Techdirt

No one knows how to handle "fake news." Rather than step back and see what light-touch approaches might work, governments all over the world are rushing forward with bad ideas that harm speech and threaten journalism. No one seems to be immune to the "do something" infection and everything proposed is just another way to give governments more direct control of social media platforms and news outlets.In Italy, the government control of speech under the guide of "fake news" deterrence is being done in the worst way possible. It's not being handed to a regulatory body with instructions to sort of keep an eye on things. Instead, as Poynter reports, it's rolling out as a heckler's veto backed by armed officers.

We've long noted how state legislatures are so corrupt, they often quite literally let entrenched telecom operators write horrible, protectionist laws that hamstring competition. That's why there's now 21 states where companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have successfully lobbied for laws banning towns and cities from building their own broadband networks, even in instances where the incumbent refuses to. In many states, these laws even ban public/private partnerships, often the only creative solution for better broadband in low ROI markets.FCC efforts to pre-empt states from engaging in this kind of protectionism have been shot down by the courts, and voters continue to elect lawmakers whose top priority is protecting entrenched telecom duopolies, ensuring this cycle of pay-to-play dysfunction continues.Occasionally lawmakers propose bills attempting to shake up this cronyism, but the ISP-stranglehold over lawmakers usually ensure they go nowhere. Case in point: Rep. Anna Eshoo has introduced the Community Broadband Act of 2018 (HR 4814), which would not only ban states from passing rules prohibiting community broadband, but would ensure that any community broadband networks that get built don't get preferential treatment by regulators if they compete with private-sector ISPs. As bill co-sponsor Mike Doyle notes, these networks are often the only way many towns and cities get decent service:

Dr. Douglas Berger, an American psychiatrist offering services to ex-pats in Japan, recently sued a bunch of Redditors for telling other Redditors to steer clear of his services. Berger's lawsuit was exhaustive, covering several months of disparaging comments delivered by Redditors, but much of what Berger considered libel fell under the category of "protected opinion."Berger's ultimate goal appeared to be a revamp of his Google search results. Sitting ahead of multiple URLs linked to Berger and his Japanese business (many which appear to be owned by Berger himself) were links to multiple Reddit threads with unhelpful (for Berger anyway…) titles like "Stay away from 'psychiatrist' Doug Berger." In these threads, Berger was accused of everything from a lack of attentiveness during sessions to harassment to dodging income taxes.It wasn't pretty, but Berger's lawsuit was even uglier. Berger wanted a court to unmask multiple anonymous Redditors, while offering up little more than his opinions about opinions. While there were a few marginally-actionable statements listed in the lawsuit, Berger targeted every Redditor who'd ever said anything less than favorable about him.The Redditors put together a fundraising page for legal fees and secured the help of Marc Randazza. The good news is most of this is now unnecessary.

This post will come as no surprise to those of us super-interesting people that for some reason have made trademark law and news a key fulcrom point in our lives, but the United States Army has filed an opposition to the trademark application for the Las Vegas Golden Knights. Some background is in order should you not be one of the roughly twelve of us in America that are hockey fans.Starting around 2007, the United States Army went on something of a trademarking spree, filing for marks long in use, including some of the monikers for well known units and/or what I would call "show units", or units that chiefly serve to be seen at entertainment venues such as air and water shows. Included in these marks were the Army's "Black Knights" mascot for its military academy athletic teams and its Golden Knights paratrooping unit that performs at air and water shows all over the country. The army uses these trademarks to rake in millions of dollars in merchandise.The Las Vegas Golden Knights is an NHL expansion hockey team started by a graduate of West Point, Bill Foley, who wanted the team's garb and name to serve as an homage to his military roots. To that end, he had initially wanted to name the team "The Black Knights", but switched to "The Golden Knights" after the Army voiced its displeasure. The color scheme for the team is a clear call back to the paratrooping team that shares the name.It has been these clear admissions of homage that the Army has pointed to as an indication that this is obvious trademark infringement.

As the result of a public records battle with a local newspaper over court records, two Virginia politicians have decided to address the issue with legislation. One hopes to further open court records to the public.

In the midst of the political chaos in America and the world at large, a whole lot of attention has been turned to Facebook and its role in modern democracy. The social network has responded by announcing another round of news feed changes, the true impact of which (if any) remains far from clear. This week, we're joined by Mathew Ingram from the Columbia Journalism Review to talk about Facebook's changes, and whether we can or should expect them to fix anything.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.

Two of the most important developments in China's clampdown on the digital world took place last year, when the country's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology declared that all VPN providers needed prior government approval to operate, and then apps stores were forced to remove the many VPNs on offer there. In some parts of China, VPNs were banned completely, but such a total shutdown is not really an option for cities with many businesses that require secure overseas communication channels. That put the Chinese authorities in something of a quandary: how could they reconcile their desire to prevent VPNs being used to circumvent online controls, while ensuring that the country's increasingly important corporate sector had access to the encryption tools it needed for operating globally? An article in the FT provides us with the answer (paywall). In recent months, international companies and organizations have found their VPNs blocked more frequently:

If you've been napping, Comcast lobbyists recently convinced the government to kill net neutrality rules, dismantle broadband privacy protections, and bury efforts to make the cable box market more competitive. And they're just getting warmed up. Comcast lobbyists have also successfully convinced the Trump administration to eliminate nearly all state and federal oversight of large telecom monopolies. Should they be successful, consumers and innovators will face a massive new era of little to no accountability for one of the most despised, least-competitive business sectors in America.This new wave of regulatory capture comes at an inopportune time for American consumers and the nation's startups. Comcast was already facing less broadband competition than ever in many markets thanks to incumbent telcos effectively giving up on upgrading millions of aging DSL lines. With neither government oversight nor healthy competition present to keep Comcast in check, the company's awful customer service has become legend, and the rise of arbitrary, unnecessary fees and usage caps have become the norm.As an added bonus for Comcast, the conditions applied to the company's 2011 merger with NBC just expired over the weekend, raising additional concerns about the potential impact of an unshackled Comcast on the emerging streaming video market. Those conditions prohibited Comcast from charging streaming competitors unfair rates, or from meddling in Hulu management to prevent disruption of Comcast's own services. They also required Comcast adhere to some aspects of the FCC's 2010 net neutrality rules, even if they were dismantled in court (they were).With the DOJ suing to block AT&T's own media megamerger, some FCC Commissioners are wondering why Comcast gets a free pass here:

With the fully immersive Complete Web Developer Course that covers everything 'code', you'll learn everything you need to start programming like a pro. Over 30 hours of content will introduce you to the fundamentals of HTML5, CSS3 and Python, teach you how to build responsive websites with jQuery, PHP 7, MySQL 5 and Twitter Bootstrap, discover smart ways to add dynamic content by using APIs, and more. The course is on sale for only $9.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.

The teenage hacker who tore CIA director John Brennan a new AOL-hole is awaiting sentencing in the UK. Kane Gamble, the apparent founder of hacker collective Crackas With Attitude, was able to access classified documents Brennan has forwarded to his personal email account by posing as a Verizon tech. Social engineering is still the best hacking tool. It's something anyone anywhere can do. If you do it well, a whole host of supposedly-secured information can be had, thanks to multiple entities relying on the same personal identifiers to "verify" the social engineer they're talking to is the person who owns accounts they're granting access to.Despite claiming he was motivated by American injustices perpetrated around the world (Palestine is namechecked in the teen's multiple mini-manifestos), a lot of what Gamble participated in was plain, old fashioned harassment.

In the wake of the federal repeal of net neutrality rules, numerous states have responded by proposing their own net neutrality rules that either mirror the FCC's discarded rules, or impose new restrictions on net neutrality violating ISPs trying to secure state telecom contracts. New York, Massachusetts, Washington and California are among a dozen states considering their own rules. These efforts come despite the fact that Comcast and Verizon successfully lobbied the FCC to include provisions trying to ban states from protecting consumers in the wake of federal apathy on the subject.Unwilling to run the legislative gauntlet, Montana has taken a shortcut. Montana Governor Steve Bullock has signed an executive order banning ISPs from being able to secure state contracts if they violate net neutrality. Bullock on Twitter proclaimed that the state's future depended on the internet, well, actually working properly:

Hot-button topic "fake news" is going to be the downfall of the internet. All over the world, governments are trying to tackle the non-issue by introducing harmful legislation that will only result in increased direct control of the press by the governments passing these bills. "Fake news" defies definition. It could be read to encompass satire and parody. It could also cover legitimate news that deals with subject matter certain people don't like. That's pretty much how it's been defined by the party in power here: whatever Donald Trump doesn't like is deemed "fake news" by the Commander in Chief, even if the news is based on factual events and credible statements.Allowing the government to get in the speech business is a bad idea. All "solutions" proposed by world government officials are vehicles for abuse by the state -- a way to suppress anything that doesn't align with the party in power's narrative. On a smaller scale, it also creates a handy heckler's veto for social media platforms, putting brigades a click away from shouting down stuff they don't like.In Brazil, fake news is under attack… and in the worst way possible. Governments nudging media platforms and press agencies towards self-censorship is one thing. Handing this over to men with guns is another.

The last time that Techdirt wrote about Tunisia was back in 2011, when the Internet helped bring about a major regime change there. Although violent protests against the government have flared up recently, in general, the processes that are being applied to shift national policies in Tunisia are both peaceful and successful. Here, for example, is some good news from Access Now on the privacy front:

We see all kinds of crazy copyright disputes and lawsuits around here. It is, after all, kind of our thing. Still, occasionally you come across a copyright lawsuit so completely head-scratching as to make you question reality. Thus is the case with the lawsuit Crytek filed against CIG, makers of the long-anticipated Star Citzen game, for both breaking a licensing agreement between both parties and copyright infringement. Strangely, if you read the complaint, all of this centers around CIG choosing not to use the Crytek engine.

Shortly after Trump was elected I wrote a post predicting how things might unfold on the tech policy front with the incoming administration. It seems worth taking stock, now almost a year into it, to see how those predictions may have played out.Most of this post will track the way the issues were broken down last time. But it is first worth commenting how in one significant overarching way last year's post does not hold up: it presumed, even if only naively in the face of evidence already suggesting otherwise, that the Trump administration would function with the competency and coherence that presidential administrations have generally functioned with in order to function at all, let alone effectively enough to drive forth a set of preferred policy positions. There seems to be growing consensus that this presumption was and remains unsound.Furthermore, the normal sort of political considerations that traditionally have both animated and limited presidential policy advocacy do not seem applicable to this presidency. As a result, conventional political wisdom in other areas of government also now seems to be changing, as the rest of the political order reacts to what Trump actually has done in his year as President and prepares for the next major round of elections in 2018.Free speech/copyright – For better or for worse, the Trump administration does not seem to be particularly interested in copyright policy, but it has nonetheless had an effect on it. The denial of the cert petition in Lenz following a strange brief from the Trump Administration's Solicitor General and the appointment of Justice Gorsuch will leave a mark, as without teeth being put back into the DMCA to deter abusive takedown notices, content will still be vulnerable to illegitimate takedown demands of all sorts of speech, including political speech. If there's one thing the Trump administration has accomplished it has been to make people much more politically aware, and we've already seen instances of people using the DMCA's notice and takedown system to try to suppress speech they don't like. To be fair, we've seen people of all political persuasions do this, but the concern is heightened when the views of those who already have power to suppress the views of those that do not. (Note also: it is not clear that a Clinton Solicitor General would have written an any more solicitous brief in support of Lenz, or that a justice other than Gorsuch would have changed the cert vote. Plenty of Democratic appointees have been disappointing on the copyright front. However, it is a policy result that is directly due to the new administration.)More interestingly, however, is the impact on future copyright policy (and, indeed, lots of other tech policy) caused by the political toll the Trump administration has been having on the GOP. The impending retirements of Reps. Goodlatte and Issa, for instance, will lose the tempering influence they have sometimes had on some of the worst copyright policy pushes.On the speech front, however, it looks like all the worry about the Trump administration last year has been born out. From Trump's frequent and overt diminishment of a free and independent media, to his constant legal threats to sue critics, to his administration's outright abuse of power to try to unmask them – and more – the Trump presidency tends to be an extremely cogent example of why it is so critically important to protect the right of free speech from government incursion.Mass surveillance/encryption – This issue is always a mess, but now it's a mess in new ways that have realigned some of the political leanings, which may create opportunity but also creates new reasons for concern.In litigation challenging digital surveillance the details of the surveillance obviously matter: what government authority is trying to do what, to whom, and under what statutory authority all affects the judicial inquiry. But in some ways none of these details matter: the essential question underpinning all these cases is what a state actor can constitutionally do to invade the privacy of its people. Whether the state actor is wearing an FBI hat, a CIA hat, an NSA one, a local police one, or some other official hat doesn't really matter to the person whose private dealings are now exposed to government review. But President Trump's unpopularity, petulance, and track record of threatened, if not actual, attacks on his political enemies should make it easy to see the problem with giving the government too much surveillance power since it means giving someone like him that much surveillance power. His attempts to increasingly politicize our various investigatory agencies further drives home this point because the more government surveillance is politicized, the people with opposing viewpoints will be hurt by those with political power able to wield this surveillance power against them.On the other hand, there are serious allegations of wrongdoing by Trump, his family, and his associates, including allegations that raise serious national security concerns, and it is only because of the work of many of these investigatory agencies that these allegations stand any chance of being uncovered and appropriately prosecuted. And as a result, many who should be fearing the power of these investigatory agencies, simply because as state actors their behavior always needs to be subject to check, are now suddenly feeling quite cheerful about enabling these agencies and enhancing their power, even where the Constitution should forbid it.Figuring out how to empower police in a way that protects our democracy without undermining the civil liberties that also protect our democracy requires a careful, nuanced conversation. Yet it's not one that we are having or seem likely to have under this administration. But if these agencies do become politicized as a result of Trump's presidency, it may then be too late to have it.Net neutrality/intermediary immunity – Things are bad on both these fronts, although the impact of the Trump administration is different on each.With regard to the former topic, the elevation of Chairman Pai by Trump opened the door to the most direct and obvious incursion on Net Neutrality protection. There's no point in dwelling on it here; read any of the many other posts here to see why. While it is possible that any Republican president would have made a similar appointment, a Democratic president would likely have made an appointment resulting in a different balance of power among the FCC commissioners. But there is also something rather Trumpian about Pai's move as well, the choice to govern by brute force rather than consensus, and it is also possible that a more politically-attuned Republican administration would have encouraged its appointee to have used a lighter hand in setting policy, particularly in light of significant opposition against this particular move, including from both sides of the aisle.On the intermediary immunity front Section 230 is under heavy attack. Fortunately the Trump administration itself does not seem to be directly stoking the legislative fires; some of the most significant attacks on Section 230 have largely been instigated by Democrats (although with some bipartisan support). In general the Democrats appear to be a party whose political fortunes are on the rise due to Trump's unpopularity and resulting GOP incumbent retirements, including (as discussed above) some who have historically been helpful on the tech policy front. Although there are some outstanding Democrats on these sorts of issues (i.e., Wyden, Lofgren) tech policy has not often followed standard red-blue party lines, and a legislative switch back to blue overall will not necessarily lead to better policy on these issues overall as well.Especially not when the Trump administration has in many ways been inspiring the attacks on platforms. It has become easy, for instance, for people to fault social media for his rise and for some of the worst things about his presidency (e.g., provoking North Korea on Twitter). As with mass surveillance Trump's unpopularity is tempting many to see as palatable any policy they think might temper him. Unfortunately, like with mass surveillance, this belief that a policy might have this tempering quality is often wrong. For the same reason that Trump is Exhibit A for why we should not do anything to enhance government surveillance power, it is also Exhibit A for why we should not do anything to undermine free speech, including online free speech, which these legislative attacks on platforms only invite.Internet governance – Trump has been a disaster on the foreign policy front, measurably lowering the esteem of America in the eyes of the world. True, as discussed last year, by abandoning the TPP he spared us the harm to the important liberty interests the TPP would have imposed, but in nearly every other way he has undermined those same interests by making it more tempting and politically easier for other countries to try to set policy that will affect how everyone, including Americans, gets to use the Internet.What I wrote last time remains apt:

We've been given six more years of Section 702 collections, thanks to many, many Congressional representatives who just couldn't find it in their hearts to tell the dear old NSA "No." An extension was granted to push the "debate" into 2018, but there was no debate to be had. Instead, oversight committees on both sides of the Congressional aisle used this time to push out zero-reform renewal packages that actually made Section 702 worse.After a brief, two-week consideration of opposing views, things moved ahead as though the program had never been abused by the NSA and had never "inadvertently" swept up US persons' communications without a warrant. The same politicians who complained about the NSA's power being in the hands of Donald Trump were the ones who voted for the passage of "reform" bills increasing the agency's reach and grasp.Now, Congressional reps are granting the Trump Administration even greater control of US spy powers. The House spending bill contains an alteration to the language covering the Intelligence Community's use of federal funds. The funding of surveillance programs is already secret. The NSA's infamous "black budget" makes it impossible for citizens to see how -- and how much -- money is being spent spying on the world.But the book isn't closed to everybody. If the agency or the administration wants to shift funding around, it must first inform Congress. This theoretically gives Congress veto power on spending changes Congress hasn't pre-approved. The disclosures are, of course, done in secret and there's no way to know how often Congress blocks spending changes, but at least it's some form of oversight. That will no longer be the case if the spending bill is approved, as Ryan Grim reports for The Intercept.

As Techdirt readers are well aware, China is rapidly growing more powerful, both economically and politically. Its economic rise has been clear enough for some time, not least in its technological prowess. Its political might, however, has only recently become more evident, as it begins to assert itself in various ways around the world. China's sense of its own power, and its increasing impatience with anyone that dares to go against it, is nicely illustrated in a recent incident. It concerns a drop-down menu and a like on a tweet, both belonging to the "global lodging company" Marriott International, which issued the following corporate statement a few days ago:

As the Internet grows, threats to users are becoming more complex and difficult to beat. For established and aspiring network security specialists, it's essential to stay ahead of the security threat curve. In this demo-heavy, comprehensive Ethical Hacker Bonus Bundle, you'll be immersed in the basics of ethical hacking, from installing the preferred penetration testing OS, Kali Linux, to the many varieties of network threats. You'll be introduced to a series of lesser known web attacks and how to prevent them. Learn how to configure an extendable, scalable web framework called the Mobile Security Framework to perform automated security analyses of mobile apps, how to code at an advanced level in C++ to build a keylogger from scratch, and much more. This 9 courses bundle is on sale for $19.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.

The NSA is once again deleting data it's been ordered to retain for ongoing lawsuits. This isn't the first time. The Jewel v. NSA lawsuit -- which is nearing its tenth year in litigation -- has been ground zero for multiple NSA screw-ups. The shutdown of the Section 215 program resulted in some perhaps deliberate confusion within the agency. At first, the NSA decided it should just purge its 215 collections, taking with it anything that might be used against it in the Jewel case. Then it decided it would keep everything, giving it the opportunity to trawl pre-reform data banks for anything it might find useful, while simultaneously stiff-arming plaintiffs' requests for surveillance records.Despite angering multiple judges with its inability to follow simple court orders, the NSA is back in front of a judge trying to explain why it has failed yet again to retain data relevant to the Jewel case.

You might recall that a few years ago the FCC under Tom Wheeler bumped the standard definition of broadband to 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream. This greatly upset the broadband industry (and the numerous lawmakers and policy flacks paid to love them) because it highlighted a lack of broadband competition and deployment. That's especially true at higher speeds, where two-thirds of the U.S. lacks access to more than one ISP at that speed.But recently, the FCC under industry BFF Ajit Pai began playing around with the idea of weakening this definition. Under Pai's plan, the FCC would have declared that 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up wireless also counts as "broadband competition," letting the industry effectively say "mission accomplished." The problem is that wireless is often more expensive, capped (especially in rural areas), and inconsistently available (carrier coverage maps are notoriously unreliable).Fortunately, the FCC last week stated that for some, unspecified reason they'd be backing away from the plan. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the FCC to continually assess whether broadband is being deployed on a "reasonable and timely basis," and if not -- to do something about it. While the FCC hasn't released its full assessment yet, Pai ponied up a statement (pdf) last week that makes it clear that Pai believes everything is going swimmingly in the broadband market, thanks largely to his frontal assault on consumer protections like net neutrality:

A long report by Human Rights Watch delves into the secretive world behind the evidence given in criminal cases. Multiple law enforcement entities are making use of DEA tips to build cases and secure convictions, but they're burying the original evidence using parallel construction, whitewashing it of possible Fourth Amendment violations.Parallel construction is nothing new. The DEA has been a long-time participant in the practice. Documents obtained by C.J. Ciaramella in 2014 included training materials laying out explicit directions for hiding the origin of questionably-obtained intelligence. The DEA has had full access to domestic phone records thanks to the Hemisphere program. Records obtained via this legally-dubious method have been passed on to local law enforcement agencies with instructions to obscure the origin of "new" criminal investigations.The FBI has also encouraged parallel construction, most notably with the non-disclosure agreements its forces local agencies to sign before acquiring cell tower spoofers. Agencies are told to keep info about Stingray devices out of court at all costs -- up to and including dismissing charges. Consequently, Stingray deployments have been hidden behind ping requests and pen register orders, preventing courts from examining the origin of the evidence for Constitutional issues and preventing defendants from challenging the legality of the evidence used against them.Parallel construction goes far beyond Stingrays and phone records. It can involve nascent technology with unproven track records, allowing criminal sentences to be obtained based on very questionable evidence.

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side came in response to the UK's absurd cartoon-based IP education program for kids. PaulT offered some interesting additional perspective on "Nancy and the Meerkats":

Five Years AgoThis week in 2013, we were shook by the sad news of Aaron Swartz's death. Through the week, we looked at the actions of prosecutors and investigators and the fact that in the US "anyone interesting is a felon", and at all the other crimes that would have resulted in less jail time than Swartz was facing. But we also looked at what we should learn from him moving forward, about how to build up instead of tearing down, and how "content" can't be the end-game of knowledge, and we watched as researchers posted their work online for free in tribute.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2008, while NBC Universal was arguing in favor of ISP filtering and copy protection tech, the recording industry was kinda-sorta getting over its obsession with DRM — and moving to other stupid ideas like digital watermarks and annoying anti-piracy voiceovers on review copies instead. The DMCA was being abused to go after bad reviews, the EFF was making the argument that "making available" is not infringement, and J.K. Rowling was trying to block a third-party Harry Potter guidebook — and amidst this we noted that it seems like most people don't actually know what copyright is for.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2003, some people thought it looked like Hollywood's copyright control was loosening a little, but we weren't so optimistic. Indeed, that very week the Supreme Court upheld retroactive copyright extension in the Eldred ruling despite Lawrence Lessig's best efforts (though there was potentially some silver lining). The music and tech industries announced a rather worrying policy agreement that would see the latter stop fighting for user rights in exchange for the former dropping its calls for mandatory hardware-level DRM, though the agreement ended up being largely meaningless and, of course, was completely spurned by the MPAA. Meanwhile those movie studios were being strangled by their own IP obsession while trying to navigate the licensing thicket to get older movies online.

While we cover much here in terms of content creators actually embracing what the internet can do for them rather than fighting what is essentially mere reality, some stories truly do stand out more than others. If you aren't familiar with the story of the film The Man From Earth, you should read up on it because it's plainly fascinating. The sci-fi film was directed by Richard Schenkman on a fairly barebones budget and set for the sort of release that these types of independent films tend to get.And then somebody put a screener DVD up on The Pirate Bay and the film became known in a way it never would have otherwise.

While we cover much here in terms of content creators actually embracing what the internet can do for them rather than fighting what is essentially mere reality, some stories truly do stand out more than others. If you aren't familiar with the story of the film The Man From Earth, you should read up on it because it's plainly fascinating. The sci-fi film was directed by Richard Schenkman on a fairly barebones budget and set for the sort of release that these types of independent films tend to get.And then somebody put a screener DVD up on The Pirate Bay and the film became known in a way it never would have otherwise.

Dashcams -- unlike body cameras -- have been around for years. So while it might be understandable an officer could forget his actions are being documented by his new-ish body camera-- say, when he heads into an alley to plant evidence -- it's difficult to draw the same conclusion when an officer apparently forgets his dashcam is recording his bogus traffic stop.In a criminal case resulting in suppressed evidence, Officer William Davis of the Dayton (OH) Police seems to have done exactly that. His bogus traffic stop resulted in the discovery of marijuana and a firearm, but none of that matters now. What was captured by his cruiser's dashcam undercut his assertions and sworn testimony. That has lead to an Ohio appeals court's memorable decision, in which it's declared the lower court was correct to rely on dashcam footage -- rather than the officer's testimony -- when the two narratives diverged. (via FourthAmendment.com)On a dark, rainy night Officer Davis and Officer Bryan Camden were speeding down a street when a vehicle pulled out in front of them. (Literally speeding: speed limit was 35 mph. Despite the adverse driving conditions, the cruiser was travelling at 43 mph.) Apparently miffed he had to ease back to the posted speed limit, Officer Davis (with Camden's help) began to compose an alternate reality in which a traffic violation had occurred. The problem for the state -- which hoped to retain the evidence obtained during the resulting traffic stop -- is the entire thing was caught on camera. This included the officers' retcon of events in progress. From the decision [PDF]:

For many, many years we've talked about how people were wrong to say that the internet "cut out middlemen" because there are still plenty of middlemen around. Instead, what was important was that the type of middlemen were changing. Specifically, we were moving from an age of gatekeepers to an age of enablers. And the difference here is profound. Gatekeepers keep out most people who want to use their platforms. Think: record labels or movie studios. Most people who wanted to become musicians just a couple of decades ago were not able to. Record labels would not sign them, and without a recording deal, your chance of making any money was just about nil. A few people were signed, a very few of those that signed would make lots of money, the rest would make a little money, and everyone who didn't sign would make basically nothing. The "curve" of how much money people made trying to become musicians was not very smooth. You had a few at the top end, and a giant cliff down to basically zero if you couldn't get past the gatekeeper.But the internet changed that in a massive way. Anyone could start using the various internet platforms to release their content, to build an audience, and to make some money. There remain complaints from some that the amount most users make isn't very much, but that ignores that under the previous gatekeeper system, that amount was almost certainly zero for the vast majority of people who wished to make money from their creative endeavors. With various internet services -- Kickstarter, Patreon, Spotify, YouTube, etc. -- artists could at least make more than zero.There has been some fear that yesterday's enablers would turn into tomorrow's gatekeepers. Unfortunately, one of the most disturbing aspects of what's happening with the internet these days is that more and more people seem to be pressuring these enabling services to become gatekeepers and to lock out smaller creators, out of this new fear that some people shouldn't be allowed to use these platforms to make any money at all.Case in point: YouTube has recently announced new rules around creator monetization, which basically say you need to be pretty popular before you can become a partner who can monetize your videos.

In the past, I've been a pretty big fan of Southwest Airlines. On many routes it has been my first choice for flights. However, after digging into a new lawsuit the company filed earlier this month, I'm pretty close to swearing off Southwest forever. I can't support this kind of bullshit legal bullying. First off, Southwest does have a bit of history legally bullying sites that improve the Southwest experience. Back when your seating on Southwest really depended on how close to 24 hours prior to your flight that you checked in, there were a few services that would automate checking you in at exactly the 24 hour mark, and Southwest sued to shut them down. The company has also threatened tools that merely scraped Southwest fares -- which could be kind of useful, since Southwest doesn't share its fares with popular flight info aggregators like Kayak and Expedia.It is somewhat questionable whether or not Southwest actually has a legal right to block that -- pricing info is not covered by copyright -- but there are lots of attempts these days to twist laws to argue that merely putting something in a terms of service is enough to create a legal obligation.Enter a new site: SWMonkey.com. The idea behind the site is fairly simple. Because Southwest Airlines (unlike basically every other airline) actually has no fees to change your flight, if you spot your same flight available for less, you can call Southwest and basically exchange your ticket for the new ticket and get credit for future flights (and sometimes even cash back). Southwest, of course, relies heavily on the idea that not many people take advantage of this. SWMonkey's clever idea was to monitor price changes for you, and alert you if the price on your flight dropped significantly. The site charged a $3 fee if it could save you $10 or more.The site launched in November and Southwest sent a fairly obnoxious cease and desist letter to SWMonkey almost immediately after it launched. The crux of the cease and desist was that what they were doing was trademark infringement.

While we were just discussing Judge Zilly in California smacking around one of the front-attorneys for a shell-company of the infamous Guardaley company (which pretends to be able to detect copyright infringement from Germany) another case was working its way through the courts. Judge Zilly focused his efforts on just how little evidence there is for the actual existence of many of the shell and parent companies that show up with Guardaley evidence, as well as whether or not Guardaley's "experts" even actually "exist." This other case in Oregon seems to have pointed out that yet another Guardaley front company can't even get the basics of standing in copyright law right and may well have tried to fool the court into thinking it had standing when it didn't.This case concerns a company called Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC, which sued Lingfu Zhang for pirating the film Fathers & Daughters using bittorrent technology. The problem that resulted in Judge Michael Simon issuing a summary judgement dismissing the case with prejudice is that F&D Nevada doesn't actually have the copyrights in question, having signed it all away to a third party.

The Computer Hacker Professional Certification Bundle has 60+ hours of prep for CISM, CISA, and CISSP Certification Exams to help you train to be an ethical hacker. In this bundle, you'll master the skills of hacking and penetration in order to learn how to defeat malicious hackers. You will learn about the role of social engineering in stealing confidential information, how to apply integrity controls and different types of encryption, and how to carry out an investigation according to industry best practices and legal guidelines. Three courses cover the basics of what you'll need to know to sit various certification exams. The bundle is on sale for $49.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Back in November, we wrote about a fairly crazy case in which Playboy Enterprises was suing the blog Boing Boing for copyright infringement, over a post by Xeni Jardin, linking to a collection of all Playboy centerfold images on Imgur (and a video version on YouTube). As we wrote in our post, this seemed like a very strange hill for Playboy to die on, given that Boing Boing clearly did not post the images, but merely linked to them, meaning that it was pretty clearly not infringement. There were some really strange arguments in the complaint, and the initial reporting on it that we saw was really bad -- falsely claiming the lawsuit said that Boing Boing "stole every centerfold ever." But, of course, there was no stealing at all. Just linking.Boing Boing has now responded to the lawsuit, with help from EFF and top notch lawyers Mark Lemley and Joe Gratz from the law firm of Durie Tangri. The motion to dismiss is pretty thorough and well argued (no surprise), explaining why the case should be tossed out, because even if everything Playboy argued is true, Boing Boing has not committed any copyright infringement at all in merely linking. The MTD doesn't pull any punches:

By now Apple's app-store approval process is legendary for being completely untethered from anything even vaguely resembling consistency, accountability, or transparency. App makers can often find their passion projects banned for no coherent reason whatsoever, or because the app in question competes with Apple's own offerings. The process of complaining is traditionally semi-Sisyphean, with Apple often refusing to adequately explain their decisions. And it's inconsistent; banned apps and games can often reappear with no concrete explanation as well.The latest case in point: David Coffnes, a researcher at Northeastern University, recently built an app named Wehe to help broadband users test their connections for possible throttling or net neutrality violations. But the app in question was banned by Apple for no coherent reason, the company simply telling Coffnes that his app "has no direct benefits to the user," and contained "objectionable content," neither of which is true:

Several years ago, a music industry transplant into Parliament, Mike Weatherley, made a glorious push to get the government to invade primary schools in the country to teach them that piracy is the worst thing in the world and intellectual property laws are super cool. Children as young as seven years old would be subjected to "educational information" provided by the government on the "proper" use of the internet. This was not the first attempt at pushing copyright propaganda on kids. In fact, we've reported on many of these, going all the way back to 2003 -- and many of the programs have been mockable, including the infamous Captain Copyright.You would think that maybe those producing this propaganda would realize that it basically always is a flop as kids are smart enough to see through it -- and that their attempts to be cool and hip tend to come off as insane. But... the UK has pushed forward with this plan, and you have no fucking idea how insane it actually is.

In the early part of 2017, we brought you the story of an Iowa State University student group pushing for marijuana reform in the state that was being targeted by the university for trademark infringement after the group used some school iconography on t-shirts it developed for its cause. The whole episode was fairly bonkers, with the school initially approving the students' use of the imagery, only to rescind that approval after Iowa House Republicans sent a letter to the school's leadership questioning the decision. That sort of infringement of speech by a school and, in the background, by state legislators that really should have known better, was always destined to result in legal proceedings, given the enormous First Amendment implications. Well, as we reported, that trial ran its course, including an appeal, and was decided in the favor of the student group.While all of that was settled last year, what we didn't know until recently is just how much taxpayer money would be paid out as a result of a public university and state legislators seeking, quite plainly, to infringe on perhaps the most sacred right this country enjoys. Now we have an answer to that question: at least $350,000.

As was widely expected after Tuesday's close vote on cloture, the Senate officially voted to renew (in a somewhat expanded way) Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act by a vote of 65 to 34. That also means a few of those who voted against cloture switched over and voted for the program, including Senators Ted Cruz and Chuck Schumer. President Trump will almost certainly sign the bill shortly, despite confusing basically everyone last week by tweeting out complaints about the program, despite his White House vehemently supporting it.Trump's confusion isn't all that surprising. What is surprising is just how many people who have been complaining and warning about Trump made this possible. In the House, vocal Trump critics including Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell were among those who voted for this bill which, again, gives the FBI the power to spy on Americans without warrants via the collection of content (not metadata) swept up by the NSA. While defenders of the program keep insisting the program cannot be used to "target" Americans, they leave out that a ridiculous amount of American content is swept up into this collection, which can then be sifted through without a warrant, including a huge amount of communications of Americans.Over on the Senate side, things were even more ridiculous. Senator Jeff Flake voted for cloture, helping to end (the already non-existing) debate on such surveillance, and blocking any amendments. And then, the very next morning, went on the Senate floor to slam the President, compare him to Stalin, and warn that our democracy may not survive. Again, this was mere hours after Senator Flake voted to give more surveillance powers to the President he was about to compare to Stalin.Or how about Dianne Feinstein? It may be no surprise that Feinstein voted to continue and expand surveillance -- she has a long history of doing exactly that. But just about an hour before voting for cloture, Feinstein herself introduced an amendment that would have required a warrant to search the corpus of data collected under 702. And then she voted to block that amendment from even being voted on. Let me repeat that, because it's just that insane: Feinstein introduced an amendment to the 702 renewal, that would have required a warrant to sniff through the data... and then voted against allowing that amendment to be heard and voted on. Within an hour or so. And, since cloture needed 60 votes and just squeezed through with those 60 votes... Feinstein could have changed the debate herself. But chose not to.Or how about Senator Claire McCaskill. She was the final vote for cloture and took over an hour after the vote was called to actually reach the floor. She was the actual deciding vote, as, if she voted against it, the cloture vote would have had only 59 yaes, and the debate would have continued, and amendments proposed. Trump has been loudly denouncing McCaskill for months as she's facing a tough reelection campaign. And her response was to deny any further debate or amendments and to vote to give Trump more surveillance powers.These are not the only ones. Many vocal critics of the President just handed him much greater power to warrantlessly spy on Americans -- something the President (in a confused way) complained about concerning what he believed (incorrectly) was illegal spying on his own campaign.Zack Whittaker at ZDnet has also compiled a list of elected officials who had put out earlier statements promising to reform surveillance... only to then vote for this program. It includes both Swalwell and Feinstein mentioned above, but many others as well.Over at Lawfare, a site that has long defended basically every aspect of the surveillance state, reliable surveillance defenders Jack Goldsmith and Susan Hennessey tried to defend the paradox of not trusting Trump, but giving him the ability to warrantlessly spy on Americans. The crux of it is basically... "we don't trust Trump, but there are good people in the intelligence and law enforcement communities and they'd never abuse these powers."

Back in late 2013, we wrote about the insanity of the "logo" placed on a spy satellite by the National Reconnaissance Organization, which consisted -- literally -- of an octopus enveloping the globe, and the tag line "Nothing is Beyond Our Reach." Incredibly, the Director of National Intelligence tweeted out this image, just months after the Snowden revelations, and no one seemed to think the public might find it... creepy as fuck. Our good friends at Muckrock decided to dig in with some FOIA requests about all of this and wrote up the following amazing story about the aftermath of the fallout of that decision and posted an excellent story about it which, of all things, includes trying to translate quotes from "Talledega Nights" into Latin to avoid scrutiny. That article, by JPat Brown is reposted, with permission, below.Records released to William Pierce show that the fallout from the National Reconnaissance Office's infamous "world-eating octopus" logo was enough for the White House to threaten veto power over future logos on spy satellites. Despite this warning to steer clear of controversy, the designers for the NROL-76 logo tried their best to sneak in a "Talladega Nights" reference - even resorting to Latin to get around copyright.In early May of 2016, someone within the NRO asked if the mission patch for the NROL-76 mission had been approved.As launch wasn't due for a year, the question was oddly premature, and someone on the team voiced their curiosity.A later email from August 2016 explains the concern - following the embarrassment over the NRO-39's octopus logo (which records released to Runa Sandvik show was an engineering in-joke that backfired to a comical degree), the NRO wasn't even sure if it could approve its own logos without the White House's final say.As far as they were told, the NRO could still have "ultimate authority" over logos … so long as they avoided "menacing designs." Which means "yes" to fluffy animals …and "no" to creepy cephalopods and whatever's redacted here.Fortunately, the theme for this design was "Lewis and Clark," which the NRO thought was fairly family-friendly, especially when compared to, say, a dragon with American flag wings.But we'll let you be the judge.If that slogan strikes you as oddly familiar, then congratulations on your excellent cinematic tastes; "If you ain't first, you're last" is indeed the catch-phrase of Ricky Bobby, Will Ferrell's character from "Talladega Nights."The design notes make this explicit, as well as explain that it was chosen as a slogan because one team member "loves NASCAR" and "wanted to go fast."From the beginning, the person that appears to be the NRO team leader tried to drop a few hints that they weren't all that confident a "Talladega Nights" reference was going to (literally) fly …before finally giving it the formal nix on copyright grounds.Undaunted, one team member proposed a sneaky compromise - just Google Translate it into Latin and nobody will notice.This team member claims the "Latin approach" has worked before, though a quick search shows that it didn't work out quite as well as they made it sound. And there were a few other minor considerations ...Ultimately, the team leader vetoed all Latin phrases as "hard to understand and remember," using the NRO's own motto as an example. A list of pre-approved slogans (including a few redacted ones) was sent to the team, and with a topical joke about the 2016 presidential elections, the matter was put to a vote.The lesser-known Ricky Bobby quote "Explore - Discover - Know" won out …and you can see it here on the finalized logo.Read the full release embedded below or on the request page.

In yet another example of how the UK's government's stated respect for free speech is continually undercut by its actions, a bigoted landlord is bringing charges against a YouTuber for calling him bigoted. (via Innocent Abroad)

Mozilla and several consumer groups say they'll be joining 22 state Attorneys General in suing the FCC for its net neutrality repeal. While procedure dictates that lawsuits can't be filed until after the FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order is posted to the federal register (which hasn't happened yet), Mozilla notes that it petitioned the United States Court of Appeals (pdf) out of an abundance of caution, kickstarting the process to determine which court will finally hear the case:

Spiel BT is the speaker system with a contemporary, fresh and relaxed design that is the perfect fit for any space. This 3-piece desktop speaker set features Bluetooth connectivity so you can set up a complete surround sound experience on your desk or in your home. The central speaker has a 4" woofer, and each satellite has a 2.5" mid-range. You can use the included audio jack to plug in to any system. Just pair your device and feel the incredible audio output of up to 100W. It's on sale for $55.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.

The Philippines has a "free speech" amendment in their Constitution not unlike the American First Amendment. In the Philippines, it's actually their 4th amendment:

A Congressional effort to reverse the FCC's attack on net neutrality needs just one vote to move forward, but still faces a very steep uphill climb toward success. Fifty senators have endorsed a legislative measure to use the Congressional Review Act to reverse the FCC's repeal of the rules. The CRA can be used to reverse any regulatory action with a majority vote in Congress, provided the vote occurs within 60 days of the regulatory action in question. With 49 Democrats and one Republican (Maine's Susan Collins) now supporting the effort, it needs just one Republican vote to forward, notes Senator Ed Markey:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled [PDF] that accessing publicly-accessible info in a way the hosting entity has said isn't permissible isn't a violation of the law. In this case, it's a couple of laws, since Oracle's bid to shut down a competitor involves two different states and two different computer crime laws.Oracle sued Rimini Street alleging a bunch of computer law-related violations after it continued to harvest data without Oracle's explicit permission. The EFF, which filed a brief in this case backing Rimini Street, breaks down the details of the alleged violation.

Google Street View is a great resource for taking a look at distant locations before travelling, or for visualizing a nearby address before driving there. But Street View images are much more than vivid versions of otherwise flat maps: they are slices of modern life, conveniently sorted by geolocation. That means they can provide all kinds of insights into how society operates, and what the differences are geographically. The tricky part is extracting that information. An article in the New York Times reports on how researchers at Stanford University have applied artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to 50 million Google Street View images taken in 200 US cities. Since analyzing images of people directly is hard and fraught with privacy concerns, the researchers concentrated on a proxy: cars. As an academic paper published by the Stanford team notes (pdf):

When a company goes down a wrong or abusive road regarding trademark rights, the public has a lot of tools for remedy. Legal disputes between interested parties can often times correct a company attempting to secure trademark rights it ought not have. Invalidating a trademark that never should have been granted is another tool. But often times, the best and quickest remedies can come from the public itself in the form of a good old fashioned backlash.The likelihood of such a backlash is necessarily a function of the devotion of a particular fanbase. The craft beer industry has had to learn this lesson several times, with a portion of the public devoted to seeing the industry thrive also being unwilling to let stand aggressive trademark bullying that threatens that same industry. We saw another of these backlash instances cause a company to reverse course recently and I struggle to think of a more potentially devoted fanbase to an industry than those among us whose fetish is role-playing as adult babies.

For many years we've talked about the kind of derangement that happens among many -- especially among those working for Homeland Security's Customs and ICE divisions -- considering the supposed "dangers" of counterfeit goods. Over and over again we've pointed to studies that have shown that the "harm" of counterfeits is massively overblown. And these are not just random studies picked out of a hat. Both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the OECD have put out studies on this. When you look at the details, you quickly learn that while there are a few cases of people tricked by counterfeit goods -- and a vanishingly small number of cases where people are put at risk due to counterfeits -- in many, many cases, no one is actually losing out due to counterfeits. They are frequently an aspirational buy. That is, the buyer knows they're buying a counterfeit good, but are doing so because they so appreciate the real version, but can't afford it. And studies show that buyers of counterfeits quite frequently buy the real deal later when they're able to afford it. Thus, counterfeits often act as marketing for the original.But, for whatever reason, Homeland Security likes to play up the "threats" of counterfeits and makes lots of noise about how many counterfeit things it seizes at the border every year (or... not at the border -- such as the time it raided a lingerie store to get "counterfeit" panties advertising sports teams). And sure, Homeland Security really really wants you to believe it's protecting the public with this kind of thing.But if that's the goal, explain this story. Harper Reed tried to buy a fancy Rimowa luggage on Amazon last year. There was no indication that it was counterfeit -- it was priced the same as actual Rimowa luggage. But customs intercepted the shipment and wouldn't let it in. That's fair enough, I guess, but it's the next part that's shocking. Because of this Customs refused to renew Reed's Global Entry membership. Global Entry, for those who don't know, is a process by which fliers who frequently travel internationally can fill out a form, go for an interview, pay some money... and be able to speed through customs upon re-entering the US. While some grumble about paying for access, it's actually a more reasonable security program than most -- in that it actually involves effectively pre-clearing people less likely to need scrutiny at the border.But Reed's status was not renewed because he was listed as trying to "import counterfeit goods." Again, you can see the intent behind this rule. If someone is actually "importing" a bunch of counterfeit goods to sell, you can see how that might be a good reason to deny someone Global Entry. But Reed wasn't trying to import a bunch of counterfeit goods. He was trying to buy a suitcase. He didn't get it from Amazon (he bought one later from a store) and that's fair enough under the law -- but why hold that against him.Apparently the geniuses at Homeland Security have little desire to distinguish a counterfeiting operation from a dude buying something on Amazon he thought was legit.

Last week we noted how AT&T was forced to scrap a partnership with Huawei to sell the company's smartphones here in the States, just hours before it was set to be announced at CES. The reason? Apparently a few members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees fired off a letter to the FCC demanding that they pressure US telcos into avoiding Huawei. The letter, which nobody has published, allegedly accuses the company of being little more than an intelligence proxy for the Chinese government.There are several problems with this. While it's certainly possible that Huawei helps the Chinese government spy, there's been no hard evidence of this. In fact, numerous investigations (including one eighteen months long) found no evidence of any spying whatsoever. What inquiries did find is that these allegations pretty consistently originate with U.S. hardware vendors like Cisco, who routinely enjoy playing up the threat simply because they don't want to compete with Chinese hardware vendors. You know, the very same thing we routinely (often quite accurately) complain about China doing.Despite no real evidence, a new Reuters report indicates this new pressure is much greater than just AT&T's smartphone partnership. In fact, the report suggests that the government is now urging all US telcos and ISPs to avoid using any Huawei gear whatsoever if they want to continue winning government contracts (and as an NSA BFF, AT&T has plenty of contracts to protect). From the report:

It looks like the psychiatrist who sued a pseudonymous reviewer over a wordless one-star review has finally decided to stop digging this particular hole. Since news broke of psychiatrist Mark Beale's defamation suit against "Richard Hill," Beale has amassed a great many one-star reviews by non-patients. There's no telling if Beale will be seeking to file an en masse lawsuit against these Does (taking a page out of copyright trolls' handbooks), but this cannot possibly be what he envisioned when he decided the original one-star review was worth suing over.Unbelievably, Beale managed to convince a judge to allow him to seek the real identity of "Richard Hill" in order to continue with his lawsuit. Not only did the judge give enough credence to Beale's argument that a one-star review was per se defamatory, but the judge granted the unmasking order, calling a review of business "commercial speech" -- something given less protection under the First Amendment.University of South Carolina professor Eric Robinson has been keeping an eye and the local docket and sends us news that Beale has dismissed the case. It's a voluntary move [PDF] on Beale's part, but it's also without prejudice, leaving the path clear for Beale to refile.But it doesn't look like Beale will amend this suit or refile, even if he's found a judge willing to bypass First Amendment protections to unmask a critic who left nothing more than a wordless single-star review. At least not against a Doe defendant. The unmasking did happen and Beale's request [PDF] to view the information turned over under seal to his lawyer was granted [PDF] by the judge. Soon after that, the request for dismissal [PDF] was filed.This means Beale now knows who "Richard Hill" actually is. He could have stuck with the lawsuit, amending it to include the Doe's real name and serving the defendant. But he sought dismissal instead. Does that mean Beale found "Richard Hill" was actually someone he didn't want to take to court, or worse yet, someone he already knew? Remember, his original lawsuit contained some very curious assertions to bolster his allegations, the weirdest being that his mother thought "someone she knew" was trying to ruin his reputation.Or it could be Beale discovered Hill was an actual patient of his, despite his assertions otherwise. (His lawsuit claimed two things: "Richard Hill" was a fake name and "Richard Hill" was not a patient of his. These two statements are tough to make definitively, but Beale asserted both simultaneously in his lawsuit.) Maybe he didn't feel like pursuing an unhappy patient in court, especially after he had already sworn otherwise in his complaint. Or maybe Beale is planning some sort of offline, out-of-court battle against the unmasked critic -- something that would be unfortunate but at least wouldn't allow this particular judge to continue his attack on the First Amendment.That makes this cut-and-run a bit more interesting than it would normally be, as litigation has ceased after discovery of the only thing Beale appeared to be missing from his suit: a defendant he could serve. Equally problematic is there's a judge in the South Carolina court system where locals can take their grievances about anonymous commenters and expect unmasking to proceed, no matter how weak their arguments are.Whatever the future holds for Beale and his litigious moves is unknown, but there's no undoing the damage Beale did to his own reputation by trying to make a case out of a one-star review. Had he done nothing, it would have been carried away by internet flotsam with zero damage to his career or future prospects. Instead, Beale could not let a one-star, wordless review go unanswered, and now his Google results are full of them.

Keep your skills sharp and stay up to date on new developments with the $89 Virtual Training Company Unlimited Single User Subscription. With courses covering everything from MCSE certification training to animation, graphic design and page layout, you'll have unlimited access to the entire catalog. They have over 1,000 courses, add more each week, and each course comes with a certificate of completion.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.

Very little attracts legal threats faster than someone calling a quack a quack. If it energizes tap water like a duck and promotes off-label use of dangerous drugs like a duck, it's probably a duck. The legal history of "alternative" medical practices is littered with cease-and-desist orders and failed lawsuits. The legal present is just as cluttered.Blogger/skeptic Britt Hermes could have gone down the road to quack infamy. She was on the "naturopathic" career path when she came to the realization the whole things was horseshit. Rather than exploit the horseshit to make sick people sicker, Hermes decided to let the world know just how much horseshit her former colleagues were peddling.One of her targets is Colleen Huber, an Arizona naturopath who is in the process of duping cancer patients out of their health, if not their lives. Here's what Hermes has to say about Huber:

The legal fight over the FCC's historically unpopular decision to kill net neutrality has begun. An announcement by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office indicates that 22 State Attorneys General have filed suit against the FCC. The AGs says the multi-state coalition has filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the first of what's expected to be numerous lawsuits in the weeks and months to come.The announcement makes it clear the suit intends to focus on the FCC's potential violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Under the Act the FCC will need to prove that the broadband market changed so substantially since the passage of the original rules in 2015 to warrant such a stark reversal (tip: it didn't). Under the Act, a decision can be declared "arbitrary and capricious" (Ajit Pai's agenda is undeniably both) if the regulator in question can't prove such a dramatic change, which is why you've watched industry lobbyists and their BFF Pai routinely and falsely claim that the modest rules somehow devastated sector investment.Schneiderman quite correctly documents the potential pitfalls of gutting meaningful oversight of some of the least-competitive companies in America: