Techdirt

It's been a few years since we've really talked about the Hot News doctrine, which was a mostly obsolete and, frankly, bizarre attempt to turn the idea of publishing a similar news story too quickly after the original reporters broke the story into a form of "misappropriation." It stems from the International News Service v. Associated Press case from a century ago (literally: 1918), in which the AP argued that even though there is no copyright in facts, having INS release a similar story too quickly to AP's articles was a form of "misappropriation" of its "hot news." Incredibly, the court agreed. However, multiple later cases, plus the entire rewriting of copyright law in 1976 had most people believing that the entire concept of "hot news" was obsolete and effectively dead.Indeed, in 2003, Judge Richard Posner suggested that the entire concept "can be jettisoned" and he later committed to that in some of his rulings. However, around 2010, a variety of hot news cases popped up, and yet basically all of them have been losers (the one exception I can think of being a default judgment where the defendant didn't even show up).Still, over the last few years it felt as though we were back to the general feeling that "hot news" was a dead letter. Except... DC news organization Capitol Forum is now suing Bloomberg under the Hot News doctrine, in yet another attempt to revive the silly concept. The complaint makes a valiant effort, but one that seems likely to fall way short. The lawsuit also argues copyright infringement, and we'll get to that in a second, but the attempt at crying "hot news" seems particularly week:

During the Trump era, the government has dramatically ramped up claims that Chinese hardware vendor Huawei is a nefarious spy for the Chinese government, blackballing it from the U.S. telecom market. From pressuring U.S. carriers to drop plans to sell Huawei phones to the FCC's decision to ban companies from using Huawei gear if they want to receive federal subsidies, this effort hasn't been subtle.This week, there are rumblings that the Trump administration is about to take things further with a total ban on Huawei gear anywhere inside of the United States. The news is to be formally announced ahead of the Mobile World Congress trade show in Barcelona, likely with a heavy emphasis on how the move will cement U.S. dominance in the "race to 5G," a largely nonsensical concept drummed up by networking hardware vendor marketing departments.The problem: there's still no public evidence Huawei uses its network gear to spy on Americans, and much of the motivation for this assault on Huawei has been proven to be largely about protectionism, not national security.There's no doubt that Huawei, like AT&T here in the states, isn't a shining beacon of ethical behavior. At the same time, the dulcet undertones justifying much of the blacklisting is based on the premise that the company spies on Americans. Yet nobody has provided evidence of that. In fact, one 18-month investigation into Huawei in 2011 (the last time we had a flare of up this hysteria) found that there was no evidence supporting that claim:

Seems like this would be something that would go without saying: if you're an American tech company, don't willingly assist oppressive regimes in the oppression of their populace. Twitter is forever helping the Turkish government silence critics and journalists. Facebook has allowed governments to weaponize its moderation tools, quite possibly contributing to government-ordained killings.Now, Ron Wyden is calling out both Apple and Google for making it easier for Saudi Arabian men to treat their spouses (and employees) like possessions, rather than people.

The EU's awful Copyright Directive is rightly dominating the news at the moment, but there are other interesting laws being debated and passed in the European Union that have received far less attention. One of these is a revision of the Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive. Here's the background to the move:

As someone who spends a great deal of time writing about trademark law and trademark disputes, I am often repeating that trademark law was put in place specifically to keep the public from being confused as to the source of affiliations of a particular good or service. This is a necessary repetition, as far too many people think that trademark law was designed to allow opportunists to lock up language for commerce simply because they thought to do so. While the USPTO has historically been far too lenient on trademark matters, it is a fact that a mark that doesn't function to inform the buying public as to the source of a good or service is an invalid mark.This is a lesson recently learned by Grant DePorter, owner of Chicago's Harry Caray Restaurant Group, who attempted to register the hashtag "#MAGICNUMBER108", a reference to the Cubs long-held World Series drought.

Jon Callas has been at the forefront of computer security issues for a long time, most recently as the head of Apple's team of internal hackers that try to break into the company's own products. But just a couple of months ago he made a change, and left Apple to work on tech policy at the ACLU. This week, he joins us on the podcast to discuss the new job, computer security policy, and the latest phase of the crypto-wars.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.

When Google Fiber launched 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 disrupting 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 markets where Google Fiber was deployed, prices certainly dropped thanks to Google Fiber market pressure. The free marketing courtesy of press coverage was endless.That was then, this is now.In late 2016 Alphabet began getting cold feet about the high costs and slow return of the project, and effectively mothballed the entire thing -- without admitting that's what they were doing. The company blew through several CEOs in just a few months, laid off hundreds of employees, froze any real expansion, and cancelled countless installations for users who had been waiting years. And while Google made a lot of noise about how it would be shifting from fiber to wireless to possibly cut costs, those promises so far appear stuck in neutral as well.Meanwhile, Google Fiber's fiber network continues to shrink. Last week, the company penned a blog post stating it would be cancelling its entire build in Louisville, Kentucky. According to the post, the company experienced what it's calling some "challenges" that have forced it to retreat from the city after spending the last two years deploying fiber:

Tony Webster, writing for MPR News, has obtained court documents showing Minneapolis, Minnesota law enforcement agencies are deploying "reverse warrants" in hopes of tying suspects to crime scenes. A normal warrant targets a known object. Reverse warrants are loaded with unknowns -- an attempt to wrangle cell site location info into something that might lead police to a suspect. That's what these agencies are trying to do, but the approved warrants guarantee a sizable number of non-criminals will be swept up in the data haul.

Keep your plants hydrated and healthy while you dabble in DIY electronics with this Arduino Automatic Smart Plant Watering Kit. Complete with a pump, soil moisture sensors, water switch, and more components, this kit lets you deliver the perfect amount of water to up to 4 plants at a time. Once you power the board and upload the Arduino program, the kit will monitor your plants' moisture levels and water them, saving you time and water. It's on sale for $69.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

In the wake of 9/11, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) in New York City hired an ad agency, Korey Kay & Partners, to come up with a "creative exercise" in dealing with the post-9/11 world. They came up with slogan "If you see something, say something" and plastered it all over subways. Incredibly, the MTA trademarked the term (despite its lack of "use in commerce") and later licensed it to DHS (insanely, the MTA has been known to threaten others for using the slogan). However, despite now sounding like common wisdom, the program has been an utter disaster that has not stopped a single terrorist, but has created massive hassles for innocent people, and law enforcement who have to deal with busybodies freaking out about "weird stuff."Take, for example: Cindy McCain. The wife to the late Senator John McCain, recently decided she had seen something and had to say something. Specifically, as she herself claims, she was at an airport and saw a woman with a child of a "different ethnicity." And, rather than thinking "how nice" or "maybe I shouldn't be racist," she thought "I must go tell the police." Specifically,as she told an Arizona radio station:

For years now we've discussed how large ISPs have (ab)used the lack of competition in the broadband market by imposing completely arbitrary and unnecessary monthly usage caps and overage fees. ISPs have also taken to exempting their own content from these arbitrary limits while still penalizing competitors -- allowing them to use these restrictions to tilt the playing field in their favor. For example an AT&T broadband customer who uses AT&T's own streaming service faces no penalties. If that same customer uses Netflix or a competitor they're socked with surcharges.The anti-competitive impact of this should be obvious.But large ISPs have muddied the water by claiming that zero rating is the bits and bytes equivalent of a 1-800 number for data or free shipping. Customers who don't understand that usage caps are arbitrary nonsense from the get go often buy into this idea that they're getting something for free. And Ajit Pai's FCC has helped confuse the public as well by trying to claim that this model is somehow of immense benefit to low income communities.Guess what: it's not. Studies from Mozilla have shown that zero rating isn't some mystical panacea. You might recall that Facebook has spent years trying to offer a walled-garden internet service to developed nations where select content is "zero rated," something that was banned in India when regulators realized that letting Facebook determine which content was most widely accessed was a decidedly stupid idea. Facebook's altruism on this subject was ultimately revealed to be a ham-handed attempt to dominate advertising in developing nations.Now a new study (pdf) by the non-profit Epicenter.works has shown that zero rating models actually increase costs for the end user, the exact opposite of what incumbent carriers and Ajit Pai's FCC have claimed.While the EU passed net neutrality guidelines back in 2016, it left actual enforcement to each country. Mirroring efforts in India and Japan, some EU countries prohibited zero rating entirely. Others took a more hands off approach and allowed such models (usually based on ISP promises that such practices aided low-income users). The study took a look at 30 EU nations and found that those that prohibited zero rating saw a double-digit drop in the cost of wireless data plans compared to countries that embraced the concept.The study theorizes the higher costs are due to carriers being incentivized to jack up the cost of accessing normal, "non-zero rated" content in a bid to make zero-rated content seem more attractive. The EFF has been noting for years how this kind of gamesmanship distorts the market, putting natural telecom monopolies in a troubling position of determining which content and services will be cap-exempt (usually their own or whoever can afford to pay them). The EFF was particularly concerned this would be a cornerstone in the wake of AT&T's $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner. Its concerns proved well founded.The EFF continued to make that same point on the heels of this latest study's findings:

The battle over public records in California continues. A new law made records of police misconduct releasable to the public, kicking off predictable legal challenges from law enforcement agencies not accustomed to accountability.These agencies believe the law isn't retroactive. In essence, they think the passage of the law allows them to whitewash their pasts by only providing records going forward from the law's enactment. None other than the law's author, Senator Nancy Skinner, has gone on record -- with a letter to the Senate Rules Committee and the state Attorney General's office -- stating the law applies retroactively.This has been ignored by the state AG, who has stated in records request denials that he believes the law can't touch pre-2019 misconduct files. This is exactly what agencies challenging the law want to hear. Unfortunately for them, they've just been handed a loss by a California court.

Monster Energy, maker of caffeinated liquid crank, has a long and legendary history of being roughly the most obnoxious trademark bully on the planet. It faces stiff competition in this arena of bad, of course, but it has always put up quite a fight to win that title. The company either sues or attempts to block trademarks for everything that could even possibly be barely linked to the term "monster" in any way. One such case was its opposition to a trademark registration for Monsta Pizza in the UK. Pizza is, of course, not a beverage, but that didn't stop Monster Energy from trying to keep the pizza chain from its name. It lost that opposition, with the IPO pointing out that its citizens are not stupid enough to be confused between drinks and pizza.And that should have been the end of the story, except that this is Monster Energy we're talking about, so of course it appealed its loss. Its grounds for appeal amounted to "Nuh-uh! The public really might be confused!" Thankfully, Monster Energy lost this appeal as well.

ICE continues to make its own case for abolishment. The agency busies itself with neglecting detainees when not acting as the extension of major corporations to shut down infringing panties/websites. ICE is too big and it's getting bigger at a rate it can't sustain. To achieve the ends the President has set down for it, it's wearing itself thin trying to find the dangerous immigrants Trump keeps talking about or the bound-and-gagged women he insists are being brought across the border by the truckload.It seemingly doesn't have the manpower to even capture just dangerous foreigners. Instead of using its resources more carefully, it's doing things like setting up fake colleges to capture dangerous criminals immigrants seeking educational opportunities. And it's continuing to outsource its responsibilities while taking an apparent hands-off approach to third party detention.ICE's Inspector General released a report last summer stating the agency was failing to inspect detention facilities often enough or well enough. It found contractors performing government work were doing the job poorly. Detainees weren't being interviewed properly or given translators to overcome speech barriers. In some cases, detention personnel were not giving detainees access to services like phone calls to the ICE officers handling their cases. In some facilities, dangerous detainees were intermingled with non-criminals. In almost every case, ICE issued a waiver for deficiencies it actually observed. As far as the OIG could tell, dozens of deficiencies went unnoticed thanks to ICE's inability (or unwillingness) to perform mandatory inspections.There's more bad news coming from the OIG's office about ICE's use of contractors to handle detainees. The latest report [PDF] delves into ICE's apparent unwillingness to hold anyone accountable. ICE can't be trusted to police itself, so it obviously can't be trusted to police its contractors.This is the Inspector General's ultra-dry summary of the problems it discovered:

Late last year, we were among those disappointed by leaked news from Google that it was toying around with a censored search engine for China -- a country that the company had mostly left nearly a decade ago. After loud complaints both from people outside the company and many within, reports in late December said that the company had quietly halted efforts to build a censored Chinese search engine.But now... the company may be dipping its toe in the evil pool again, as it has apparently agreed to cooperate with Russia's censors. This is a battle that's been going on for some time. Over the last few years, Russia has passed a number of internet censorship laws, and there have been lots of questions about how Google and other tech giants would respond. A year ago, we noted that Facebook/Instagram had decided to cave in and that ratcheted up the pressure on Google.It should be noted that Russia has been on Google's case for a while, and the company had been resisting such pressure. Indeed, the company actually shut down its Russian office a few years back to try to protect itself (and its employees) from Russian legal threats.But, apparently, something has changed:

Big telecom operators haven't been exactly honest when it comes to the looming fifth-generation wireless standard (5G). Eager to use the improvements to charge higher rates and sell new gear, carriers and network vendors are already dramatically over-hyping where the service is actually available, and what it can actually do. Some, like AT&T, have gone so far as to actively mislead customers by pretending that its existing 4G networks are actually 5G. AT&T took this to the next level recently by issuing phone updates that change the 4G icon to "5GE" on customer phones, despite the fact that actual 5G isn't really available.In a country with functioning regulatory oversight, a competent regulator would at least issue a statement pointing out that misleading consumers in this fashion is false advertising. Instead, AT&T executives, FCC regulatory capture in tow, have quite literally expressed glee at the consternation their 5G head fake is creating among consumers and competitors alike:

The policing of tweets continues in the UK. The literal policing of tweets.Because there's apparently not enough people being stabbed on a daily basis, local law enforcement agencies have decided making house calls over reports of "hateful" tweeting is a worthwhile use of resources. This fairly recent law enforcement tradition dates back to at least 2014, but in recent weeks police have ramped up efforts to... well, it's unclear exactly what the endgame is.Irish writer Graham Linehan was recently visited by a Scottish police officer over supposed harassment of a trans rights activist. There didn't appear to be any actual harassment. Instead, it appeared the alleged harassee wasn't satisfied with the Mute and Block options offered by Twitter, and decided to file a formal complaint about speech he didn't like.The end result was a stupefying mix of force and futility. The officer asked Linehan to stop engaging with Adrian Harrop (the offended party). Linehan refused to do so. The officer left and Linehan got back on Twitter to talk about this bizarre waste of everyone's time.More time is being wasted by UK law enforcement, this time in an attempt to persuade an elderly person she harbors some outdated ideas.

Whether you need to leave yourself a reminder or send a heartfelt letter to a loved one, there's still a place for paper messages in our digital world. MEMOBIRD is the personal note printer and messenger that makes it easy to create paper notes on the fly. Using thermal paper, MEMOBIRD can print text, handwriting, photos, pictures, stickers, and even secret messages with absolutely zero ink. MEMOBIRD can also send/receive paper messages and print from any phone, tablet, laptop or desktop with or without an Internet connection. It's on sale for $60.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.

As was widely expected, even if it's unfortunately, on Friday evening the EU Council voted to move forward with the latest draft of the EU Copyright Directive, including the truly awful "compromise" version of Article 13 hacked out by the Germans and the French. This happened despite the fact that there's basically no one left who supports this version of Article 13. The public is widely against it. The internet companies are against it. And, perhaps surprisingly, even the legacy copyright companies -- who pushed so hard for this -- are still angry about the result, which they insist is too lenient on the internet.I've been left scratching my head over why the copyright holders are still pushing for more here. To be clear, the version that the EU Council approved last week would fundamentally change the internet in a massive way. It would, effectively, make it nearly impossible for any website to ever host any user-generated content. In nearly all cases it would require expensive and problematic upload filters. In the few "exceptions" to that, it would still require a massive amount of concessions from internet platforms to avoid liability.However, the reality here is simple: Article 13 (and, to a lesser extent, Article 11 with its snippet tax) is purposely designed to be awful. The supporters of these efforts keep insisting that it's not going to harm the internet at all, and that it's just about "closing the value gap" or "making the playing field even" or other nonsense along those lines. They insist that it won't create any harm to user-generated content platforms, or to legitimate, non-infringing works. Given that we've already seen how these kinds of systems work in practice, everyone knows that's a laughably false proposition.However, a bit of truth came out a few weeks back, when Axel Voss, the MEP pushing this Directive forward, put out a "Q and A" page attempting to defend both Articles 11 and 13. We walked through that page sentence by sentence to debunk it, but I kept thinking about why the EU and Axel Voss would push such utter nonsense. Normally, politicians at least try to put forth a flimsy attempt at pretending they're based in reality. But not here.However, in rereading the "answers" to the questions in the document, the whole thing makes sense under one, and only one, condition: if Articles 11 and 13 are purposefully designed to be internet-destroyingly awful, then the belief is that it will force internet platforms to negotiate some sort of "global licensing" deal. Professor AnneMarie Bridy made this point last month, in noting the following:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side (and also racking up a lot of funny votes) is MathFox with a simple take on how to stop piracy:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2014, the Snowden revelations continued with information like the NSA and FBI getting access to 40,000 Yahoo and Google accounts in the first half of 2013, and the GCHQ trying to hit Anonymous with a DDoS attack, while some new FOIA documents got us a closer look at how surveillance info is laundered via "parallel construction". Germany's Chaos Computer Club filed a criminal complaint against the German government over mass surveillance, while a Belgian prosecutor began looking into reports that the NSA and GCHQ hacked a well-known Belgian cryptographer. Meanwhile, Mike Rogers was trying to argue that Glenn Greenwald should be prosecuted for 'selling stolen material', Benjkamin Wittes was arguing that it's okay for the agency to deny spying on Americans, even if it does, and the DOJ was admitting that the NSA's phone record collection probably included congress.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2009, a researcher predicted that technology was going to render copyright completely obsolete within a year or so. This did not, of course, come true — but it's easy to see where it came from, even just given the copyright absurdity happening that very week. The EU was considering a draconian copyright proposal not unlike today's reform directive, the RIAA hired a new litigation boss with a history of 'misstating facts' in court while the DOJ was packing its ranks with entertainment and software industry lawyers, there was a proposal for new ACTA provisions that would criminalize non-commercial infringement, Blizzard successfully abused copyright to go after World Of Warcraft bots, and the Associated Press began demanding money for the photo that was the basis of Shepard Fairey's famous Obama poster.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2004, the EFF and other groups had noticed some dangerous corner-cutting in the RIAA's latest round of mass lawsuits, while the agency also appeared to be struggling to force its narrative about piracy onto the Morpheus/Grokster trial. The MyDoom virus was wreaking some havoc, causing Microsoft to set up an alternative website and, of course, causing antivirus companies to push massive damage estimates for reporters to uncritically repeat. One prediction piece about 3D printers may have jumped the gun slightly by saying they were closer than most people thought, but another was prescient in predicting that user-created video is the killer app for broadband, or at least wise to catch on to the fact that the internet is about connecting and communicating, not consuming a broadcast.

The bullshit debate over California police misconduct records continues. A new law granting the public access to police misconduct records for the first time in decades has resulted in a slew of public records requests. It's also resulted in a slew of refusals and legal challenges.Some law enforcement agencies (and their unions) have chosen to believe the law erases their past misdeeds. Although the law says nothing limiting access to records created prior to January 1, 2019, some agencies have decided the lack of specific language allows them to draw this inference from the missing words. Multiple lawsuits have hit the California court system, which may soon force the state's Supreme Court to deal with this miss, even if it took a hard pass on one law enforcement union's attempt to get a preemptive declaration that past misconduct records are off-limits.If these law enforcement agencies were truly seeking clarity, they were given a crystal clear explanation of the legislative intent from none other than the law's author, Senator Nancy Skinner.

When we discussed Chooseco, the company behind the Choose Your Own Adventure series of books from decades past, and its lawsuit against Netflix for having content that allowed watchers to choose paths within the narrative, we focused mostly on how silly the lawsuit was purely from a merit standpoint. The trademark suit rested mostly on a throwaway reference or homage made by a character in the Netflix work, and the claim that Chooseco has licensed its name in the past but lost the opportunity to do so for this work. None of that makes the public at all likely to be confused into thinking that Bandersnatch was somehow a Chooseco product, nor does such a reference somehow cause the work to be trademark infringement.But there's another angle in all of this. The homage made in Bandersnatch was truly an homage, meaning that it called to mind for many of a certain age the fondness we had for these Choose Your Own Adventure books. Despite the films dark themes, the reference itself is a positive one. And, frankly, it probably caused many to think about the series of books for the first time in a long time, making it something of an advertisement for Chooseco's products.And that buzz surrounding Bandersnatch certainly coincidentally occurred alongside the more recent announcement that Chooseco has agreed to partner with Amazon to produce Choose Your Own Adventures for the Alexa.

Four Houston police officers were shot -- allegedly by now-dead suspects -- while serving a no-knock warrant on a Houston residence. The no-knock warrant was supposed to make everything safer for the officers, giving them a chance to get a jump on the suspects and prevent the destruction of evidence/officers. But as anyone other than cops seems to comprehend, startling people in their own homes with explosives and kicked-in doors tends to make everything more dangerous for everyone.Operating on a tip that from someone claiming to have purchased heroin from the home of Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas, the Houston PD SWAT team secured a no-knock warrant and kicked in the door roughly five hours later. No heroin was found. Some guns and an apparently small amount of cocaine and marijuana were recovered. According to cops, the 59-year-old Tuttle opened fire on officers and his wife tried to take a shotgun from a downed officer, resulting in her being killed as well. The married couple are now dead, having amassed a combined 21 years of marriage and a single criminal charge -- a misdemeanor bad check charge -- between them before this raid ended their lives.The cops have vouched for the reliability of their confidential informant despite there being a huge discrepancy between what the CI told them and what was actually found in the house.

If you follow this kind of news at all, you probably have heard that Spotify has recently purchased two podcasting companies: Gimlet Media and Anchor. Gimlet makes a ton of high quality, highly produced podcasts (it's like the HBO of podcasting), while Anchor is a combination of a podcasting advertising network and a set of tools to let anyone create their own podcasts easily (it's like the SqaureSpace of podcasts). On the one hand, it's good to see podcasts getting some attention and interest, and Spotify is clearly one of the largest services for listening to audio files -- though much more so on the music side.My concern, however, is about the potential walling off of the podcast world. The whole concept of podcasts from the early days was the idea that anyone could create them and anyone could access them. That's been changing a bit of late. There have been a growing number of exclusive and walled off podcasts, including on Spotify (but also on Stitcher with its Stitcher Premium and Slate with its Slate Plus program -- and likely others as well).And obviously, it's nice to see experimentation around business models regarding podcasts, but as some are already pointing out, this could be another nail in the coffin for the idea of an open web.

For several years a man by the name of Chris Sevier has been waging a fairly facts-optional war on porn. Sevier first became famous for trying to marry his computer to protest same sex marriage a few years ago. He also tried to sue Apple after blaming the Cupertino giant for his own past porn addiction, and has gotten into trouble for allegedly stalking country star John Rich and a 17-year-old girl. Sevier has since been a cornerstone of an effort to pass truly awful porn filter legislation in nearly two dozen states under the disingenuous guise of combating human trafficking.Dubbed the "Human Trafficking Prevention Act," all of the incarnations of the law would force ISPs to filter pornography and other "patently offensive material." The legislation would then force state residents interested in viewing porn to pony up a one-time $20 "digital access fee" to whitelist the internet's naughty bits for each internet-connected device in the home. The proposal is patently absurd, technically impossible to implement, and yet somehow these bills continue to get further than they ever should across a huge swath of the boob-phobic country.Hawaii this week was the latest to take Sevier's unworkable draft legislation and turn it into unworkable real legislation. According to CNN, several incarnations of the bill have been proposed in the Hawaii legislature, after a similar measure failed to pass last year:

Cybercrime is evolving, and conventional antivirus tools are struggling to keep up. Thankfully, there's Heimdal Thor Foresight Home, the proactive security solution that blocks viruses and malware before they infect your computer. Delivering multi-layered, AI-powered protection, Thor Foresight Home scans your traffic 24/7 and keeps your computer safe from the most advanced ransomware, viruses, spyware, and advanced persistent threats (APTs). It automatically updates your apps to close security holes and is 100% compatible with any other security product, giving you even greater flexibility when it comes to protecting your digital self. You can protect 3 Pcs for $59.95, or 5 PCs for $69.95Note: 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.

A few years after law enforcement officials claimed Google's Waze navigation app allowed cop killers to stalk cops, the NYPD is demanding Google alter one of its apps (Google Maps, which incorporates certain Waze features) so it works more like the NYPD wants it to work, rather than how drivers want it to work. Gersh Kuntzman of Streetsblog NYC was the first to obtain a copy of a cease-and-desist sent to Google by the NYPD.

Recent scandals involving companies like Securus and LocationSmart made it clear that cellular carriers are collecting and selling an ocean of user location data without any meaningful oversight. Several reports have highlighted how that data is then being routinely abused by everybody from ethically dubious local Sheriffs to bounty hunters. Subsequent investigations have shown how easy it is for bounty hunters and others to access this data, and how the FCC under several administrations has failed utterly to hold cellular carriers and data brokers accountable for any of it.This week, Motherboard exposed another location data scandal with a report highlighting how cellular carriers are also selling private user A-GPS data with companies that aren't supposed to have access to it. A-GPS, or assisted GPS, involves using a device's onboard GPS chip as well as cellular network data to more quickly and precisely determine a user's location. Wireless industry filings with the government indicate this data can pinpoint a user's location indoors up to 50 meters; more precisely if a device's MAC and Bluetooth data are also utilized.Motherboard's investigation focused specifically on a now-defunct location data broker by the name of CerCareOne, which had been selling cellular user location data -- including A-GPS data-- as recently as 2017. As with the other scandals, this scandal involves a universe of shady middlemen who buy and sell an ocean of such data, often without carriers understanding (or bothering to understand) how widespread the practice had become:

As Techdirt has reported, the EU's GDPR legislation certainly has its problems. But whatever you think of it as a privacy framework, there's no denying its importance and global reach. That makes a recent ruling by a data protection authority in Germany of wider interest than the local nature of the decision might suggest. As Carlo Pilz reports in his post examining the case in detail, the Data Protection Authority of North Rhine-Westphalia (Landesbeauftragte für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit Nordrhein-Westfalen -- LfDI NRW for short) looked at what the GDPR might mean for email -- in particular, whether it implied that email should be encrypted in order to protect personal information, and if so, how.The LfDI NRW made a fundamental distinction between encryption at the content level and encryption at the transport level for the transmission of emails. The former encrypts content and attachments, using technology such as S/MIME and OpenPGP. However, the metadata associated with an email is not encrypted. With transport layer encryption, both the content and the metadata is encrypted. Pilz explains:

Despite the occasional criticism over how it communicates to the public, I've generally been a fan of Valve's Steam platform. Valve's not perfect, of course, but the company has generally tried to make Steam a place that is friendly to both major publishers and indies, all while taking steps that have been quite good for the average gamer as well, especially when it comes to policing games and reviews to ensure everything is on the up and up. It's probably for this reason that Steam hasn't had to endure much in the way of competition for some time. Yes, GOG.com exists, but the two game stores generally cater to different audiences and for different reasons.Well, if you're someone who pays attention to the games industry, you will already know that Epic Games has made a great deal of noise by pushing its own online marketplace to compete with Steam. Coverage of Epic's platform peaked this past week, when Epic managed to lure the latest iteration of the Metro game franchise to being an Epic exclusive for a year, even after pre-orders were available for the game on Steam's store for the past several weeks.

American elections are threatened by more than just Russian hacking; the lack of internet access for the growing Latino population undermines our democracy thanks to a shift to online counting for the 2020 census.Russian agents have and can again hack algorithms and voting systems -- but it matters little in the grand scheme of things if Latinos (the largest minority group in the U.S.) are blocked from participating in the election process before they even get to the voting booth. Without home internet access, the online 2020 census will be another modern civic duty millions of American Latinos won’t have the luxury of participating in, and Congress needs to do something about it.In 2015, 44 percent of Latinos did not have a broadband connection at home. Connecting to the internet is essential to participate in the 21st century economy. Without internet access, Latinos are shut out from many government benefits and responsibilities -- including the 2020 census. With so many Latinos on the wrong side of the digital divide, the census moving online could cause a domino effect for policies that rely heavily on census data -- like drawing voting districts.Moving the 2020 census online will make it harder to count Latinos, who have been undercounted in the U.S. census for decades. Particularly, the Census Bureau reports that 1.5 percent of the Latino population was undercounted in 2010. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights cites barriers such as language, poverty, education, and immigrant status as continuing causes to the undercount of Latinos.To be sure, those who cannot self-report online will have a paper option similar to the paper options of past censuses. However, the Census Bureau will no longer be conducting door-to-door surveying en mass, and will rely heavily on online marketing. The paper option alone will not be an adequate replacement for those without broadband so long as the Bureau also eliminates its door to door survey -- a necessary component to ensure more accurate counts.It is also true that the Bureau plans to make the 2020 census form available on mobile devices. However, this is not an equivalent option for those who are smartphone reliant. Not to mention smartphone data plans can be extremely limiting and are often the first thing to go in a time of financial hardship. At least 23 percent of smartphone owners report cancelling or suspending their service because of financial restraint.The online shift in the 2020 census is particularly troubling for a population with a history of census problems. Although there was a one-time “Mexican” option on the 1930 census, the U.S. didn’t make its first real attempt to measure the Latino population until the 1970 census. It wasn’t until the 2000 census that the U.S. even started using the term “Latino.” Before this, mix-ups or exclusive terminology made tracing data from decade to decade problematic.To worsen matters, the Census Bureau is making this drastic change based on inaccurate, or missing, data on exactly who has internet access -- and who remains unconnected. A lack of Congressional funds and problematic methodologies have slowed processes and produced over-exaggerated maps. Where connection is available, it’s worthless if a household doesn’t have a computer or (in the very least) a mobile device to utilize that connection. Even more troublesome is when families can’t afford to connect; a growing familiarity as cost remains the number one barrier to broadband adoption.With 21.9 percent of the Latino population in the U.S. living in poverty, more needs to be done to address the digital divide -- both where broadband is already deployed and where it isn’t yet. Closing the digital divide starts with preserving and expanding programs like Lifeline (an FCC program that provides a subsidy for low-income families to access communications services), to expanding municipal broadband, and to encouraging competition in existing broadband markets -- all things Trump’s FCC is actively working to gut.Despite showing up to the voting booth for President Obama in 2008, Latinos face trouble with voting. If undercounted, Latino voting power will be diminished even more by efforts to gerrymander congressional districts or concentrate Latinos into one or two small districts. Solving these voting rights issues is not likely before the 2020 census, but an undercount of the Latino population due to the digital divide certainly will worsen matters.As the 2020 census goes online for the first time, the digital divide is a threat to the future voting power of Latinos and other unconnected communities, including disconnected urban areas as well as rural America. One thing is for sure, we will continue to see an undercount and underestimation in political districting if large swaths of Americans can’t effectively participate in the new census. The digital divide’s impact on the 2020 census poses a significant problem that Congress should be invested in solving now instead of when it’s too late.Daiquiri Ryan is Policy Counsel for the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC)

As we discussed, over the weekend, France and Germany agreed to a deal to get the EU Copyright Directive moving forward again, specifically around Article 13. The problem was that the "deal" made Article 13 ridiculously bad. It removed all safe harbors, except for the tiniest of new internet platforms, and removed any requirement for copyright holders to actually help internet platforms by identifying what was infringing. It was utter nonsense. And, as we noted, even that wasn't good enough for MEP Axel Voss, the main member of the EU Parliament leading the charge on the EU Copyright Directive. He insisted that no safe harbor for platforms was acceptable at all.And now the various legacy copyright holders are backing him up on this. As they have before, the movie/TV/sports industry associations have sent a laughable letter insisting they need more.

Civil asset forfeiture is an abomination loaded with perverse incentives for law enforcement. Investigations and convictions are too much work. Seizing cash from random motorists or residents is so much easier than legitimate police work. The laws barely governing this practice allow the agency performing the seizure to keep all or most of what's seized, which has led directly to the widespread abuse we see around us today.The practice always has its defenders. Most of those defenders come from the same agencies that are directly profiting from asset forfeiture. They say the expected stuff about fighting the good Drug War -- that taking $500 from a random motorist somehow creates a ripple effect felt all the way at the top of the drug distribution chain. Everyone knows they're full of shit, but there are enough true believers in most state legislatures that the practice remains largely unaltered across the United States.But there are some outliers. Some people see the perverse incentives asset forfeiture creates and say perverted cops are the best cops.

Wireless carriers haven't quite gotten the message that their relentless hype surrounding 5G may result in consumers being more annoyed than excited, potentially undermining the entire point.While 5G is certainly going to be a good thing in that it will provide faster, more resilient connectivity, we've discussed at length how the talk about a "race to 5G" is largely just marketing nonsense pushed by cell carriers and network hardware vendors. As are claims that 5G is going to fundamentally transform the universe in some mystical capacity (like this piece claiming 5G will soon have us all working four day workweeks). 5G is good in that it will provide lower latency, faster connections, but it should be seen more as a modest evolution than some kind of dramatic revolution.From claims that 5G will magically build the smart cities of tomorrow to lobbying org proclamations of 5G as a job creator, 5G is routinely heralded as something far grander than it actually is by industry. Much of this is tactical; carriers have been using 5G for several years now as a carrot on a stick for gullible regulators, informing them that unless they do everything the industry wants (like, say, gut all meaningful government authority over predatory natural monopolies), the United States will be the laughing stock of the world.But the fact that over-hyping the tech could cause brand damage is something these companies don't seem particularly concerned about. AT&T, for example, has been widely ridiculed for simply changing the 4G logo on peoples' phones to 5G in the hopes that the press and public were too stupid to know the difference. And AT&T's early 5G offerings have been similarly over-hyped, promising availability in "12 cities" that barely exists if you take a closer look. Pricing isn't so great either, AT&T's initial product delivering just 15 gigabytes of usage for $70, not including network access fees, a $500 hotspot, and usage surcharges.Verizon's initial 5G offerings are being similarly over-hyped. Despite Verizon's claims last fall that its shiny new 300 Mbps, $50 home 5G service ($70 if you don't bundle Verizon mobile wireless) would be widely available in parts of Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles and Sacramento, folks who have actually measured availability say they're not particularly impressed:

From Apple's Siri to Tesla's self-driving cars, we're living in a world powered by AI, and these breakthroughs are just the beginning. From healthcare to finance, more industries are tapping into AI's unbound potential, which is why now is the time to get your feet wet with this field. Across 5 courses and 85 hours of content, the Artificial Intelligence Engineer Master Class Bundle will get you up to speed with the essentials behind AI, machine learning, deep learning, and data science. It's on sale for $79.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.

Claiming the nation was beset on all sides by national security threats and rampant criminality, the Australian government hustled an encryption-breaking law through Parliament (and past concerned members of the public) at the end of last year. The law compels companies to break encryption at the drop of a court order to give government agencies access to data and communications they otherwise can't access.Supporters of the law did everything they could to avoid using the term "backdoor," but backdoors are what they're expecting. How this will all work in practice is anyone's guess, as each demand for "exceptional access" will likely collide head-on with quality assurance processes meant to prevent the creation of security flaws in software and hardware. Agencies that want exceptional access will either have to bring a majority of a company's personnel on board (and hope no one leaks anything to the public) or risk having their "not a backdoor" rejected after the code is submitted for approval.No details have come to light (yet!) about companies being approached to punch holes in their own products, but it appears the Australian government has wasted no time putting its new powers to use.

Last month we noted how AT&T had pissed off competitors and consumers alike by pretending its existing fourth generation wireless network (4G) was actually 5G. More specifically, AT&T has been changing the "4G" icon on its customers phones to say "5G E," despite the fact that actual 5G service at scale is still probably several years away. Technically, AT&T simply took some of the improvements it recently added to its 4G networks (like better MIMO antennas and more efficient 256 QAM technologies), and decided to call this "5G Evolution" in a bid to pretend it was the first to launch actual 5G.Over-hyping your product's capabilities and availability isn't a particularly bright idea, since you're only associating your brand and the 5G standard with disappointment. Despite being widely criticized for the practice, AT&T appears to have learned very little from the process, only responding by expressing glee at the amount of consternation created among consumers and competitors alike:

When former NSA employees and contractors decide to start working for a journalist-murdering authoritarian, they should feel sick. Instead, after targeting journalists, dissidents, and other people the United Arab Emirates government doesn't like, they felt exhilarated.

Italy, which under its previous government had been supporters of Articles 11 and 13 in the EU Copyright Directive, has now made a pretty clear statement that if the country is going to support the latest directive, it needs to protect the users of the web, and the only way to do that is to remove Articles 11 and 13:

In December I went to install the Flywheel app on my new phone. Flywheel, for those unfamiliar, is a service that applies the app-dispatching and backend payment services typical of Uber and Lyft to the local medallion-based taxi business. I'd used it before on my old phone, but as I was installing it on my new one it asked for two specific permissions I didn't remember seeing before. The first was fine and unmemorable, but the second was a show-stopper: "Allow Flywheel access to your contacts?" Saying no made the app exit with passive-aggressive flourish ("You have forcefully denied some of the required permissions.") but I could not for the life of me figure out why I should say yes. Why on Earth would a taxi summoning app require access to my contacts? Tweets to the company were not answered, so it was impossible to know if Flywheel wanted that permission for some minor, reasonable purpose that in no way actually disclosed my contact data to this company, or if it was trying to slurp information about who I know for some other purpose. Its privacy policy, which on the surface seems both reasonable and readable, was last updated in 2013 and makes no reference to why it would now want access to my contacts.So I didn't finish installing it, although to Flywheel's credit, a January update to the app seems to have re-architected it so that it no longer demands that permission. (On the other hand, the privacy policy appears to still be from 2013.) But the same cannot be said for other apps that insist on reading all my contacts, including, conspicuously, Whatsapp.Whatsapp has been in the news a lot lately, particularly in light of Facebook's announcement that it planned to merge it with its Messenger service. But the problem described here is a problem even as the app stands on its own. True, unlike the old Flywheel app, Whatsapp can currently be installed without demanding to see the contact information stored on my phone. But it can't be used effectively. It can receive an inbound message from someone else who already knows my Whatsapp number, but it refuses to send an outbound message to a new contact unless I first let Whatsapp slurp up all my contacts. Whatsapp is candid in its privacy policy (last updated in 2016) that it collects this information (in fact it says you agree to "provide us the phone numbers in your mobile address book on a regular basis, including those of both the users of our Services and your other contacts."), which is good, but it never explains why it needs to, which is not good. Given that Signal, another encrypted communications app, does not require slurping up all contacts in order to run, it does not seem like something Whatsapp should need to do in order to provide its essential communications service. The only hint the privacy policy provides is that Whatsapp "may create a favorites list of your contacts for you" as part of its service, but it still isn't obvious why it would need to slurp up your entire address book, including non-Whatsapp user contact information, even for that.The irony is that an app like Whatapp should be exactly the sort of app that lawyers use. We are duty-bound to protect our clients' confidences, and encrypted communications are often necessary tools for maintaining a meaningful attorney-client relationship because they should allow us to protect the communications secrecy upon which the relationship depends. But that's exactly why I can't use it, didn't finish installing the old Flywheel app, and refuse to use any other app that insists on reading all my contacts for no good, disclosed, or proportionally-narrow reason: I am a lawyer, and I can't let this information out. Our responsibility to protect client confidences may very well extend to the actual identity of our clients. There are too many situations where if others can know who we are talking to it will be devastating to our clients' ability to seek the counsel to which they are Constitutionally entitled.I wrote about this problem a few years ago in an amicus brief on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for the appeal of Smith v. Obama. This case brought a constitutional challenge to the US government's practice of collecting bulk metadata from Verizon Wireless without warrants and without their incumbent requirements of probable cause and specificity. Unfortunately the constitutional challenge failed at the district court level, but not because the court couldn't see how it offended the Fourth Amendment when so much personal information could be so readily available to the government. Instead the district court dismissed the case because the court believed that it was hamstrung by the previous Supreme Court ruling in Smith v. Maryland. Smith v. Maryland is the 1979 case that gave us the third-party doctrine, this idea that if you've already disclosed certain information (such as who you were dialing) you can no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in this information that the Fourth Amendment should continue to protect (and thus require the government to get a warrant to access). Even in its time Smith v. Maryland was rather casual about the constitutionally-protected privacy interests at stake. But as applied to the metadata related to our digital communications, it eviscerates the personal privacy the Fourth Amendment exists to protect.

By now, we should all be aware that YouTube's ContentID system is not great. What was supposed to be an efficient way for content owners to report when their content is being used without permission instead represents essentially the worst from all worlds. It's bad from a operating technology perspective, since the system manages to flag non-infringing content as infringing content on the regular. And it's bad from a operating human standpoint, since YouTube puts so little emphasis on staffing around copyright claims that the appeals and review processes are a joke. The result of all this is a system that is wide open for both mistaken collateral damage and outright abuse. That abuse typically takes the form of people who either don't understand how copyright works, or who are interested in merely trolling others.Or, as it apparently turns out, the system is a lovely avenue for pure extortion, according to recent reports.

If you hadn't noticed by now, U.S. lobbying restrictions are the legislative and police equivalent of damp, musty cardboard. While there are some basic guidelines in place, they're so filled with loopholes as to be largely useless. One of the bigger problems is the far-too-generous definition of lobbyist we currently employ, which lets lobbyists tap dance around disclosure rules if they just... pretend they're doing something else.One case in point is Comcast's top lobbyist David Cohen, who routinely lobbies the government, but tap dances around the rules by calling himself the company's Chief Diversity Officer. Lobbying rules updated in 2007 require that if an employee spends more than 20% of their time lobbying in DC, they have to register with the government as a lobbyist. As such, folks like Cohen just call what they're doing something else, usually obfuscating their lobbying under what superficially appear to be more altruistic endeavors that often involve lobbying state and more local officials outside of DC.Since US rules prevent regulators and Senators from immediately jumping into direct lobbying for the first year or two post-government, they'll often just call themselves "consultants" or "advisors" as they help their new clients lobby the government. Case in point: recently departed FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn this week announced that she'd be "advising" T-Mobile as the company tries to gain regulatory approval for its job and competition-eroding megamerger with Sprint:

If you've been following copyright issues for more than a few years, you surely remember Aereo, a company that attempted to set up a bunch of micro-TV antennas which it could then use to stream broadcast TV to paying subscribers. What was fascinating about Aereo was how it was set up in a manner that was positively insane to any technologist -- but was considered "necessary" to comply with the law, following a bunch of nonsensical copyright rulings from other companies trying to offer streaming TV. And, incredibly, its careful following of the rules was declared to be proof that it was trying to "get around" the rules.And then, even more bizarre, the Supreme Court ruled against Aereo using no actually defined standard, but basically just saying that it looked too much like a cable service, so they'll call it a cable service (something I've referred to as the Supreme Court's "looks like a duck" doctrine). As we pointed out at the time, part of the problem with such a weird test is that it provided zero guidance to tech innovators who wanted to build a system within the law. Basically, the Supreme Court (or lower courts) can now decide that something "looks" too much like another system, and decide it's magically illegal... just because.However, it appears that at least one operation is trying again with an Aereo-like approach. And once again, it's taken a very legally-focused approach. Perhaps that's because it's been set up by a lawyer, David Goodfriend, who formerly worked for the FCC (and in the media industry). The NY Times has a big article about his Locast operation, and how he's hoping to get sued to prove that his approach is legal, where Aereo's failed. The basic approach does sound quite like Aereo:

The $29 Complete Full Stack Web Development Master Class Bundle is seven courses covering today's hottest web frameworks and technologies. You'll start with Web Development for Absolute Beginners where you'll learn the basics of HTML and CSS before moving on to learning about Bootstrap, PHP, and MySQL. From there other courses cover NodeJS and Angular, JavaScript, React, 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.

Under the guise of targeting sex traffickers, FOSTA has both done damage to Section 230 protections and sex workers' literal lives. The law has yet to result in any credible, sustained damage to human trafficking, but that hasn't stopped the bill's supporters from trotting out debunked numbers anytime they need a soundbite.There will likely be no studies performed by the government to determine FOSTA's actual impact on sex trafficking, but plenty of academics are offering evidence that pushing sex work further underground is endangering the lives of sex workers. This is just the icing on the stupid, life-threatening cake as multiple law enforcement agencies -- including the DOJ itself -- pointed out passing FOSTA would make it more difficult to hunt down traffickers.A study released in 2017 showed the introduction of erotic services section on Craiglist tracked with a 17% drop in female homicides across many major cities. Craigslist spent a few years being publicly vilified by public officials -- mainly states attorneys general -- before dumping its erotic services section (ERS). This didn't stop sex work or trafficking, but it did shift the focus away from Craiglist as everyone affected found other services to use.A newly-released study [PDF] (via Sophie Cull) shows there's been a corresponding increase in female homicides since the point Craigslist dumped ERS. Online services -- enabled by Section 230 -- helped sex workers stay safe by reducing or eliminating a few of the more dangerous variables.

Sprint and T-Mobile have been facing some increased scrutiny of their claim that merging and reducing the total number of major wireless competitors from four to three will be a wonderful thing for both consumers and the wireless market. New York and California regulators in particular have apparently been pushing back a little at the idea that more consolidation is what's needed in a largely consolidated and anti-competitive telecom sector:

The US government is either going to end up giving the public free access to court documents via PACER or find a group of legislators willing to extend a middle finger to the public by codifying the ridiculous fees charged to digitally access supposedly public documents.The government has been sued over PACER fees on multiple occasions. One lawsuit alleged that PACER is miscalculating page lengths on dockets, resulting in thousands, if not millions, of dollars of overcharges. Another lawsuit -- currently awaiting review by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals -- argues PACER fees are excessive and violate the law that governs PACER's existence.The E-Government Act says PACER fee intake should not exceed the cost of running the system. But as Matt Ford points out for The New Republic, PACER has an incredible profit margin.

While trolling online is something we generally have to suffer through rather than enjoy, I, for one, am absolutely here for the brand on brand trolling that occasionally sparks so much fun. Especially when done cleverly, this business on business violence is absolutely delicious. I was therefore very much delighted to learn that the initial fallout after McDonald's losing its trademark rights to the "Big Mac" in the EU is that some European branches of Burger King are delighting in rubbing McDonald's nose in it.

For the first time in years, California police misconduct records are accessible by the public. There's a huge asterisk on that sentence because, so far, law enforcement agencies have been unwilling to hand them over.One police department decided to purge all of its old records before the law went into effect, mooting the question with a questionable memory-holing. Other agencies have told requesters the law isn't retroactive, pretending the law says something it doesn't. A sheriff's union tried to force the question by petitioning the state's supreme court, but the court declined the opportunity to clarify the law's ability to open up records of past misconduct.At this point it's clear PDs aren't interested in complying with the new law. They'll sit on records until they're forced out of their hands by lawsuits. This isn't how transparency is supposed to work. The law wasn't a History Eraser button for old files and it certainly isn't there to assist PDs in withholding documents they're definitely obligated to turn over to the public.Most law enforcement agencies appear to believe the law hit the reset on misconduct records, ordering them only to release records created past the point the law went into effect (January 1st, 2019). Again, the law says nothing about it only affecting records going forward, but since it doesn't say anything specifically about past misconduct records, law enforcement agencies will continue to pretend it doesn't affect those until courts tell them otherwise.Whenever the courts take up the question, they'll have to examine the bill-making process and the law itself to determine its legislative intent. The law doesn't have to specifically order the release of pre-2019 documents if it's clear legislators intended the law to be retroactive. Fortunately for those suing PDs over withheld documents, the legislation's author has decided to clear the air on the law police departments are conveniently and deliberately misunderstanding.