B+, BB Black, Banana Pi, and other mainstream mini PCs. It even supports capacitive touch control letting you turn your Raspberry Pi into something closer to an iPad. You can also choose to use it as a general-purpose HDMI monitor to connect with a computer and use as a sub-display. Additionally, it works as a Windows PC monitor. It's on sale for $69.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Yes, it's time for this week's edition of "how is the EU fucking up the internet." Over the summer we wrote about an important case in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), warning that the Advocate General's recommendations would lead to mass filtering and censorship of the internet, seemingly going against existing law and precedent that supports freedom of expression and which says that automated filtering violates human rights. Welp. So much for that.

We've long discussed how the Pai FCC's net neutrality repeal was plagued with millions of fraudulent comments, many of which were submitted by a bot pulling names from a hacked database of some kind. Millions of ordinary folks (like myself) had their identities used to support Pai's unpopular plan, as did several Senators. Numerous journalists like Jason Prechtel have submitted FOIA requests for more data (server logs, IP addresses, API data, anything) that might indicate who was behind the fraudulent comments, who may have bankrolled them, and what the Pai FCC knew about it.Those efforts have slowly been paying off. Back in January, Gizmodo linked some of the fake comments to Trump associates and some DC lobbying shops like CQ Roll Call. This week, Buzzfeed went even further, drawing a direct line between the fake comments and the broadband industry:

The DOJ seems to be handling its anti-encryption (a.k.a. "going dark") grief badly. I doubt it will ever reach "acceptance," but it is accelerating through the rest of the stages with alarming speed.It went through shock first, personified by former FBI director Jim Comey, who insisted tech companies were offering encryption to:A. Give the feds the middle finger

Copyright statute of limitations cases are relatively rare, but we have written about a few such cases at times. Still, here's a new ruling that tosses out a case based on the statute of limitations, involving a guy suing Jerry Seinfeld claiming infringement over the latter's Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee series. Though, it seems like the case could have been defeated other ways as well, even if it had been filed within the statute of limitations.

The thing California cops never thought would happen happened. On January 1, 2019, a new law took effect that opened up police misconduct and use of force records to the public for the first time in ever. Needless to say, cops were not pleased.Multiple lawsuits were filed in an attempt to block the law from taking effect -- or at least prevent the public from accessing records created prior to January 2019. Multiple lawsuits and legal challenges were rejected by California courts, which read the law as being retroactive.As those efforts failed, the state's district attorney, Xavier Becerra, decided to go against the courts and the law's author to claim it was not retroactive. Of course, he was no more correct about this than the law enforcement unions being handed losses by the state's courts.The "smart" law enforcement agencies read the writing on the wall, took the wall down, and ran it through the shredder before the law took effect. There were a few cooperative standouts following the law's enactment, but most law enforcement agencies decided to comply with the new law as antagonistically and slowly as possible.The Long Beach Police Department is the latest to flip the bird to the public over public records. As Tony Saavedra of the Orange County Register reports, the PD is preemptively buying time. Or, more accurately, it's hoping to steal it. What the PD wants is nearly a week's-worth of heads up if the city plans to release officers' misconduct and use of force records.

A one-man copyright trolling empire has just crashed into a federal court iceberg. Richard Bell, photographer and [checks filing] attorney, has gone after anyone and everyone who has possibly used "his" photograph of the Indianapolis skyline for anything ever.Unlike 99.9% of copyright trolling cases, this one actually gave Richard Bell the jury trial he no doubt demanded in his complaint. Unfortunately for Bell, the jury didn't give him what he wanted. Even worse for Bell (but better for the defendants in his still-unresolved lawsuits), the jury said Bell failed to prove he owned the copyright to the photo he's sued hundreds for using. This report comes from Dave Stafford of Indianapolis Business Journal who, unlike countless others picking up the AP feed, a.) included the document and b.) spoke to the defendant's lawyer. (Kudos on both, Dave!)

For years now, the various DOJ folks pushing to break encryption have whined and complained that the tech industry won't even consider having an adult conversation about encryption. This, of course, has never been true. Indeed, in just the past few weeks we've highlighted two separate examples of attempts to bring together law enforcement folks and technology/cryptography experts to see if there are legitimate ways to move the conversation forward. That first one came up with an interesting and useful framework for judging any conversation about "lawful access" to encrypted communications, while the second demonstrated just how much various tech companies have been doing over the years -- in particular in helping law enforcement deal with the issue of child abuse.And what do they get for all that? First, a horrific article in the NY Times that accurately highlights the awfulness of child sexual abuse online... but oddly frames the efforts that various tech companies have put into helping law enforcement as... evidence of not caring about the problem. And, of course, suggests that encryption is part of the problem:

Become a C# whiz and master the .NET framework with the Complete C# Master Class Course. You'll work with primitive and custom data types, learn how to debug your code to find and fix bugs that are causing unexpected behavior, control the flow of code execution by using conditional statements, and much more. It's on sale for $13.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Senator Mark Warner was supposed to be the "tech savvy" Senator. He's not really showing that. He's been leading the charge to regulate various parts of the internet, which might be fine if he knew what the fuck he was talking about. But, as is made clear in his latest interview with Newsweek, he's extremely confused about the legal underpinnings of the internet. Specifically, he is repeating Senator Ted Cruz's myth that Section 230 was designed to only apply to "neutral" platforms that don't moderate.

Day in and day out, it's becoming increasingly clear that the smart home revolution simply isn't all that smart.Security analysts like Bruce Schneier have been sounding the alarm bells for years now about the lax to nonexistent security and privacy standards inherent in the internet of broken things space. From refrigerators that leak your Gmail credentials to Barbie dolls that can be easily hacked to spy on kids, it's increasingly clear that dumber technology is often the smarter solution. Not only do many of these devices actually make us less secure, their lack of real security has resulted in their use in historically large DDoS attacks.As if the point hadn't been made clear enough, a new joint study between Northeastern University and Imperial College London took a closer look at 81 popular smart door bells, dongles, TVs, and other gear, and came away notably unimpressed. The study, the biggest ever of its kind, found that the lion's share of such devices routinely share an ocean of data (your IP address, MAC address, location info, viewing preferences) with a massive array of third parties. Worse, many of these transfers were not properly secured, meaning they could be intercepted by another party:

TikTok is the new Vine. (I apologize if this sentence is incomprehensible. If I wasn't raising teens, it would be pretty much incomprehensible to me too.) The social media platform that allows users to upload short video and encourages remixing via duets or reaction videos has roped in a billion users in a surprisingly short amount of time.It's fun for (almost) all ages. The younger you skew, the more popular it is. Fun for all ages, but not all sexualities apparently. The app was created by Chinese company ByteDance, so it's more than receptive than most to calls to censor content based on countries' desire to mute those who aren't heterosexual. (h/t K'Tetch)The Guardian has been reporting on ByteDance's censorial efforts on behalf of governments around the world. Unsurprisingly, censorship begins at home.

Ag-gag laws usually claim to be about protecting farmers from animal activists. But trespass laws already do that quite effectively. In reality, ag-gag laws are mostly about preventing activists from gathering photographic evidence of the poor conditions in which animals are kept on some farms. Techdirt has written a number of stories about ag-gag laws in the US, and how they are being ruled unconstitutional. Now it seems that Australia is intent on bringing in ag-gag laws in response to an upsurge in animal rights activism in the country. Australian politicians have been getting vocal on the topic for a while. Back in April, Australia's Prime Minister called the activists "green collared criminals". In May, Western Australia's attorney general told journalists:

Locast, a New York based nonprofit that offers viewers access to over-the-air (OTA) broadcasts via the internet, has accused the big four broadcast networks of colluding to restrict consumer access to those broadcasts. As we noted recently, Locast was custom built to test the copyright legal minefiled created in the wake of the Aereo ruling, which made made numerous dubious assumptions and provided zero guidance for companies that wanted to enter the space but comply with the law. Enter former FCC lawyer and media executive David Goodfriend, who effectively created Locast specifically in the hopes the industry would sue.Last month Goodfriend got his wish, with ABC, CBS, Comcast/NBC, and Fox all filing suit, claiming the video nonprofit (which currently offers the service in 13 markets) is "illegally using broadcaster content." Locast in turn has now responded in a court filing (pdf), alleging that the broadcast networks have unfairly colluded to restrict public access to OTA broadcasts:

I'm not sure how copyright troll rep Richard Liebowitz is still finding work. The prolific filer of questionable lawsuits has been dinged by court after court, and yet somehow rights holders still think he's worth hiring to go after anyone found in reverse image search results.Here's how things have gone for Liebowitz recently:2017: Liebowitz manages to put his client on the hook for everyone's legal fees. That would be the legal fees of the eight prominent news agencies his client sued for broadcasting a small clip from a video he uploaded to Facebook. Here's what the judge said about Liebowitz:

Open access to court documents is something we still don't have, thanks to PACER. The creation of PACER was supposed to increase public access, but the government erected a paywall between the public and the documents. To make things worse, the PACER's front end is an antiquated nightmare. The system isn't consolidated, so people seeking documents need to know exactly where it was filed before they can even start paying $0.10/page for unhelpful search results.No one who uses PACER likes it. But it's the government's monopoly, so everyone who uses PACER has to use PACER because there is no alternative. The US Court system rakes in $150-200 million a year in fees, but hardly any of that money is being put towards fixing a system that only barely works and does so in the most begrudging way possible. Lawsuits have been filed and legislation proposed that would give the public free access to court documents, but so far, nothing has changed. PACER is still expensive. And it still sucks.The sad state of PACER was discussed during a recent Congressional hearing. And it was defended in the worst way possible by the Judicial Conference's speaker.

Devin Nunes is on quite a roll with stifling free speech. The Congressman, who once co-sponsored a bill discouraging frivolous lawsuits and also voted for a House Amendment saying that free speech should be protected, has been filing a whole bunch of lawsuits that appear to serve no purpose other than to stifle free speech -- mainly free speech that criticizes Devin Nunes. Back when he filed the first of these suits (against satirical Twitter accounts, among others), we noted that he seemed particularly mad about an article by Ryan Lizza in Esquire trying to track down details about the Nunes' family's dairy farm, which is not in California where Nunes' Congressional district is, but in Iowa. Lizza noticed that Nunes appeared to go to great lengths to not have the public realize that his family's dairy farm (which is a big part of his bio) up and left California. The article is entitled Devin Nunes’s Family Farm Is Hiding a Politically Explosive Secret and it is absolutely worth reading, in part because Devin Nunes really doesn't want you to read it. But also, in part, because it had paragraphs like this:

The Zero to Hero HTML5 Game Developer Bundle has 5 courses designed to help you get hands-on experience building games and to learn the skills you need to become a pro Game Developer. You'll learn how to use Python, JavaScript, and Phaser. You will build your own games suitable for various platforms. It's on sale for $25. Don't forget to use code LEARN75 to get an additional 75% 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.

Order your copy of Working Futures today »Last week, I gave you a heads up and a preview of our latest project from our think tank, the Copia Institute: our brand new anthology of speculative fiction about the future of work, called Working Futures. The book is now available in both ebook and paperback format at Amazon (initially, we'll be publishing it exclusively through Amazon, though we plan to offer other options down the road). You can purchase the ebook for $2.99, the paperpack for $9.99, or both combined for $10.99 (or, if you have a Kindle Unlimited subscription, you can read it for free). The book has 14 wonderful stories and comes in at over 200 pages. You can also purchase the special custom deck of cards we used to help us create the scenarios that were given to the authors as "prompts" to inspire the various stories. And you can download the PDF of the prompts as well, if you'd like to see them.Last week, I wrote about the process by which this project came together -- how we built the custom deck of cards, what we did with them, and how we got sci-fi writers to make use of them. This week, with the actual launch of the book, I wanted to zoom in a bit on the actual stories in the book. Over the next few days, I'll talk a bit about some of the stories in the book, and what made them stand out when we were choosing the stories for the book:The Machine Starts by Liam Hogan is a quick fun story that envisions the role of humans in a world in which computer AI is pretty much all pervasive, and an entity known as "The Machine", whose powers are so great that it resulted in the demise of the today's generation of internet giants. But with something so powerful and all knowing, why would it need to hire people? Well, as this story demonstrates, there are always situations in which human perception will be able to do things that artificial intelligence cannot.The Chaperone by Andrew Dana Hudson is, in some ways, a flipside to the story by Hogan that precedes it. In that story we learn about how a human can assist an AI, whereas in the Chaperone, we learn about how AI's might assist humans. For better and for worse. Hudson described his story in a pretty straightforward tweet: "My #solarpunk novellete, "The Chaperone," is for everyone who watched Her (2013) and thought, "cool future, but this doesn't seem like *our* future—where's the late stage capitalism, political upheaval and climate change??"The Funeral Company by Katharine Dow might conceivably take place in a similar world to the one in Hudson's novellette above, though on the other side of the country. It describes a very different kind of job that might crop up in a world of pervasive information and data about everyone -- and also how some people might respond to not wanting to live in such a world.That's it for today. I'll have more later in the week about some of the other stories in the book. If any of the three snippets above intrigue you, or you can't wait to hear about the other stories... feel free to go ahead and pick up the book.

For several years the telecom sector has been quietly trying to spur additional regulation of Silicon Valley. Why? As giants like AT&T and Comcast increasingly push into the online advertising arena, they're keen on having competitors saddled with regulation, while they successfully eliminate oversight of their own problematic monopolies. Given the FCC (now headed by a former Verizon lawyer) just effectively neutered itself at telecom lobbyist behest while the DOJ (now headed by a former Verizon lawyer) goes the extra mile to vilify Facebook, you'd have to consider the gambit fairly successful so far.To be clear, there are plenty of problems with Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other Silicon Valley giants that require attention and intelligent solutions by objective experts. And while a huge chunk of the animosity toward Silicon Valley giants is entirely genuine and well deserved, a lot of the "big tech" hyperventilation among lawmakers like (longtime AT&T ally) Marsha Blackburn is largely theatrical in nature and being driven by the telecom sector. Ferreting out which is which isn't easy, but looking at campaign contributions can certainly help.The mainstream press, for its part, has been oddly unaware of how much of the animosity against "big tech" has been co-opted and amplified by telecom for what should be obviously selfish reasons. For example, telecom (hand in hand with Rupert Murdoch) has been making the rounds trying to suggest that Google's support of encrypted DNS somehow runs afoul of antitrust guidelines (it doesn't). And Reuters, for example, ran a story this week suggesting that Comcast had suddenly emerged as a "new antitrust foe" for Google, levying criticism at the company's ad business for the "first time":

Adding to the body of evidence showing that the use of traffic cameras is purely about revenue generation is this report from The Newspaper, which points out (yet again) how these systems are designed to eliminate due process and hasten the collection of fines and fees.In this case, part of the designed due process elimination was already in place before the red light cameras went up. Certain citations are designed to be unable to be challenged, and this one -- a red light infraction pinned on the wrong person -- is one of them.

Over the past couple of months, we have been discussing Liverpool FC, of the Premier League, attempting to get a trademark for "Liverpool" in a few soccer-related market designations. Despite the narrow scope of the application, the whole thing was still silly, given that "Liverpool" is purely geographic in nature, not to mention that there are several other independent Liverpool-area soccer clubs that would suddenly be infringing on Liverpool FC's trademark if granted. Interestingly, there was also a rather severe backlash from the public, including from Liverpool fans themselves, who organized a protest against the club.And now it turns out that all of that pain was for naught, as Liverpool FC has had its trademark application denied by the IPO.

So, this is good! Elizabeth Warren has announced that she supports bringing back the Office of Technology Assessment.

With all the misconceptions, political projects, and flat-out panics about tech in Congress these days, it sometimes feels like any positive legislative progress regarding technology is impossible. But once in a while you find a lawmaker who is out there pushing smart bills about tech, such as one that aims to help solve this whole mess by restoring and redesigning the Office of Technology Assessment to help educate Congress in the digital age. This week, we're joined by Rep. Mark Takano to discuss his plans to bring tech literacy back to Congress.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

We've written several times before about the FBI and its unnatural love for National Security Letters. NSLs make the FBI tick. They're super handy, too. The FBI issues them to itself and then hands them to a variety of third parties, eliminating any judicial oversight. The fact that third parties are recipients make the Fourth Amendment (mostly) irrelevant. These work so well the FBI has used NSLs to get info the FISA court has already said it can't have.Thanks to some modifications to NSLs by the USA Freedom Act, we're finally seeing recipients posting NSLs they've received. NSLs used to come with "forever" gag orders, preventing recipients from discussing them, much less posting the documents themselves. The new law, along with a decision from the DC Circuit Court, requires the FBI to periodically review its NSLs and decide whether the gag orders are still justified. Companies are also now allowed to demand gag order reviews themselves, rather than wait three years for the FBI to get around to it.The end result has been the release of several un-gagged NSLs by tech companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Automattic. A FOIA lawsuit by the EFF has resulted in the largest NSL document dump to date. The released files were shared with the New York Times (which, in turn, is sharing the documents with everyone else), showing that NSLs are not just limited to tech companies and service providers. They also target any entity that might conceivably have third-party records on hand.

Today a federal appeals court delivered a decidedly mixed decision in the FCC's ongoing quest to kill net neutrality and telecom sector oversight. On the one hand, the new 2-1 ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit backs much of the FCC's Orwellian-named "Restoring Internet Freedom" order, which not only repealed the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules, but gutted much of the agency's authority over broadband providers. That decision shoveled any remaining telecom oversight to an FTC that experts say lacks the authority or resources to actually police giants like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast (the whole point).But the ruling wasn't without a few notable catches. The court was quick to kick several aspects of the agency's order back to the FCC for revision. The court noted the FCC failed completely to explore how the repeal would harm public safety and efforts like the FCC's Lifeline program, which doles out a modest $9 monthly subsidy to low-income users to be used on wireless, phone, or broadband service (they have to choose one). Pai's been trying to undermine this Reagan-era program for several years, so the fact his FCC didn't think about the impact gutting FCC authority would have isn't surprising.The biggest part of the court's ruling is that it shot down the FCC's attempt to stop states from protecting net neutrality. In the wake of the FCC's repeal, 29 states have proposed their own state-level net neutrality rules, one of the biggest reasons ISPs haven't been pushing their luck. Some of these efforts, like California's SB822, actually go further than the FCC's 2015 rules did in policing things like zero rating (ISPs using usage caps as an anti-competitive weapon, something they're already doing).But the court found that if the FCC is going to void its authority over ISPs, it can't then turn around and try to pre-empt states from protecting consumers themselves:

The Ultimate Python Programmer's Bootcamp Bundle has 6 courses designed to help you master Python. Python is a general-purpose programming language which can be used to solve a wide variety of problems, be they in data analysis, machine learning, or web development. You'll learn about variables, strings, operators, vulnerability analysis, security scanning, and more. You'll also learn about Django, how to fix bugs in existing programs, how to make changes to improve existing code, and more. It's on sale for $39. Use the code LEARN75 to receive an additional 75% 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.

There are all sorts of reasons and ways to hate on big internet companies these days, but as we've warned, some of them are in conflict with one another -- though that doesn't seem to stop those who keep pushing the narrative forward from blindly repeating them anyway. The latest is a positively bonkers article in the Wall Street Journal arguing that Google's (somewhat middle of the road) support for DNS over HTTPS (DoH) is potentially an antitrust violation worthy of Congressional action.This is (1) utter nonsense and (2) driven by telcos looking to undermine consumer privacy. So if you're a pro-privacy Google hater, you might want to at least reconsider supporting this particular line of attack. If you are unaware, under the current DNS system, you still leak some key metadata every time you visit a site to your DNS provider (which is usually, but not always, your broadband/internet access provider). It used to be that those providers could collect even more, page-level, information, but that is less and less true as more and more of the web itself is encrypted with HTTPS. DoH is an attempt to encrypt the last bit of info that leaks when you surf -- the metadata about the top level domains you are visiting. Mozilla has been strongly pushing support for DoH, and will plan to move most public Firefox users to DoH in the relatively near future. Google, on the other hand, is supportive of the standard, but has shown no inclination to adopt it nearly as widely as Mozilla.Either way, done correctly, DoH protects your privacy and stops the fairly large metadata loophole that has allowed DNS providers (generally your telco/broadband provider) from being able to snoop on everywhere you surf. There are some reasonable concerns that if browsers automatically force users to use specific DNS resolvers for DoH that it could, potentially, lead to more control/centralization of both those servers, but as EFF points out in the link above, that's mitigated by more ISPs simply adopting DoH themselves.The problem, of course, is that the biggest telcos, such as AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast don't want to stop spying on you and all of your internet habits. And, so, rather than adopting DoH, they're trying to undermine DoH entirely by pretending that Google's lukewarm interest in supporting DoH is, itself, an antitrust violation. What's kind of incredible, however, is just how open they are about this plan, and that's it's entirely about preventing the big broadband providers from spying on your traffic:

For years we've talked about how the broadband and cable industry has perfected the use of utterly bogus fees to jack up subscriber bills, a dash of financial creativity it adopted from the banking and airline industries. Countless cable and broadband companies tack on a myriad of completely bogus fees below the line, letting them advertise one rate -- then sock you with a higher rate once your bill actually arrives. These companies will then brag repeatedly about how they haven't raised rates yet this year, when that's almost never actually the case.Despite this gamesmanship occurring for the better part of two decades, nobody ever seems particularly interested in doing much about it. The government tends to see this as little more than creative marketing, and when efforts to rein in this bad behavior (which is really false advertising) do pop up, they tend to go nowhere, given this industry's immense lobbying power. And given the US broadband sector remains painfully uncompetitive in most markets, actually voting with your wallet is often impossible.How bad is the problem, really? A new study by GlobalData found that what you'll actually pay to your cable TV or broadband provider can often be upwards of 45 percent higher than the advertised price:

When the protests of the Keystone XL pipeline project took off, state legislators (and prosecutors) tried to find some way to curb protected First Amendment activity. These efforts started with federal agencies like the CBP and FBI, which did what they could to make life difficult for protesters and journalists covering the protests.Efforts were made to turn protesting into an illegal act, or hand protesters a bill for services rendered by police officers already being paid to do the sort of thing they were doing -- keeping an eye on protests.In South Dakota, legislators pushed through a law targeting "riot-boosting." It defined this as the encouragement of violence during protests. It was passed in a hurry during the last week of the 2019 legislative session with an emergency clause that put it into effect immediately. The ACLU immediately sued, claiming the law was unconstitutional. As Courthouse News reports, a federal judge has arrived at the same conclusion.

Here on Techdirt, we love digital technology. We love how Moore's Law and its equivalents help drive continual innovation and open up interesting new uses and possibilities. But powerful technology is just a tool, and like any other tool it can be used in good and bad ways. Which brings us to this latest piece of high-tech wizardry: a 500-megapixel cloud-based camera system with built-in AI, developed in China. The English-language Global Times, which is closely aligned with the views of the Chinese government, explains one possible use of such a system:

As you might have heard, late last week, delivery company DoorDash admitted via a Medium post that there had been a large data breach exposing info on 4.9 million users of the service. The breach had actually happened months earlier, but was only just discovered earlier this month.

In all of our years and years of discussions on piracy and copyright infringement, one sweeping issue with the public discourse on the topic is how bereft of nuance it is. It's as though the world has been confronted with a massively complicated topic, the internet and digital piracy and their effects on content makers, and decided to make the conversation binary. Piracy is fine. Piracy is horrible.It should be immediately apparent how absurd that type of thinking is. Complicated issues require complicated analysis that often times has complicated outcomes. Serving as an example of this, a recent study out of Japan on the effects of piracy for the manga industry shows exactly these kind of mixed and complicated results.

Amazon's Ring doorbell/camera venture hasn't met a news cycle it can't fill with unintentionally-bad PR. Every time someone thinks they've heard the last odious effort by this company to become an unofficial extension of police department surveillance networks, another set of documents obtained through public records requests resets the counter to "zero days since last PR black eye."To date, the company that's already formed partnerships with nearly 400 law enforcement agencies has:

Last week, the Solicitor General of the White House weighed in on Google's request for the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit's ridiculously confused ruling in the Oracle/Google case concerning the copyrightability of APIs (and whether or not repurposing them is fair use). Not surprisingly, as the Solicitor General has been siding with Oracle all along, it suggests that the Supreme Court not hear the case. Of course, it does so by completely misrepresenting what's at stake in the case -- pretending that this is about whether or not software source code is copyright-eligible:

The Purrtec Encryption Key is a hardware solution that encrypts digital files with one click. Unlocking the files requires a physical key and password, so you are assured that others can’t access or read your files and data. Purrtec protects your data with government-grade AES 256- BIT hardware encryption, and no data is hosted externally. Lastly, this encryption key is very simple, just connect Purrtec to your computer, select the files you want to encrypt, drag and drop them into the Purrtec window, type your password, and you’re done. The exact same process works for decryption. The 2 pack is on sale for $80.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

It's no secret many in the UK government want backdoored encryption. The UK wing of the Five Eyes surveillance conglomerate says the only thing that should be "absolute" is the government's access to communications. The long-gestating "Snooper's Charter" frequently contained language mandating "lawful access," the government's preferred nomenclature for encryption backdoors. And officials have, at various times, made unsupported statements about how no one really needs encryption, so maybe companies should just stop offering it.What the UK government has in the works now won't mandate backdoors, but it appears to be a way to get its foot in the (back)door with the assistance of the US government. An agreement between the UK and the US -- possibly an offshoot of the Cloud Act -- would mandate the sharing of encrypted communications with UK law enforcement, as Bloomberg reports.