Techdirt

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

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

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

Take a deep dive into Machine Learning and Data Analysis across 8 courses and 48 hours of content for only $35. The Machine Learning and Data Science Certification Training Bundle will introduce you to Python, TensorFlow, Keras, and R data science. You'll explore deep neural networks (DNN), convolution neural networks (CNN)and recurrent neural networks (RNN), harness the power of Anaconda/iPython for practical data science, Create data visualizations like histograms, boxplots, scatterplots, barplots, pie/line charts, and more.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

StackSkills Unlimited is an online learning platform for mastering today's most in-demand skills. Now, with this exclusive limited-time offer, you'll gain access to 1,000+ StackSkills courses for life! Whether you're looking to earn a promotion, make a career change, or pick up a side hustle to make some extra cash, StackSkills delivers engaging online courses featuring the skills that matter most today like beginner to advanced courses in IT, development, graphic design, finance, business, marketing, and much more. Best of all, StackSkills' instructors are experts in their fields and are passionate about sharing learnings based on first-hand successes and failures. It's on sale for $59.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Microsoft Network and Security Fundamentals Certification Bundle has two courses to help you study and prepare for Microsoft Networking Certification Exams. The first course covers all 3 domain objectives of the MTA 98-366 certification exam. The second course prepares you for the MTA 98-367 certification exam. The bundle is on sale for $15.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might have noticed in the last week or two that President Trump has suddenly jumped on the silly bandwagon suggesting that internet platforms like Facebook and Twitter don't have a right to kick people off of their platforms. There have been a bunch of misleading tweets he's made, but we'll just post this one that kicked it all off:In it, Trump says:

CBS isn't exactly known for making coherent decisions. You'll probably recall the company sued Dish Network for simply developing DVR ad-skipping technology consumers asked for. It then went so far as to ban its subsidiary CNET from giving Dish an innovation award for the technology at CES. There was also that time the company sued the public domain for simply existing, or those numerous times it obnoxiously hassled Star Trek fans for their fan service.But this week the company did something exceptionally idiotic, even for CBS. Over at the company's CBS All Access streaming video service, some of the company's TV shows have taken some additional liberties traditionally restricted on broadcast television. Characters on its "Star Trek: Discovery" spin off, for example, now occasionally say "fuck." And its show "The Good Fight," a spin off of its broadcast show "The Good Wife," occasionally takes some more pointed stances politically than its more ambiguously scripted predecessor.One recent episode featured a 90-second animated musical segment written by Jonathan Coulton, poking fun at Chinese censorship, the country's terrible treatment of dissidents, the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, and President Xi Jinping's behavior. CBS's response? To try and completely censor the musical segment:

Is this good news or bad news? It's tough to say. The London Metro Police are proud of their many cameras and their cameras' many features, but there doesn't appear to be any improvement in the facial recognition tech its deploying.Three Freedom of Information requests sent to the Metro Police last year returned documents showing its tech was reporting nothing but false positives. The first response reported a 98% failure rate. A follow-up request generated an admission of a 100% failure rate by the Metro's tech. Now another set of FOI requests has gathered more data from the Metro Police and it appears past reports of consistent failure were pretty indicative of future results.

USA Today has scored a coup. It has partnered with police accountability nonprofit Invisible Institute to obtain misconduct records from around the nation. These paint a pretty bleak picture of American policing -- not just in the number of incidents, but in the number of incidents that go unpunished.Public records requests have resulted in thousands of documents detailing at least 200,000 incidents of alleged misconduct, along with more than 100,000 internal investigations. The database is completely searchable and leads readers, reporters, researchers, etc. directly to the underlying documents.Here are the morbid stats this database has produced:

At this point, it's plainly obvious that YouTube's ContentID platform for doing automated takedowns of videos that supposedly infringe on copyrights is a full on mess. That mess is multi-pronged. The filters themselves suck at identifying actual infringement, and throw up all kinds of false positives. The filters are also so broadly applied that building any nuance into what is blocked and what isn't is basically impossible. Finally, the whole system is so wide open for abuse that it's laughable.The latest iteration of this concerns Beat Saber, a virtual reality rhythm game where you essentially wield two lightsabers to match the beats and rhythms that go along with the music. The game has become so wildly popular that it was recently featured on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. That's where things went sideways.

We've noted for years how broadband providers have increasingly imposed arbitrary, confusing, and punitive usage caps and overage fees to cash in on the lack of competition in US broadband. Not only have industry executives admitted these limits aren't technically necessary, they've increasingly been abused to hamstring competitors. AT&T, for example, doesn't impose the limits on its broadband customers who use its streaming video service (DirecTV Now), but will impose the added charges if you use a competitor like Netflix.For many years ISPs have slowly but surely imposed such limits hoping that consumers wouldn't notice (think of the frog in the pot of boiling water metaphor). But as streaming services have increasingly embraced high-bandwidth 4K streaming, consumer usage has started to push back hard against some limits. For example, Charter Spectrum last week noted that the average Charter subscriber (one that doesn't subscribe to traditional TV) consumes just over 400 gigabytes of data per month:

The legal uncertainty created by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is becoming so common, it’s starting to go unnoticed. In yet another recent example, Poland’s data protection authority (DPA), UODO (“Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych” in Polish), fined a European company over €220,000 for failing to comply with a GDPR requirement that companies provide individuals with privacy notices. While it hasn’t drawn considerable attention, this case could have considerable implications for many other European companies. The sanction cuts through expectations that data protection authorities (DPAs) will play a constructive role of both regulators and advisors under the GDPR, and it illustrates that the need to clarify the European privacy law is ever more urgent.Bisnode, a European digital marketing company that specializes in data analytics, had collected and processed personal data from publicly available registers on six million individuals to provide creditworthiness scores to banks. The company used its access to the email addresses of about 679,000 users to inform them of the processing of their personal data—to which, out of a sample of 90,000 users, only 10 percent objected. But the operational costs of sending letters to the remaining 5.7 million users whose emails were unavailable would amount to €8 million of postal charges, an estimate which did not even include the related administrative costs. As a result, the company decided to publish a general statement on its website to alert the remaining data subjects. However, the Polish DPA decided that Bisnode did not go far enough in upholding its obligations under the GDPR.The decision to sanction this company is misguided and sets a worrying precedent for two reasons. First, this penalty is a direct consequence of the privacy law’s vague provisions and misleading language, which EU policymakers must urgently clarify. Under Article 14 of the GDPR, organizations collecting and processing personal data must provide privacy notices directly to data subjects. But this obligation does not apply in case providing this information is “impossible, or would involve a disproportionate effort.” The Polish company thought it had fulfilled its obligations under the GDPR, as the exorbitant cost of reaching out to the remaining users could trigger this exception. But while accepting the company’s calculations, UODO regulators did not assess that €8 million would constitute a sufficiently “disproportionate effort.” What is more, because the GDPR is not prescriptive about how companies must provide users with information, UODO claimed that the law does not oblige them to inform users specifically via registered post. Hence UODO considered that a public statement was insufficient because the company could have used other solutions such as sending SMS messages, even though Bisnode did not have telephone numbers for everyone and the costs of doing so would have been high.Second, this decision calls for a clarification of the role of DPAs under the GDPR. The company had taken a number of proactive steps to comply with the GDPR, yet UODO saw it as nothing more than proof that it was aware of its obligations and thus had intentionally violated them. DPAs should not impose penalties when there is ambiguity in the rules and companies are making an honest effort to comply. Instead, DPAs should play the role of educators so as to facilitate companies’ complex journey towards compliance. Before imposing penalties, they should take into account whether companies acted in good faith when establishing compliance strategies, the extent to which they have implemented compliance procedures internally, and the degree of interpretability of the provisions in question.Many EU companies have yet to comply with the privacy law and do not expect that they ever will. EU policymakers should realize that the privacy law’s strict and complex requirements may be the main reason why. But the Polish decision shows that compliance may not even be enough. Companies cannot interpret unclear regulations, so they will continue to face unpredictable decisions. Even if a company appeals a decision, it will take time before the final outcome establishes jurisprudence.EU policymakers and data protection authorities should focus on clarifying the legislation, specifying the technical requirements to provide information, and take into account the costs and difficulties compliance may impose on companies in some cases. Otherwise European businesses will continue to face difficulties interpreting and complying with the GDPR.Eline Chivot is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Data Innovation, based in Brussels. Daniel Castro is the director of the Center for Data Innovation and vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

You don't own the exploits you've created. That's the lesson the NSA has learned over the past few years as its hacking tools have made their way into the public domain via leaks. Of course, the harshest parts of this lesson have been felt by the general public, rather than the NSA, however. The leaked tools were swiftly repurposed to generate a new strain of ransomware, which took down dozens of businesses and government services around the world.But it's not just a random assortment of internet baddies wreaking havoc with NSA hacking tools and exploits. It's also state-sponsored hackers making use of these tools. A report from Symantec shows other nations are more than willing to turn our state-sponsored attacks against us -- demonstrating the danger of engaging in a cyberwar using weaponized code.

Your car needs routine checkups to ensure its health. Keep tabs on your car's health with the KOBRA. This wireless scanner can interpret over 3,000 code definitions of generic and manufacturer-specific trouble codes. You just need a WiFi connection and you can diagnose any car problem and unlock massive amounts of data on your car's performance in real time. It works on all cars manufactured after 1996, and is compatible with apps like DashCommand, OBD Auto Doctor, and Torque Pro. It's on sale for $15.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

There's an unfortunate belief among some internet trolls and grandstanding politicians that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act requires platforms to be "neutral" and that any attempt to moderate content or to have any form of bias in a platform's moderation focus somehow removes 230 protections. Unfortunately, it appears that many in the press are incorrectly buying into this flat out incorrect analysis of CDA 230. We first saw it last year, in Wired's giant cover story about Facebook's battles, in which it twice suggested that too much moderation might lose Facebook its CDA 230 protections:

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 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.But the Pai FCC has repeatedly tried to tap dance around FOIA requests, leading to several journalists (including those at the New York Times and Buzzfeed) suing the FCC. Despite the Times' lawyers best efforts to work with the FCC to tailor the nature of their requests over a period of months, the agency continues to hide behind FOIA exemptions that don't really apply here: namely FOIA exemption 6 (related to protecting privacy) and 7E (related to protecting agency security and law enforcement activity).In court filings made last week, the FCC also reiterated its claim that the primary reason it won't release more data is because it's just super concerned about user privacy:

Because it's so much easier to bust websites than actual criminals, police in Israel have decided to arrest the people behind a dark web site that made the dark web searchable. Zack Whittaker has the details for TechCrunch.

As many of you will be aware, there is a small town in South Dakota, Sturgis, that turns into the place to be if you're into motorcycle rallies. Many of you may not be aware, however, that this rally and town have become the center of a years-running trademark dispute. Sturgis Motorcycle Rally Inc. (SMRI), which helps put on the rally, moved to trademark the name of the town and the rally, and then began bullying local Sturgis businesses for daring to use the town's name or the name of the event. This was done, according to SMRI, for the purpose of protecting the event and town, which makes little to no sense. In the end, the two trademarks in question were one that was a geographical name and one that was almost purely descriptive of a social event.As it turns out, subsequent rulings on the matter did not go in SMRI's favor. This is creating some confusion in Sturgis, as SMRI's strategy for dealing with the legal losses appears to be simply pretending that they didn't occur.

As Techdirt noted a year ago, the entertainment industry has been trying to convince the authorities around the world that "fully-loaded" Kodi boxes, which allow the viewing of unauthorized video streams, are the devil's spawn, and must be eradicated. That obsession has led to efforts to stop even vanilla Kodi boxes being promoted and sold, despite the fact that the open source software they run is perfectly legal. TorrentFreak has a report about the latest salvo in this war on Kodi, and its interesting consequences.It concerns a third-party Kodi add-on called "Exodus", which, like many others, allowed unauthorized streaming videos to be viewed with little effort. The excellent design and resulting popularity of Exodus meant that it was soon targeted by copyright companies. The pressure worked, and the development of the add-on was halted, leaving millions of happy users somewhat less happy. But Exodus had an important hidden feature: it was released under an open source license. That meant that anyone could pick up the code and continue its development independently of the original, without needing to ask permission from anyone. As TorrentFreak points out, that is precisely what has happened, and on a surprisingly large scale. The TVAddons site recently published an article that discusses 12 forks of Exodus, which is only part of the Exodus ecosystem: "Too many Exodus forks are out there to investigate them all."This "hydra" effect -- chop off one head, and two grow in its place -- makes eliminating open-source add-ons for Kodi extremely difficult. Although individual developers may be persuaded to stop working on a particular fork, the code is still out there, and can easily be maintained and improved by others. Since the latter can be anywhere in the world, that makes shutting them down even harder. However, TorrentFreak rightly notes that this doesn't mean that the efforts of the copyright companies are entirely in vain:

The regulation of technology is an extremely important issue that impacts all our lives, but it tends to take a back seat in the world of mainstream politics, and when it does come to the fore, the lack of knowledge on display among elected representatives can be... disheartening, to say the least. In some ways that's starting to change as a generation of people who grew up with modern technology gets more and more involved in politics, but we're still a long, long way away from having a majority of tech-savvy (or even tech-literate) lawmakers. This week, we're joined by lawyer and pioneering law blogger Denise Howell to discuss the challenge of even determining whether a politician knows what they are talking about when it comes to tech.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.

Some CIA phone hacking tools made their way into the wild back in 2017. It didn't take long for the DOJ to find a suspect to charge. Joshua Schulte, a former NSA and CIA operative, was hit with a long list of charges, including espionage, child porn possession, and (at least momentarily) copyright infringement -- the last one on the list being the result of feds discovering a bunch of pirated movies and music on Schulte's server.As this prosecution has slowly moved forward, it has gotten wilder. The DOJ claimed Schulte was continuing to leak classified info, even after being jailed while awaiting his trial. According to the DOJ's filing, Schulte was using a number of smuggled-in phones to smuggle out classified documents turned over to him by the DOJ in response to discovery requests. The government's filing also made mention of "significant encryption" stymieing its attempts to break into Schulte's contraband phone but left the definition of that term open to discussion.Marcy Wheeler (of Emptywheel) was the first to come across Josh Schulte's latest filing in his case. And it's… something. Schulte has been openly critical of his incarceration and the US prison-industrial complex generally. Now, he's attempting to nail down the specifics by filing a complaint [PDF] against the US government for depriving him of a number of his rights and demanding, in a Dr. Evil-esque move, 50 BILLION DOLLARS.The 88-page [!] complaint opens with Schulte's handwritten claim the government has ended a career headed for Bill Gates/Jeff Bezos-level personal fortune. The "Relief" section says:

It is possible that if the Ninth Circuit panel truly realized how badly it messed up Section 230 it might have thought twice about it. So we’ve asked the court to give it a second thought. As did Airbnb and Homeaway, who were most immediately affected by the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in their challenge of the Santa Monica ordinance that, like the San Francisco ordinance, and ordinances increasingly sprouting up around the country, seeks to make them liable for their users’ expression.The problem: that’s exactly what Section 230 is supposed to prevent – holding a platform liable for user generated content that is wrongful in some way. If Santa Monica, San Francisco, and all those other cities want to make it illegal for people to list homes to rent, that’s fine. It may or may not be good local policy, but it won’t break the Internet. What breaks the Internet is when the law doesn’t just make people legally responsible for their own expression but makes the platform they used to express it liable for it too. Section 230 is supposed to prevent that, because if platforms can be held liable for all the myriad things that can be wrong with all the enormous amounts of user expression they intermediate, then they won’t be able to be platforms anymore. It will simply be too expensive to mitigate and manage this risk, at least not in a way that doesn’t result in enormous amounts of censorship of user content that isn’t even legally wrongful at all.So Airbnb and Homeaway filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc to ask the Ninth Circuit to review their case again, and last week the Copia Institute, along with the R Street Institute, filed an amicus brief in support of their petition. In our brief we reminded the court of what we have discussed here. First, that threatening platforms with liability forces platforms to have to monitor all their user expression, which may or may not even be possible, and at the expense of any monitoring that might be more effective. For instance, in this case, all these cities are asking Airbnb and Homeaway to ensure that every listing it allows to be rented be compliant with the registration requirement, but it might be better if instead they could focus their resources on building a more usable and secure platform, helping to eliminate fraud, or working to satisfy any other priority that would benefit the public more. Threatening platforms with liability for user content inevitably co-opts platforms’ resources, diverting them away from the sort of beneficial monitoring Congress tried to incentivize them to do with Section 230 and into monitoring that is solely self-protective.Secondly, it may likely not even be possible for platforms to do enough monitoring to protect themselves. Although the Ninth Circuit’s decision spoke to the Santa Monica ordinance, there is nothing about the decision that is limited to this specific ordinance in this specific city. A core problem with the decision is the degree to which the court minimized how difficult it will be for Airbnb and Homeaway to even just monitor their user listings to see if they comply with even just this registration requirement in even just this city. But other cities now have ordinances too, thus vastly expanding the task. There is also nothing in the decision that limits what the ordinance can demand for compliance – today it may be registration, but tomorrow it might be habitability concerns, which are even more infeasible for platforms to police, or any other arbitrary policy demand. And there is nothing limiting this tearing open of Section 230’s pre-emption provision preventing local liability from being imposed on platforms for user content to just this sort of local regulation relating to short-term rental platforms. It opens the door to absolutely everything every jurisdiction everywhere can dream up to hold against platforms. There is no way for platforms to be able to successfully monitor every regulatory demand every jurisdiction can make on user expression, so they will either give up and shut down completely or adjust their practices to comply with the most restrictive jurisdiction’s demands and ultimately end up censoring an awful lot of perfectly lawful content – or both. Section 230 was supposed to prevent platforms from finding themselves in this impossible position, and our brief reminded the Ninth Circuit of this fact.Also, as we previously pointed out, the fundamental error of the decision is that it split out facilitating the hosting of user expression from the facilitating of a transaction related to that user transaction. If this were a legitimate distinction, it would make it impossible to ever monetize one’s platform services, because every revenue transaction would always be connected to user content that could be wrongful. It doesn’t do anything to insulate platforms from the hosting of that content if it doesn’t insulate them from being able to afford to host that content. A decision like this one directly threatens the commercial viability of the Internet, which is definitely not what Congress wanted to have happen when it passed Section 230 in order expressly to protect that economic vitality.

The Project Management Professional Certification Training Bundle features 10 courses designed to get you up and running as a project manager. You'll prepare for certification exams by learning the fundamental knowledge, terminology, and processes of effective project management. Various methods of project management are covered as well including Six Sigma, Risk Management, Prince and more. The bundle is on sale for $49.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.