Techdirt

Chuck Palahniuk has long been a personal hero of mine. Back when I fancied myself a fiction writer, I gobbled up his books, engrossed in the characters he was able to create. It was only years later, then writing for Techdirt, that a chip in my impression of Palahniuk emerged when he started his habit of blaming his finances on the piracy of his works. Palahniuk claimed that piracy was responsible for his "dwindling income." This, despite selling a ton of books and movie options, sounded strange -- especially given that book piracy is much more limited than things like music, movies or software. Where was he getting it from?Well, Palahniuk himself answers that question in a recent blog post on his site. It turns out the idea that piracy was to blame for his money troubles came from the accountant in charge of his royalties at his literary agency. That same accountant, it turns out, has now been charged with defauding the agency out of millions of dollars. Palahniuk now says he knows exactly what dwindled his income and it wasn't piracy.

Ah, Craig Brittain is back. Never quite satisfied to recognize that after the FTC sanctioned him, his name is the equivalent of Pustule Nickelback McHitler II, he's continued to lead his life of ridiculousness online, alternating between declaring himself a free speech hero and pushing to censor all his critics. And let us not forget his Senate campaign race in Arizona, which seemed to focus on Brittain's strategy of insulting lots of people while declaring it was obvious he was going to win. That went so well that at the end of May it was revealed that he failed to get enough signatures and thus is not on the ballot.Apparently having some extra free time on his schedule, he has sued Twitter, pro se of course. It's a fun read, and extra amusing as it comes just days after Chuck Johnson's lawsuit against Twitter on sorta similar grounds was tentatively tossed out of court. At least Johnson had an actual lawyer file his suit. Brittain's lawsuit, of course, cites the Packingham decision that a bunch of people have been misrepresenting to claim that it says social media can be considered a public forum. Brittain combines his misrepresentation of that opinion with a misrepresentation of the recent decision that President Trump cannot block followers, in order to claim that Twitter can't kick off any political candidate.

The Complete Raspberry Pi Hacker Bundle will teach you all you need to know about Raspberry Pi 3 for only $19. You'll learn how to easily prepare an SD card and flash it for any OS and how to work with GPIO pins and learn how to programmatically control them with Python. You'll be building a gaming system to play old Nintendo, Sega, and Playstation games, a personal digital assistant using the Google Assistant API, your own GPS tracking system, and much 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.

We recently had Julia Reda, a Member of the EU Parliament, on the podcast to discuss the horrible copyright directive proposal soon to be voted on by the Legal Affairs Committee in the EU Parliament. As we've been explaining, there are two very problematic parts to the copyright proposal: mandatory upload filters and the so-called "link tax." The link tax is also refered to as neighboring right or a snippet tax or a wide variety of similar things. But the crux of it is this: publishers are annoyed that Google and Facebook are successful, while they've been struggling. Ergo, the simplest solution is that Google and Facebook should be giving them money.To make this happen, for a while now they've been dishonestly screaming that Google and Facebook are somehow unfairly "profiting" off of their work, because those sites link to online published news stories, often including snippets. The theory is that this somehow takes away from those own sites' ability to profit. This... makes no sense. First off, this effort drives valuable traffic to the websites of these publishers. This is obvious from the fact that all of the publishers whining about this (1) have not used robots.txt to block sites like Google from scraping them and (2) employ their own search engine optimization team to appear higher in search results, showing they value traffic driven by search. The "solution" to this made up "problem" then is to say that sites like Google or Facebook are violating a brand new "publisher's right" or "neighboring right" in sending these sites traffic without also paying them, and thus they want to force sites to get a license to send traffic.Obviously, this goes against basically any reasonable conceptual understanding of how the internet works. And, this concept has been tested in Europe and failed. Germany tried it, and when Google responded by no longer including snippets for the publishers demanding payment, traffic to those publishers declined, and those publishers freaked out, eventually giving Google a free license. Spain then tried the same thing, but to avoid the "free license" issue, included as part of its law that you couldn't offer a free license (more or less making Creative Commons illegal, but that's a whole other issue). The end result there was Google News pulling out of Spain entirely, and traffic to publishers' sites dropping significantly.Of course, the German (mainly) publishers can't stop pushing this idea, and thanks to some friends in the EU Commission and EU Parliament, it's quite close to becoming law in the EU. People are very vocally protesting and pointing out the problems with this, so the publishers are now trying to push back by putting out a ridiculous "Mythbuster" document that claims to clear up why everyone is wrong about the problems of a link tax. Let's take a look.

Late last month, the FBI announced that hackers working for the Russian government had managed to infect roughly 500,000 routers in 54 countries with a particularly-nasty piece of malware known as VPN Filter. The malware, which infected routers from vendors like Linksys, MikroTik, Netgear, TP-Link, and certain network-attached storage devices from companies like QNAP, gave attackers the ability to track a victim's internet usage, launch attacks on other networks, and permanently destroy the devices upon command.A subsequent Cisco advisory about the malware noted that the infection rate steadily increased since it was first observed sometime in 2016:

As we've said in the past, Valve has always had a tricky line to walk with it's Steam platform, having to straddle the needs of both the gamers that use the service and the game developers that make it worthwhile. Frankly, it's walked this line fairly well for the most part. The platform, which was always popular, has exploded as the place to release a new game title online. As we noted way back in ye olde 2016, this popularity has also presented a problem for Steam: saturation. There are now simply so many games available on the platform that blindly wading into it and expecting to find new content you didn't know you wanted is a dicey proposition at best. More content is an undeniably good thing, but it would be silly to suggest that the deluge of new games released in the past few years hasn't also had a deleterious effect on the usability of the platform.Our solution? It won't surprise you. We advocated that Steam empower the gamers that use it to act as curators. If done properly, this would allow an ecosystem of trusted advisers among gamers that share interests to tell them which titles they should be looking at. To that end, Steam subsequently employed a curators program within the platform that attempted to build exactly this ecosystem. To date, it's been mediocre at best.But this isn't the only publicized problem Steam has had in recent days. In addition, the platform has been in the news for its wishy-washy but ultimately heavy-handed approach to games that have either mature sexual content or are offensive to large swaths of people. Combinations of so-called sex-games and games that make such topics as school shootings central to gameplay have been banned, or not, often to much critique from every side from gamers.The concept of empowering its community to serve as its own filters and the no-win situation when it comes to offensive games has now collided, causing Valve to announce that it's getting out of the game content moderating business entirely.

It's hardly a state secret that China is instituting the most complete surveillance and censorship system ever attempted by a society (so far), and on an unprecedented scale. Techdirt has been tracking that sad saga over the years, mostly reporting on how censorship is being implemented. Less information has been available about what exactly the Chinese government doesn't want people to know about/discuss. Aside from the obvious issues -- repression of Tibetans and Uyghurs, Tiananmen Square protests, environmental problems, government corruption etc. -- just what is Beijing afraid of? A document obtained by the The Globe and Mail may shed some light on this question, although it's still not entirely clear who wrote it:

While the copyright industries love to frame so-called "pirates" as nefarious freeloaders who simply want to consume content for free, it's been an open secret for some time now that these freeloaders are often outspending non-infringers on entertainment across the spectrum. Despite this clear indication that piracy is largely a problem of under-served customers, industry groups like the RIAA still prefer to play pretend with these obvious business metrics. The end result of this is that industry and anti-piracy groups essentially advocate for the attack of their constituents' best customers, which ought to be about as insane a thing as one can imagine.But perhaps the tide is turning. An indication of that would be MUSO, the piracy-tracking group, essentially telling copyright industries to get their shit together and finally treat pirates like the great customers they tend to be. The report is based on a MUSO survey showing that 60% of UK citizens admit to engaging in copyright infringement, except the overwhelming majority of those "pirates" first tried, and failed, to get that content legally.

Facebook is under fire yet again for potentially being far too casual in its treatment of private consumer data.Earlier this week, the New York Times issued a report noting that Facebook had struck deals with more than 60 different hardware vendors since at least 2010, providing them with "vast amounts" of private user data. According to the report, these partnerships allowed some devices to retrieve personal information even from users’ friends who believed they had barred any sharing with third party vendors, potentially violating a 2011 FTC consent decree that banned such sharing without obtaining express customer permission.To be clear, the partnerships are notably different from the deals struck with companies like Cambridge Analytica, which we now know routinely let app makers hoover up private data under false pretenses, then use that data for other purposes (like oh, riling up partisans ahead of an election). And Facebook was quick to issue a blog post trying to downplay the scope of the revelations:

Almost exactly a year ago, we wrote about a ridiculous defamation lawsuit filed by a plaintiff who has a history of fairly trollish, attention seeking behavior. I chose not to name the person in the post as I argued that the lawsuit itself was something of a publicity stunt, and I'll continue to do that here, even though it will become clear in the quoted parts of the ruling below. I have no interest in participating in the publicity stunt part of the lawsuit -- but do feel compelled to write about it because of the First Amendment issues that are a key component in the case. Amusingly, the plaintiff had a history of loudly proclaiming her support for free speech and the First Amendment, even going so far as to once state: "I care more about free speech... than almost any other issue."And yet, she sued a reporter over a tweet. Here's the way I described it last year:

Featuring more than 75 hours of training, the Certified Ethical Hacker Bootcamp Bundle is collection of expert-led courses can help you take the fight online and certify your skills as a bona fide cybersecurity professional. You'll foster skills in incident management, penetration testing, explore common threats, such as viruses, social engineering and DDoS attacks, and more. The bundle is on sale for $39.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.

New York state legislators are back at it, attempting to tackle cyberbullying with a "new" law. In reality, this would be the legislature's fifth attempt to enact an anti-cyberbullying law. New York attorney Eric Turkewitz was the first to catch the New York's Senate's self-congratulatory tweet. The tweet touted the bill's unanimous passage (a 56-0 vote). But "widespread support" isn't synonymous with "well-crafted law." No state senator wants to appear "soft" on bullying, so the law passes without anyone bothering to ascertain its effectiveness, much less its constitutionality.For an anti-bullying law to survive a constitutional challenge, it must be exceedingly well-crafted and narrowly-defined. This bill -- with 56-0 support -- has none of that. From Turkewitz's post on the bill:

Last week, we noted that the EU Parliament's website appeared not to be compliant with the GDPR. As we noted, this was pointed out in response to EU Commissioner Vera Jourova claiming that complying with the GDPR was so easy, that even she could do it. Now, a valid response to all of this would be to point out that the EU Parliament is different than the EU Commission or other parts of the EU government. But, now that we know the EU Parliament is not compliant, would it surprise you at all to find out that the European Commission is also not compliant with the GDPR. Apparently, while she was so busy claiming it was easy to comply with, Journova forgot to have the Commission itself comply.Specifically, Jason Smith, at the website Indivigital, discovered that various places on the EU's websites were hosting spreadsheets with personal information on many people who had attended events, and were revealing that information without permission (the report also found various GDPR violations involving 3rd party cookies).

The post-Snowden effects on Germany's surveillance architecture have been muted. Oversight in the US is a joke, but it's marginally better than what's being offered in other countries. You'd think a country that survived almost-consecutive crushing surveillance states would be a bit more cautious about deploying dragnets. Not so. All evidence points to German surveillance programs flourishing under the lack of effective oversight, limited only by technical prowess rather than concerns for those swept up by them.Internal investigations prompted by revelations seemed like a step forward, but the government gave German surveillance programs a thumbs up three years later. The information revealed by Snowden and other leakers did give residents and advocates enough ammunition for legal battles, but the German courts haven't really given them anything in return.David Meyer of ZDNet reports a court has handed a win to Germany's Federal Intelligence Service (BND) in a lawsuit filed by Frankfort's De-Cix, the largest internet hub in the world. The BND has tapped this for years, sweeping up massive amounts of data and communications, and frequently passing this on to surveillance partners around the world. De-Cix was compliant until 2016, when it decided to sue BND for violating German law.

Getting roped in by your public Facebook posts isn't a Fourth Amendment violation -- not even if the viewing "public" contains undercover cops. The Delaware Supreme Court [PDF] got to wrestle with an interesting question, but the public nature of conversations prevents the Fourth Amendment from being much of an issue. [h/t Eric Goldman]

The opening of this recent decision [PDF] by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals is eye catching. It quotes Breaking Bad prequel, Better Call Saul. More specifically, it quotes Jimmy McGill, who gradually morphs into the more-huckster-than-lawyer Saul Goodman over the course of the series. The case has to do with a murder suspect's request for a lawyer, one that was ignored by law enforcement. The quote sets the stage, letting readers know anyone accused of anything by law enforcement is better off exercising their right to be represented. (h/t Keith Lee)

Back in April, when lots of anti-Trump folks were cheering on the decision of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to sue various Russians and Wikileaks for hacking and publishing DNC emails, we pointed out that the lawsuit was full of some pretty crazy claims, especially those against Wikileaks. As we said, even if you really hate the role that Julian Assange and Wikileaks played in the 2016 election, the lawsuit itself could have serious ramifications on press freedom, at a time when you would think that those who don't support the President would want the press to have more freedom to report on him and the various things happening in his administration.Thankfully, many in the media are recognizing this as well. The Committee to Protect Journalism recently put out a strong article about how this lawsuit could endanger important press freedoms:

We've discussed the divide between police and the policed, but perhaps none is more pronounced than law enforcement's handling of those with mental health issues. Dozens of times a year, someone in need of intervention or caretaking is killed by police officers who have responded to relatives, friends, or family calling for help.911 is a dumb pipe. It will route the info to all, but it's usually police who end up acting as first responders, even when the crisis is health-related. Any combativeness is viewed as a threat, rather than a rational response to loud, violent stimuli. If the person needing help has a criminal record (and many people with mental health issues do), the "threat" is perceived before officers even make contact. In rare cases, these "wellness checks" end peacefully and with a resolution in line with the terminology used by law enforcement.In most cases, an arrest is involved. In many cases, the "wellness check" ends in someone's death. Nearly 250 people suffering mental health crises were killed by officers in 2017. The story here is unique in that it didn't end in death, a violent arrest, or something else not even roughly aligned with the idea of community caretaking. But that's possibly due to the fact no one was home.

Back in January we wrote about infamous internet troll Chuck Johnson's absolutely ridiculous lawsuit against Twitter for kicking him off the service. As we noted at the time, the lawsuit appeared to be nearly a carbon copy of Dennis Prager's silly lawsuit against YouTube. And, if you recall, a court tossed that lawsuit earlier this year. And now it's clear that a court is about to toss Johnson's lawsuit as well on anti-SLAPP grounds.On Tuesday, the court released a tentative ruling and lays out the many, many reasons why Johnson has no case at all, both under CDA 230 and the First Amendment.

Pay what you want for the AWS Cloud Development Bundle. If you pay less than the average price, you get access to an introductory course on AWS. If you beat the average price, you unlock 11 additional courses designed to help you learn all of the ins and outs of working with AWS. This deal is ending in 6 days, so act fast!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.

Recently, the folks at Government Attic filed a FOIA request that garnered a very cool response: a collection of posters made by the NSA in the 1950s and 60s to remind its employees about security. It wasn't long before we got some requests to put them on t-shirts in the Techdirt Gear store and so... that's exactly what we've done!You can now get 24 of the NSA's posters (with more coming soon) on premium t-shirts, hoodies and mugs from Teespring. Check out our store for the full NSA collection, or click the images below to go directly to the ones you like most.

As we've noted for a while, the ISP attack on net neutrality is only one small part of a broader gambit to eliminate all federal and state oversight of telecom monopolies. Not only did the "Restoring Internet Freedom" net neutrality repeal kill net neutrality, it neutered the FCC's ability to adequately police some of the most anti-competitive companies in America. At the same time, language embedded in the repeal also attempts to neuter state authority over ISPs, something some cable companies are already using to try and wiggle out of lawsuits over substandard service and slow speeds.All the while, ISPs and their policy BFFs have tried to argue that this massive neutering of state and FCC authority over ISPs was no big deal because the FTC would rush in and save the day, ignoring the fact that the FTC's authority over broadband providers is already shaky. The agency can't make rules as conditions warrant (like the FCC), and can only act against ISPs if a behavior is clearly shown to be "unfair and deceptive," something not easy to do in the net neutrality realm where anti-competitive behavior is often dressed up as "reasonable network management."As ISPs and their allies told anyone who'd listen the FTC was perfectly suited to police ISPs, they routinely "forgot" to mention that AT&T has spent the last few years in court trying to dismantle any remaining FTC authority over ISPs completely as it tried to tap dance around an FTC lawsuit for lying to consumers about the company's throttling practices. Ironically, AT&T lawyers had been trying to argue that the same common carrier rules AT&T has fought tooth and nail against on the net neutrality front exempt it from FTC oversight.AT&T's legal gambit began when the FTC sued AT&T back in 2014 for lying to customers about the company's throttling practices. But lately those efforts haven't been going so well, with several lower court rulings hampering AT&T's quest for zero government accountability. And while AT&T had hinted that it would pursue the case all the way to the Supreme Court, last week the company quietly announced that it wouldn't be chasing this particular dream any longer:

Hopefully you will recall FlightSimLabs, the company that makes custom add-ons for computer flight simulation software. FSL made it onto our pages after a Reddit user noticed that every installation of FSL software, including that of a legitimate purchase, installed a file named "test.exe" which was not just a form of DRM, but which also serves as a Chrome password dumping tool, extracting user names and passwords from people's web browsers. Whatever the fuzzy line between DRM software and malware, FLS's installation of its text.exe file clearly leapt over that line with a flourish. The backlash in the Reddit communities and elsewhere was swift and severe, leading Lefteris Kalamaras, who runs FSL, to release the following statement.

Reason number a billion why quotas for law enforcement are a bad idea: they encourage the worst behavior. The Victoria (AUS) Police recently performed an internal investigation into breathalyzer tests deployed 17.7 million times over the last 5-½ years. Prompted by an "anomaly" in the data, investigators uncovered something horrific and ridiculous all at the same time: Victorian cops blow… thousands of times a year.

Chicago's gun violence rate -- now in the midst of a long period of decline, never mind what the Attorney General and President say in public statements/tweet -- has been a concern for a few years now. The DOJ, before being chased away from policing the police by Jeff Sessions, noted the PD had destroyed its relationship with city residents with unconstitutional policing and an antagonistic attitude. A couple of high-profile shootings of Chicago residents by police officers did nothing to help.Chicago is the poster child for violent crime, despite its rate of crime being lower than under-the-radar cities like Ft. Worth, Memphis, and Houston. This had led to all sorts of solutions being suggested, including the return of unconstitutional policing (Attorney General), sending in the troops (President Trump), and a sharp uptick in surveillance (the Chicago PD).The New York Times covers the city's surveillance expansion under the headline "Can 30,000 Cameras Help Solve Chicago's Crime Problem?" The answer is unclear, despite the many glowing reviews of the city's camera network delivered by law enforcement officers and officials. The subhed -- "But what does it mean for residents' privacy?" -- is barely discussed.The network Chicago is deploying involves thousands of hi-def cameras, automatic license plate readers, mugshot databases, and predictive policing software. That the system went online roughly about the time homicide numbers began to decline has prompted praise -- perhaps unearned -- for the system's ability to rid the city of its violent crime problem.

As we've noted recently, the current copyright reform proposal being considered by the EU is full of extremely dangerous ideas, from mandated filters to a "link tax". This week, we're joined by European Parliament member Julia Reda to talk about the details of the regulatory process and the problems with the current proposal.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.

Imagine that you're a new-media entrepreneur in Europe a few centuries back, and you come up with the idea of using moveable type in your printing press to make it easier and cheaper to produce more copies of books. If there are any would-be media critics in Europe taking note of your technological innovation, some will be optimists. The optimists will predict that cheap books will hasten the spread of knowledge and maybe even fuel a Renaissance of intellectual inquiry. They'll predict the rise of newspapers, perhaps, and anticipate increased solidarity of the citizenry thanks to shared information and shared culture.Others will be pessimists—they'll foresee that the cheap spread of printed information will undermine institutions, will lead to doubts about the expertise of secular and religious leaders (who are, after all, better educated and better trained to handle the information that's now finding its way into ordinary people's hands). The pessimists will guess, quite reasonably, that cheap printing will lead to more publication of false information, heretical theories, and disruptive doctrines, which in turn may lead, ultimately, to destructive revolutions and religious schisms. The gloomiest pessimists will see, in cheap printing and later in the cheapness of paper itself—making it possible for all sorts of "fake news" to be spread--the sources of centuries of strife and division. And because the pain of the bad outcomes of cheap books is sharper and more attention-grabbing than contemplation of the long-term benefits of having most of the population know how to read, the gloomiest pessimists will seem to many to possess the more clear-eyed vision of the present and of the future. (Spoiler alert: both the optimists and the pessimists were right.)Fast-forward to the 21st century, and this is just where we're finding ourselves when we look at public discussion and public policy centering on the internet, digital technologies, and social media. Two recent books written in the aftermath of recent revelations about mischievous and malicious exploitation of social-media platforms—especially Facebook and Twitter—exemplify this zeitgeist in different ways. And although both of these books are filled with valuable information and insights, they also yield (in different ways) to the temptation to see social media as the source of more harm than good. Which leaves me wanting very much both to praise what's great in these two books (which I read back-to-back) and to criticize them where I think they've gone too far over to the Dark Side.The first book is Clint Watts's MESSING WITH THE ENEMY: SURVIVING IN A SOCIAL MEDIA WORLD OF HACKERS, TERRORISTS, RUSSIANS, AND FAKE NEWS. Watts is a West Point graduate and former FBI agent who's an expert on today's information warfare, including efforts by state actors (notably Russia) and non-state actors (notably Al Qaeda and ISIS) to exploit social media both to confound enemies and to recruit and inspire allies. I first heard of the book when I attended a conference at Stanford this spring where Watts—who has testified several times on these issues—was a presenter. His presentation was an eye-opening, erasing whatever lingering doubt I might have had about the scope and organization of those who want to use today's social media for malicious or destructive ends.In MESSING WITH THE ENEMY Watts relates in a bracing yet matter-of-fact tone not only his substantive knowledge as a researcher and expert in social-media information warfare but also his first-person experiences in engaging with foreign terrorists active on social-media platforms and in being harassed by terrorists (mostly virtually) for challenging them in public exchanges. "The internet brought people together," Watts writes, "but today social media is tearing everyone apart." He notes the irony of social media's receiving premature and overgenerous credit for democratic movements against various dictatorships but later being exploited as platforms for anti-democratic and terrorist initiatives:

You might remember that when HBO comedian John Oliver originally tackled net neutrality on his show in 2014, the FCC website crashed under the load of concerned consumers eager to support the creation of net neutrality rules. When Oliver revisited the topic last May to discuss Trump FCC boss Ajit Pai's myopic plan to kill those same rules, the FCC website crashed under the load a second time. That's not a particular shock; the FCC's website has long been seen as an outdated relic from the wayback times of Netscape, hit counters, and awful MIDI music.But then something weird happened. In the midst of all the media attention Oliver was receiving for his segment, the FCC issued a statement (pdf) by former FCC Chief Information Officer David Bray, claiming that comprehensive FCC "analysis" indicated that it was a malicious DDoS attack, not angry net neutrality supporters, that brought the agency's website to its knees:

Go from beginner to expert with lifetime access to eLearnExcel The Microsoft Excel Master Certification Bundle. Over 9 courses you'll learn all about pivot tables, time saving tricks, macros, formulas and more. Each course comes with a certificate of completion. The bundle is on sale for $39.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.

Having tried and mostly failed to regulate Wild West internet commerce, legislators have now decided to take a more "hands off" approach to the intersection of communications and commerce. That's what I would be writing if we lived in a world where people learned from their mistakes. But they don't. Whatever has failed a half-dozen times in previous iterations can be rebooted, doubled-down on, and otherwise presented as a legislative solution for a "problem." And this "problem" is always the same. Incumbents who have somehow managed to parlay their fortunes into a "disadvantaged" position want tech companies to give them (or their government) money.Link taxes -- otherwise known as "Google taxes" -- supposedly would allow publishers to recoup their "losses" from having Google send traffic their way. These haven't worked, and in the worst case scenario, Google has simply shut down its Google News service rather than pay for the privilege of referring traffic. Other attempts to make things "fair" for brick-and-mortar businesses competing with Amazon have led to similar outcomes. In one case, the French government decided Amazon could no longer offer free shipping on books to France. Amazon obliged, raising shipping to $0.01 Euros.The Australian government has decided to go down the road well traveled and charge Amazon extra for beating local retailers at their own game. A new law goes into effect at the beginning of July which charges Amazon 10% tax for every imported good sold to Australians. One of the backers of the bill is retailer Harvey Norman, which had this to say about Amazon.

When Google Fiber first arrived back in 2010, it was lauded as a game changer for the broadband industry. Google Fiber would, we were told, revolutionize the industry by taking Silicon Valley money and using it to disrupt the viciously uncompetitive and anti-competitive telecom sector. Initially things worked out well; cities tripped over themselves offering all manner of perks to the company in the hopes of breaking free from the broadband duopoly logjam. And in some areas where Google Fiber was deployed, prices certainly dropped thanks to Google Fiber market pressure.But that was then, and this is now.In late 2016 Alphabet made it clear that the company had grown bored with the high costs and slow pace of deploying fiber. The project has burned through several CEOs in just a year, laid off numerous employees, and the company ultimately announced it was considering a pivot to cheaper wireless technology. The problem: Google's still conducting numerous tests in various spectrum bands (including millimeter wave), but doesn't actually know what this replacement tech looks like yet. Meanwhile, the cities once promised a broadband revolution are seeing that hope replaced with annoyance and frustration.While the company stated it would be putting any new builds on hold, it insisted that existing projects that were underway wouldn't be impacted. That hasn't proven to be the case, with users in initial launch markets like Kansas City saying their installations had been cancelled with no real explanation after years of waiting. That same song is also playing out in markets like Atlanta, where hope and excitement have shifted to something decidedly... different:

As Techdirt readers know, there is a ratchet effect that means copyright always gets longer and stronger. As well as being inherently unfair -- why must the public always lose out when copyright law is changed? -- there's another unfortunate consequence. If the term or breadth of copyright were reduced from time to time, we would be able to test the effects of doing so on things like creativity. For example, if it turned out that shortening copyright increased the number of works being produced, then there would be a strong argument for reducing it further in the hope that the effect would be strengthened. The fact that we have been unable test this hypothesis is rather convenient for copyright maximalists. It means they can continue to call for the term of copyright to be increased without having to address the argument that this will cause less creativity, or reduce access to older works.Even though it is not possible to test the effects of reduced copyright directly, two US academics, Barbara Biasi and Petra Moser, have spotted a clever way of investigating the idea indirectly, in the field of science publishing. As they write in a post on CEPR's policy portal, in 1942 the US Book Republication Program (BRP) allowed US publishers to reprint exact copies of German-owned science books, effectively abolishing copyright for that class of works. They have looked at what impact this dramatic change had on the use of those reprinted works by scientists. Comparing citation rates before and after the BRP was introduced is not enough on its own: citation rates fluctuate, so it is necessary to compare the BRP citation rate with something else. The researchers' solution is to look at the citation rate of Swiss books from the same time:

Perhaps you thought that the legal drama between the famous San Diego Comic-Con and the Salt Lake Comic Con was over. Our ongoing coverage of this trademark dispute stemming from SDCC somehow having a valid trademark on "comic-con", a shortened descriptor phrase for a comic convention, largely concluded when SDCC "won" in court, being awarded $20,000 after initially asking for $12 million in damages. With the focus now turning to the roughly gazillion other comic conventions that exist using the "comic-con" phrase in their names and marketing materials, this particular dispute seemed to have come to a close.But not so much, actually. In post-trial motions, SDCC petitioned Judge Battaglia to consider the case "exceptional" so that SDCC can recover attorney's fees from SLCC. The arguement for SDCC appears to mostly be that they spent a shit-ton of money on attorneys for the case.

Government agencies, for the most part, treat public records requesters as weeds in the garden of governance: a pest that can never be fully eradicated, but rather tolerated with as much annoyance as possible. Whatever can't be made to disappear with hefty fee demands or months of stonewalling will be given as little attention and compliance as possible. This attitude has turned FOIA requesters into frequent litigators seeking to hold one branch of the government accountable by using another.When Cheryl Brantley, a member of activist group A Better Way for BPA, requested records from the Bonneville Power Administration (run by the Department of Energy), she filled out the agency's online FOIA form and waited. And waited. And waited some more before finally suing.BPA responded by declaring A Better Way had no standing to file a lawsuit. It decided to get hypertechnical about Brantley's FOIA submission, claiming no one but Brantley herself should be allowed to sue.The district court granted the BPA's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. A Better Way appealed this decision, placing it before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court is completely unimpressed with the BPA's attempt to turn a meaningless technicality into a motion to dismiss. From the decision's [PDF] summary: [h/t Brad Heath]

The Copia Institute was not the only party to file an amicus brief in support of Airbnb and Homeaway's Ninth Circuit appeal of a district court decision denying them Section 230 protection. For instance, a number of Internet platforms, including those like Glassdoor, which hosts specialized user expression, and those like eBay, which hosts transactional user expression, filed one pointing out how a ruling denying Airbnb and Homeaway would effectively deny it to far more platforms hosting far more kinds of user speech than just those platforms behind the instant appeal.And then there was this brief, submitted on behalf of former Congressman Chris Cox, who, with then-Representative Ron Wyden, had been instrumental in getting Section 230 on the books in the first place. With this brief the Court does not need to guess whether Congress intended for Section 230 to apply to platforms like Airbnb and Homeaway; the statute's author confirms that it did, and why.In giving insight into the statutory history of Section 230 the brief addresses the two main issues raised by the Airbnb appeal – issues that are continuing to come up over and over again in Section 230-related litigation in state and federal courts all over the country: does Section 230 apply to platforms intermediating transactional user expression, and does Section 230's pre-emption language preclude efforts by state and local authorities to hold these platforms liable for intermediating the consummation of the transactional speech. Cox's brief describes how Congress intended both these questions to be answered in the affirmative and thus may be relevant to these other cases. With that in mind, we are archiving – and summarizing – the brief here.To illustrate why Section 230 should apply in these situations, first the brief explains the historical context that prompted the statute in the first place:

In the wake of the Trump FCC's attack on net neutrality last December (which formally takes effect on June 11), more than half the states in the country are now exploring their own net neutrality rules. Some states (like Oregon and Washington) have passed state laws, while others (like New York and Montana) have embraced new executive orders that limit ISP ability to strike state contracts if they violate net neutrality. All told, it's not exactly the outcome AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast lobbyists were hoping for, and it's a pretty solid indication they really didn't think this entire thing through particularly well.But at the moment, most eyes rest on California, where one of the tougher new state-level replacement laws just took a major step forward.Senator Scott Wiener’s SB 822 would prevent ISPs in California from engaging in blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. The EFF has called the bill the "gold standard" for state-level net neutrality law. The proposal actually goes a bit further than the FCC rules it's intended to replace, in part because it more tightly polices things like zero rating and usage caps, which have long been used anti-competitively by incumbent ISPs as a way to make life more difficult for companies trying to elbow in on traditional TV revenues.Despite a major push by industry lobbyists, SB 822 last week was approved 23-12 by the California Senate and will now head to the state Assembly (sometime before the end of this month). If it passes there, it will be on to the desk of Governor Jerry Brown for signing.

The government rarely likes to play fair in court. This is why we have the (repeatedly-violated) Brady rule (which forces the production of exonerative evidence) and other precedential decisions to guide the government towards treating defendants the way the Constitution wants them to be treated, rather than the way the government would prefer to treat them.In a case involving drug charges predicated on the distribution of synthetic marijuana, the government tried to keep testimony of a DEA chemist out of the hands of two charged defendants. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals says this isn't OK in a decision [PDF] that gets very weedy (why yes, pun intended) pretty quickly. That's the nature of synthetics -- and the nature of DEA determinations on controlled substances analogues.The two proprietors of Zencense -- Charles Ritchie and Benjamin Galecki -- decided to manufacture and distribute their own blend of spice, using XLR-11 and UR-144 as active ingredients. The DEA raided Zencense's Las Vegas production facility, charging the pair with conspiracy to distribute controlled substance analogues.The government alleges both synthetics are analogues of JWH-018, which is a controlled substance. Unfortunately, its own chemist disagrees with this assertion.

Meet Scapple, a freeform mind-mapping software that lets you easily record and find connections between your ideas. It’s designed to help you put all your ideas in one place, then draw logical conclusions about them. Trace lines or arrows between related ideas, easily share ideas with others, and move notes around and never run out of space. Whether you’re working on a business venture, blog, or tech project, Scapple is the tool you need to take your work to the next level. It's on sale for $9.99.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.

Recent school shootings have led to heightened reactions from school officials and law enforcement. An over-correction of sorts -- thanks to the shooter in Florida having been brought to law enforcement's attention several times prior to the shooting -- has resulted in the arrest of hundreds of students across the nation.The problem isn't so much treating potential threats as credible until proven otherwise. The problem is there's so very little subtlety applied. Things that should not be perceived as threats are, and even when they're determined to be either unfounded or not actually a threat, some schools decide their misperceptions are more important than the reality of the situation. (h/t Reason)The graduating class of Truman High School in Independence, Missouri brainstormed senior pranks. Kylan Scheele came up with a pretty decent idea. He posted his school for sale on Craigslist.The ad read:

For years now we've documented the shitshow that is broadband industry customer satisfaction. That shitshow is generally thanks to a continued lack of real competition in the space, which lets these companies not only mindlessly raise rates like it's going out of style, but it gives companies like Comcast the leeway to experiment with terrible, anti-competitive practices like arbitrary and punitive usage caps and overage fees. And that's of course before you get to the clown car that passes for customer service at many of these companies, which routinely makes headlines for all the wrong reasons.Year after year we witness a rotating crop of bizarre stories highlighting how terribly these entrenched monopolies treat their subscribers. And each year industry executives insist that they've learned the error of their ways and have dedicated themselves and their budgets to fixing the "consumer experience."Except because these companies all but own state and federal lawmakers-- and see virtually no competition in their markets (especially at higher speeds)--things never actually get better. Case in point: the American Customer Satisfaction Index has released their latest analysis of customer satisfaction with the broadband industry. And what they found isn't pretty. In short, every single major ISP but one saw a decline in customer satisfaction over the last year:Note that these scores are worse than every other industry the ACSI tracks, including the airline, insurance, and banking sectors. And these scores are even well below consumer satisfaction with many government agencies, including the IRS.Comcast in fact is the only company to see no change whatsoever (though its TV services saw a 1 point decline), which is still notable given its 2014 promise that the hiring of a customer experience VP and other well-hyped improvements were going to "revolutionize" the way Comcast consumers were treated. Other companies like Charter (Spectrum) are in absolute free fall, dropping 8% year over year thanks to the poor service, rate hikes and empty promises in the wake of the company's bungled $89 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.And while things like gigabit broadband get a lot of media hype, we've noted that the lack of competition driving this problem is only getting worse. Numerous telcos have all but given up on residential broadband to shift their focus toward video advertising and enterprise services. And as they refuse to upgrade millions of DSL subscribers they don't actually want, cable companies like Comcast and Charter are securing a greater monopoly over broadband than ever before.Some like to claim new wireless technologies (like 5G) will emerge to magically provide competition to these providers. But while 5G wireless will provide faster, lower-latency and more resillient networks, it won't fix the business data service monopoly that drives high prices and many of the competition issues in the wireless sector. Nor will it address the industry's plan to keep putting ma bell back together via an endless array of competition-reducing megamergers. And however promising 5G is, it's not a substitute for uncapped, fixed broadband -- especially in more rural areas and less affluent cities.While cable secures a growing monopoly over fixed-line broadband, monopoly ISPs (with the Trump administration's help) are gutting all FTC, FCC and state oversight over their regional monopolistic fiefdoms. All while regulators like Ajit Pai whisper sweet nothings about how eliminating popular consumer protections like net neutrality will magically improve sector investment and competition. Surely this all works out well for the consumer, right?

MuckRock is currently conducting a public records survey of prison telephone contracts. What it has secured so far will shock you, but only if you haven't been paying attention. There's nothing like a captive audience, and prisoners are the most captive of all. There's one way out via telephone and its routed through mercenary companies and the law enforcement agencies that love them.Why so much law enforcement love for telcos specializing in prison phones? Because money buys a lot of love.

This week, our top comment comes in response to Charter's claims that a lawsuit over its terrible broadband is just the result of an evil tech conspiracy. One anonymous commenter suggested that maybe they aren't so crazy:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2013, we took a look at a big intellectual property report that focused on fearmongering about Chinese IP theft (while asking the public to foot the bill), called for companies to be allowed to use malware against infringers, and proposed cutting off funding to the World Health Organization if it doesn't start prioritizing IP protection, for some reason. Meanwhile, Hollywood studios were trying to wipe Kim Dotcom's Mega off the web, the RIAA was denying that it stifles innovation (while facing opposition from the Internet Association over its attempts to wipe out DMCA safe harbors), and CBS was trying to deny that its direct threats to sue Aereo actually meant it would sue Aereo.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2008, Viacom and YouTube were slugging it out in court while the former tried out some new anti-embedding arguments. The RIAA dropped its attack on the defunct Allofmp3, while ignoring the resurrection of the site under a different name, and ASCAP released a hugely problematic bill of supposed rights for artists. Metallica was trying to embrace the internet without offering any free downloads, and discovering that they had already squandered all their goodwill in that arena. And ACTA went from obscure trade agreement to a source of pushback and protests in record time.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2003, eBay lost a patent lawsuit over the Buy It Now feature, leading to a scramble from other online retailers to buy up the patents in question. We saw early discussion of tech ideas like personal 3D printers and telepresence robots (oh, and anti-infringement watermarks on content). Microsoft settled its dispute with AOL with a $750-million payout. And a court solidified many of the problems with the DMCA by ruling that rightsholders don't have to investigate the sites that they target.

As in any country, the limits of free speech are determined by the ruling party. While we have a Constitution that (mostly) holds our representatives at bay, many countries only pay lip service to rights they have previously declared inviolable. Egypt's government has long suppressed dissent and strangled communications. It deployed an internet kill switch in 2011, cutting off access to millions of Egyptians. A regime change followed and the former president was fined for nuking the country's internet access.Despite this power shift, nothing much changed. The current government cares no more for dissent and criticism than the previous one. Egyptian journalist Wael Abbas, who exposed police brutality and government torture, has provided his fellow residents an invaluable service: an unfiltered, ground-level view of government atrocities. His work even resulted in the rare conviction of Cairo police officers.But he's fought censorship at home -- as well as abroad -- every step of the way. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter have all suspended his accounts, supposedly for policy violations. Most of these were reversed after US activists intervened on his behalf, but his accounts are always just another perceived violation away from being shut down permanently.And that's just on the US side. Egypt's government has tried to silence him on the homefront, convicting him in 2010 for "providing telecommunications service to the public without permission of the authorities." That was under the previous regime -- the one that deployed an internet kill switch to disrupt the communications of its many critics and opponents.The new regime, as noted above, is no better. As Jillian York reports for the EFF, Abbas has been detained by Egyptian police, apparently for the crime of exposing government misdeeds.

The last time we discussed Illinois' Biometric Information Pirvacy Act, a 2008 law that gives citizens in the state rights governing how companies collect and protect their biometric data, it was when a brother/sister pair attempted to use the law to pull cash from Take-Two Interactive over its face-scanning app for the NBA2K series. In that case, the court ruled that the two could not claim to have suffered any actual harm as a result of using their avatars, with their real faces attached, in the game's online play. One of the chief aspects of the BIPA law is that users of a service must not find their biometric data being used in a way that they had not intended. In this case, online play with these avatars was indeed the stated purpose of uploading their faces and engaging in online play to begin with.But now the law has found itself in the news again, with a federal court ruling that millions of Facebook users can proceed under a class action with claims that Facebook's face-tagging database violates BIPA. Perhaps importantly, Facebook's recent and very public privacy issues may make a difference compared with the Take-Two case.

A recent Fourth Circuit Appeals Court decision found government agents at US borders need something more than the nothing currently required to perform searches of electronic devices. Cursory searches without suspicion are still fine in the Constitution-free zone, but forensic searches of cellphones need, at minimum, reasonable suspicion.This decision aligned the Fourth with the Ninth Circuit, where it was also determined forensic device searches require some sort of suspicion, even if performed at the border. A case out of Massachusetts (First Circuit) challenging a suspicionless device search has been allowed to move forward, possibly bringing another circuit into the mix and deepening the split.The Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court, however, has sided with the government and against citizens' privacy. It has upheld the lower court's determination that border device searches require no reasonable suspicion, no matter what the Supreme Court said in its Riley decision, which created a warrant requirement for phone searches. (via Jake Laperruque, Brad Heath)Karl Touset had his devices searched at the Atlanta airport after returning from an overseas trip. This followed some investigatory work by the government which suggested Touset might be involved in child pornography. The detainment and search was also prompted by money transfer service Xoom, which reported several people for making "frequent low money transfers" to people in "source countries" for child porn.Touset was met by CBP agents on arrival. Manual searches of his two phones revealed nothing, but CBP seized Touset's laptops and external hard drives. Those were forensically searched and child porn was discovered. These warrantless searches were challenged by Touset, but the Eleventh Circuit [PDF] immediately shuts down this line of reasoning by citing the Supreme Court.

The TSA is the worst. Super-secret watchlists can keep people from flying -- people deemed too dangerous to travel but not dangerous enough to arrest. This isn't the TSA's fault. Not these lists. Those are maintained by agencies who could possibly cobble together enough intel to build a flimsy case against these "dangerous" would-be travelers.The TSA, however, maintains its own database of travelers. It can't necessarily keep them from boarding airplanes, but it can give agents a heads up that the person in the queue probably needs to be detained and hassled. [via Boing Boing]

If you're of a certain age, then you will remember fondly Sesame Street, the educational programming once found on public broadcasting and now relegated to those with HBO subscriptions. The series dedicated its time to teaching children their letters and numbers, how to navigate childhood, and, above all, how to be kind to one another.The Happytime Murders, an R-rated film from the warped mind of Melissa McCarthy, which also has puppets at its center, is not Sesame Street. It features drug use, vulgar language, violence, sex, and the kind of anti-PC humor more akin to South Park than anything appearing on Sesame Street. To that end, it has used a tagline in its marketing material that reads "No Sesame. All Street." It specifically sets itself apart from the famed children's show, which is what made it somewhat odd that Sesame Workshop attempted to get a restraining order against The Happytime Murders over trademark concerns.

NetSpot Pro lets you visualize, optimize, and troubleshoot your wireless networks with any PC so you can get the best connection possible at all times. Use the mapping feature to view dead zones to help ensure that hotspots are placed correctly and radio channels are assigned properly. You can load a visual map, collect survey data, and build a comprehensive heatmap of a network, and more. NetSpot Pro is available for Windows or Mac and is on sale for $39.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 may not have heard the phrase "bootleggers and baptists," in regards to how strange bedfellows join forces in favor of certain regulations, but it's a useful concept. From a 1983 paper by Bruce Yandle, it discusses the odd realization that many people in industry often hope for regulation in a certain area knowing that the regulations will actually limit competition and benefit themselves. More importantly, it notes that those industry forces seeking to support such regulations will often hide behind those espousing moral reasons for the regulations. For the industry folks, it's a win-win: they get the regulation they want, without it appearing to be for their own benefit, but rather for the benefit of some righteous moral cause. Here's how Yandle describes the concept: