Techdirt

A few weeks back we noted how Verizon found itself in hot water for throttling the cellular connections of California firefighters as they battled one of the state's biggest wildfires on record. There was nothing surprising about the story, which again highlighted how cellular carriers advertise their connections as "unlimited," then impose all manner of arbitrary and confusing restrictions. Quite often, the restrictions are imposed simply to help Verizon make even more money (like when Verizon effectively banned HD video on its network, then hit its "unlimited" users with charges if they wanted the videos to display as the origin source intended).In the case of the California firefighters, Verizon repeatedly throttled the connection being used by firefighters mobile command center for seemingly no reason and in violation of Verizon's first responder policies. When the firefighters complained to Verizon, the company's first reaction wasn't to immediately understand the gravity of the situation and fix it -- it was to try to upsell them to a more expensive plan during an emergency. As you might expect, Verizon's friends at the FCC saw absolutely no problem with any of this.Hoping to move beyond the scandal, Verizon has released a new ad spotted by Ars Technica in which the company professes its adoration for first responders, and pats itself on the back for heroically helping heroes be, you know, heroic:Verizon was so keen on people adoring it for its adoration of firefighters, the company issued an accompanying press release attempting to drive the point home by proclaiming that "what we do saves lives." Verizon and AT&T have been trying to nab taxpayer funds as part of a bid to shore up nationwide cellular emergency networks after said networks did a face plant on 9-11. This being AT&T and Verizon, those efforts have gone just about as well as you might expect. But Verizon pretty clearly felt the need to try and shore up its image after its assault on net neutrality and first responder fiasco earlier this year.Unsurprisingly, Verizon was forced to shutter the comments on its YouTube video after the public reception was... frosty. The video received more than 20,000 dislikes and was delisted by Verizon in a little under 24 hours after the video was posted. Reddit has also been having a good time lambasting the ad:

The DOJ rounded up the cast and crew from Backpage and threw a 93-count indictment at them. It did this prior to FOSTA's passage -- legislation portrayed as the only way the government could take sites like Backpage down. History is being rewritten to give FOSTA the credit for the Backpage takedown, but the truth is the government didn't need the legislation to target the site. Of course, for all the talk of sex trafficking, sex trafficking is not among the 93 charges the government brought against the site's personnel.Now that it has Backpage execs facing criminal charges, the government is doing what it can to make sure they can't mount a solid defense. The government is coming after their money via civil asset forfeiture, hoping to lock up their property even if it can't lock up the Backpage site runners.The complaint [PDF] -- titled "United States of America v. Various Internet Domain Names" -- claims everything the site's personnel owned was obtained through illegal activity, even if it's likely at least some of the assets are completely unrelated to Backpage's income. It also must be noted these assertions are being made prior to anything being proven in the DOJ's prosecution, but will receive far less scrutiny from the judge making the determination on the ultimate ownership of the property.The complaint also contains a large amount of "surrendered" property, which was apparently handed over voluntarily after the arrest of Backpage execs. This list includes internet detritus such as domain names and bitcoin. There are millions of dollars at stake, scattered across multiple banks located around the world. The DOJ is busy consolidating its purloined fortune in advance of convictions.This is a bullshit, but completely legal, tactic. In addition to depriving the accused of the finances needed to secure solid legal representation, it also forces them to fight a legal battle on two fronts. The money the defendants no longer have access to won't help them find top lawyers willing to take on the government in both criminal and civil actions.In addition, the complaint plays small ball to hoover up funds from accounts in the names of Backpage execs' family members. Sure, the governments wants what's in joint accounts or those controlled by significant others, but the decision to empty personal checking accounts of what appear to be the children of the defendants seems unnecessarily punitive.Here's what listed under Backpage co-founder James Larkin's seizable assets:

Video game addiction as a concept has been tossed around for the past decade or so, with mixed feelings coming from all sides. Disagreement abounds as to whether or not gaming addiction is a real thing, both among medical professionals as well as the public. There's even disagreement among Techdirt writers (disclosure: I don't think it's a thing).But as the concept continues to infect the common public lexicon, it's something we're going to hear more and more about. It's something of a checkpoint, therefore, that the issue has risen to the level of an NHL team instituting a ban on gaming for players while on the road visiting other cities.

Let's get this out of the way upfront: if you're one of those people who pedantically feels the need to sneeringly point out that the economics Nobel is "not a real Nobel Prize," shut up: no one cares.Now, let's get on to the point: for basically the last decade, I've been specifically waiting for Paul Romer to finally win this prize and each year I've been disappointed when someone else did. Finally, this year he won it and did so with William Nordhous, which is even better, as I'll explain shortly. Both Romer and Nordhous have greatly influenced my thinking on many of the things I write about here at Techdirt, specifically when it comes to the economics of innovation, and, more specifically, the economics of information and so-called "non-rivalrous" goods (I prefer to call them "infinite goods"). I've reference Romer multiple times in the past, specifically in discussing how innovation creates economic growth in powerful ways. One of my favorite Romer quotes is as follows:

For this week's episode of the podcast, we're featuring a recent panel discussion from Mozilla's Speaker Series. Mike Masnick sat down with Guillaume Chaslot from Algo Transparency, hosted by Mozilla Fellow in Residence Renée DiResta, to talk about the challenges of online content moderation and its implications for freedom of expression. Enjoy!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.

While California's new net neutrality law grabbed the lion's share of press headlines, the state last week also passed legislation attempting to fix an equally complicated problem: bots. The rise of bots has played a major role in not only helping companies and politicians covertly advertise products or positions, but they've also played a starring role in Russia's disinformation efforts. That in turn has fueled what's often not-entirely-productive paranoia, as users online accuse those they disagree with of being bots, instead of, say, just genuinely terrible but real human beings.Last Sunday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB1001, a bill that requires companies or individuals to label any bots clearly as bots. The bill explains the legislation this way:

A stupid law firm supposedly specializing in IP rights enforcement has decided (again!) to jam its dangling appendages into one of the internet's more ferocious hornets' nests. When you're in the business of threatening litigation over hot-linked images (yep), you probably don't pay much attention to the URLs you target.The law firm of Higbee & Associates should know better than to go to this well twice. But it doesn't. Due diligence doesn't seem to be a priority. If it was, some of its "pre-litigation" specialists might have noticed the firm went after Something Awful in 2015 for using an image from Under the Skin in its review of the movie. Obviously, this was fair use and a little bit of web searching turns up multiple uses of the same image, suggesting it had been made available by the studio for promotional purposes.You'd think one failure to turn Something Awful (SA) into an ATM would have been enough for Higbee & Associates. Apparently not. Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka -- having taken over SA's legal department after the departure of Leonard "J" Crabs -- received a demand letter from the law firm over the supposedly unauthorized use of a picture of (go figure) Hitler.The law firm apparently thought the threat letter would result in Kyanka cutting a check to prevent being sued for up to and including $150,000. But the firm's stupidity goes further than simply trying to threaten a site it had failed to threaten successfully in the past. The demand letter references an image not hosted by Something Awful but one posted to a forum thread by an SA member.Here's Kyanka's take on the legal conundrum posed by Higbee's ridiculous letter.

With the ability to intelligently avoid obstacles, clean corners, and make dust disappear on any surface, we wouldn't blame you for thinking the POWERbot uses the Force to tidy up your living space. This Star Wars-themed vacuum combines Visionary Mappin technology with a FullView Senso to map the layout of your home and intelligently avoid obstacles. It boasts 20 times the suction power of its predecessor and automatically adjusts its suction power for any surface—all the while responding to commands with your favorite sound effects from the movies. It is on sale for $372.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

You'll recall, of course, that prior to the GDPR, there was a big case against Google in the EU that created, out of thin air, a "right to be forgotten" (perhaps, more accurately, "a right to be delinked") saying that for certain classes of information that showed up in Google's search index, it should be treated as personal data that had to be delinked from that user's name as no longer relevant. This never made any sense at all. A search result is not like out-of-date customer database info, yet that's how the Court of Justice in the EU treated it. Unfortunately, with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) going into effect earlier this year, the "right to be forgotten" was even more officially coded into law. We've noted recently, there have been a few attempts to use the GDPR to delete public information on American sites, and now we at Techdirt have been hit with what appears to be just such an attempt.This particular attempt goes back to some previous attempts under the pre-GDPR "right to be forgotten" setup. We need to dig into the history a bit to understand the details. You see, soon after the floodgates opened on delinking names from Google, we wrote about an article in the NY Times discussing how five of its articles had been delinked via RTBF claims. It was not 100% clear who had made the requests, but we did highlight some of the names and stories, including one where we called the removal "questionable." It involved a NY Times article from 2002 about a legal action by the FTC which went after a group of companies allegedly run by a guy named Thomas Goolnik. The companies -- TLD Network, Quantum Management and TBS Industries -- were accused of "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" by selling domains that did not exist at the time (specifically, they were trying to sell domains using top level domains that did not exist, including .sex, .bet, .brit, and .scot.)The FTC eventually settled with Goolnik and the companies with some significant concessions:

So we've noted for a while now how the U.S. government has deemed Chinese hardware vendor Huawei a nefarious spy for the Chinese government, and largely blackballed 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. But there's numerous problems with the Trump administration's efforts here, ranging from protectionism to blistering hypocrisy.While it's certainly possible Huawei helps the Chinese government spy on American consumers en masse, nobody has been able to provide a shred of actual public evidence supporting that allegation. That despite an eighteen month investigation by the White House finding no evidence of actual spying on U.S. consumers. Also ignored: the fact that U.S. hardware vendors like Cisco routinely like to hype this threat to scare gullible lawmakers toward protectionism and providing Cisco an unearned advantage in the network and telecom market.Even if you want to ignore those facts and still claim Huawei routinely spies, you'd have to ignore the fact that countless hardware, including gear made by U.S. companies, contains an ocean of Chinese-made parts that could just as easily be used to spy on Americans. The reality is that China doesn't even need Huawei to spy on Americans. The internet of broken things sector alone provides millions of new potential attack vectors annually that are often exploited by intelligence agencies.If you still want to assume Huawei is up to no good without any public evidence, you'd also have to ignore the United States' blistering hypocrisy on this subject, given how Edward Snowden documents revealed that not only did the NSA break into Huawei starting in 2007 to steal source code and implant its own backdoors, but that the agency also intercepted Cisco hardware en route to customer delivery for the same purpose.None of this is to say Huawei doesn't engage in bad behavior like every other telecom industry giant, only to state that we've let nationalism and protectionism get in the way of clear thinking on this subject. Occasionally you'll see a bigger media outlet courageous enough to bring up the fact that the evidence justifying total blackballing is shaky at best, but not often. Even reporters who traditionally chatter at length about objectivity in reporting aren't particularly good at seeing how nationalism can infect a hot take.While the folks pushing this stuff may seriously think they're doing the U.S. a favor by trampling a security threat to help boost Cisco revenues, a filing this week by Huawei argues that the United States is only shooting itself in the foot. By banning carrier access to cheaper Chinese hardware, the government is only driving up prices for domestic network gear, while also potentially slowing U.S. next-gen wireless (5G, or fifth generation) deployment plans:

The lawsuits against social media companies brought by victims of terrorist attacks continue to pile up. So far, though, no one has racked up a win. Certain law firms (1-800-LAW-FIRM and Excolo Law) appear to be making a decent living filing lawsuits they'll never have a chance of winning, but it's not doing much for victims and their families.The lawsuits attempt to route around Section 230 immunity by positing the existence of terrorists on social media platform is exactly the same thing as providing material support for terrorism. But this argument doesn't provide better legal footing. No matter what approach is taken, it's still plaintiffs seeking to hold social media companies directly responsible for violent acts committed by others.Eric Goldman has written about another losing effort involving one of the major players in the Twitter terrorism lawsuit field, Excolo Law. Once again, the plaintiffs don't present any winning arguments. The California federal court doesn't even have to address Section 230 immunity to toss the case. The Anti-Terrorism Act allegations are bad enough to warrant dismissal.Here's what the court has to say about the direct liability arguments:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is John Roddy with a fairly straightforward reply to a tiresome complaint:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2013, as we discussed how the NSA had essentially built its own "shadow" social network, we learned and then confirmed that the agency was collecting GPS data from mobile phones. A We The People petition calling for a pardon for Ed Snowden was being quietly ignored, while Michael Hayden was joking about putting Snowden on a 'kill list'. We also learned that the NSA was storing all metadata for at least a year, and performing man-in-the-middle attacks with the help of telcos. Plus, it was working hard to compromise Tor, despite James Clapper's claims that they were just trying to "understand" it.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2008, the House followed the Senate in creating a copyright czar position, even as it let orphan works legislation die and the Senate moved on to more international piracy shaming. Cox was quietly adopting a copyright three strikes policy and lying about it being required by the DMCA, a comprehensive review of the RIAA's lawsuit strategy showed just how much of a failure it was, and The Pirate Bay was launching its own copyright lawsuit to expose the absurdity of the system.Fifteen Years AgoFive years earlier in 2003, in the early days of the RIAA's lawsuits, another 63 people gave in to its shakedown letters this week, while the agency concluded a Senate hearing by promising to at least leave a little time in between the letters and the lawsuits in future — but at least one senator wanted much more substantial change. There was talk about compulsory licensing for music and a lot of questions about how it could be abused depending on how you define "music" — not to mention talk about how the cost of making music was going way, way down. It was also around this time that the practice of bundling TV, internet and phone service was picking up steam.

Here we go. For years I've been talking about how we really need to move the web to a world of protocols instead of platforms. The key concept is that so much of the web has been taken over by internet giants who have built data silos. There are all sorts of problems with this. For one, when those platforms are where the majority of people get their information, it makes them into the arbiters of truth when that should make us quite uncomfortable. Second, it creates a privacy nightmare where hugely valuable data stores are single points of failure for all your data (even when those platforms have strong security, just having so much data held by one source is dangerous). Finally, it really takes us far, far away from the true promise of cloud computing, which was supposed to be a situation where we separated out the data and the application layers and could point multiple applications at the same data. Instead, we got silos where you're relying on a single provider to host both the data and the application (which also raises privacy concerns).Despite some people raising these issues for quite some time, there hasn't been much public discussion of them until just recently (in large part, I believe, driven by the growing worries about how the big platforms have become so powerful). A few companies here or there have been trying to move us towards a world of protocols instead of platforms, and one key project to watch is coming from the inventor of the web himself, Tim Berners-Lee. He had announced his project Solid a while back: an attempt to separate out the data layer, allowing end users to control that data and have much more control over what applications could access it. I've been excited about the project, but just last week I commented to someone that it wasn't clear how much progress had actually been made.Then, last Friday, Berners-Lee announced that he's doubling down on the project, to the point that he's taken a sabbatical from MIT and reduced his involvement with the W3C to focus on a new company to be built around Solid called inrupt. inrupt's new CEO also has a blog post about this, which admittedly comes off as a bit odd. It seems to suggest that the reason to form inrupt was not necessarily that Solid has made a lot of forward progress, but rather than it needs money, and the only way to get some is to set up a company:

Weird stuff is happening in Philadelphia. Things have changed drastically since Larry Krasner became District Attorney. Anyone who enters this office and immediately earns the undying hatred of the local police union is probably someone actually serious about accountability.Right after taking office, DA Krasner secured 33 resignations from prosecutors and staff who weren't willing to get on board with his reform efforts. He went after the bail system, pointing out it did little else but ensure the poorest Philadelphians spent the most time in jail while still presumably innocent. Then he pissed off the police union by daring to tell incoming police cadets force deployment -- especially deadly force -- is a power to be used only when necessary and handled with the utmost of respect.Accountability INTENSIFIES. A bogus pedestrian stop performed by two cops has led to [rubs eyes in disbelief] the arrest of the two cops who performed the stop. (h/t Max Marin)The statement [PDF] issued by the DA's office says two Philly PD officers, Matthew Walsh and Marvin Jones, stopped a citizen for "apparently using narcotics." This citizen filed a complaint, resulting in an Internal Affairs investigation.The narrative delivered by the two cops on their report was undone completely by video obtained by Internal Affairs.

The battle against encryption is being waged around the world by numerous governments, no matter how often experts explain, often quite slowly, that it's a really bad idea. As Techdirt reported back in August, Australia is mounting its own attack against privacy and security in the form of a compelled access law. The pushback there has just taken an interesting turn with the formation of a Alliance for a Safe and Secure Internet:

Way back in 2007, we shook our heads sadly as Motion Picture Academy decided that takedowns over past Oscar clips and a lawsuit against a website, OscarWatch.com, would somehow drive more attention to the current year's Oscar broadcasts because of... reasons? In that case, the MPA was mostly making trademark claims, laughably stating that allowing a site like OscarWatch would confuse the public into thinking that the site was in some way affiliated with the MPA. In actuality, the site was a fan-site that put out analysis of The Oscars and had a nice big disclaimer that it wasn't associated with the MPA right at the top of its site.Ten years later, the organization that manages the Heisman Trophy, college football's most prestigious award, has decided to one-up the MPA by filing a similar suit against HeismanWatch.com, but also tacking on a copyright claim stating that online depictions of the trophy is violating the copyright on the original artwork that is the trophy itself.

We recently wrote about how a guy in France, Michael Francois Bujaldon, was using the GDPR to try to delete a public court docket involving a case in which he is a defendant, and has been sued for real estate and securities fraud. As we noted, at least two websites that host public court dockets have felt compelled to either delete or change that particular docket.Last week, the Free Law Project, who operates the CourtListener website (and runs RECAP -- the very useful system that will help automatically free up costly PACER dockets and documents that other RECAP users visit) noted that it, too, had recently received a GDPR demand about a docket (they do not say if it was the same one) and then go into a detailed description of why they are not taking action. The post notes that the general policy of the site has always been that they won't remove a docket without a court order (though it may remove links from search engines).More importantly, however, the Free Law Project notes that it is not subject to the GDPR:

With 8 courses (50+ Hours), the Amazon Web Services Certification Training Mega Bundle is your one-stop to learn all about cloud computing. The courses cover S3, Route 53, EC2, VPC, Lambda and more. You will learn how cloud computing is redefining the rules of IT architecture and how to design, plan, and scale AWS Cloud implementations with best practices recommended by Amazon. The AWS bundle is 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.

Israeli exploit/malware developer NSO Group says its products are marketed to governments for legitimate national security and law enforcement purposes. Yet somehow it keeps ending up in the hands of governments with terrible human rights records and deployed against journalists, dissent groups, and activists.The software sold by NSO is being deployed against journalists in Mexico -- ones looking to expose government corruption. This report by the Columbia Journalism Review provides more details on the hacks, building off Citizen Lab's exposure of NSO's "Pegasus" spyware.

You might recall that when the FCC repealed net neutrality, the agency's open comment period (the only opportunity the public had to voice their concerns) was plagued with all manner of bogus comments and identity fraud. From bots that lifted the identities of dead people to create fake enthusiasm, to the hijacking of legitimate identities (like Senators Jeff Merkley and Pat Toomey, or my own) to forge bogus support. The FCC not only refused to do anything about it, it actively blocked law enforcement efforts to do so. The agency told me there was nothing they could do when my own identity was lifted in this fashion.A year later and a few brave journalists are still trying to find the culprit. Who benefited should be obvious. Who they paid to do the dirty work, less so.And while the fake net neutrality comments got the lion's share of public and media attention, the reality is this is a problem that's been plaguing government proceedings for years. For example, new information obtained via FOIA request highlights how the NFL was involved in sending fake fan comments to the FCC as early as 2014 as the league tried to fight FCC efforts to eliminate the so-called "black out rule," which requires that broadcasters black out certain game broadcasts if real-world attendance doesn't meet the league's liking. It didn't work because the rule was so monumentally stupid, but nobody really seemed to much care about tracking down those responsible:

Techdirt has been writing about China and patents for years. One recurrent theme is that the West is foolish to encourage China to embrace patents more enthusiastically, since the inevitable result will be more Chinese companies suing Western ones for alleged infringement. The second theme -- related to the first -- is that the Chinese government is unwise to use patents as proxies for innovation by offering incentives to its researchers and companies to file for patents. That leads people to file as much as possible, regardless of whether the ideas are original enough to warrant patent protection. One of the surest guides to the value of a patent is whether those who filed for them are willing to pay maintenance fees. Clearly, if patents were really as valuable as many claim they are, there would be no question about paying. An article in Bloomberg reveals how that is working out in China:

In gamer circles, Good Old Games, or GOG, is everybody's favorite go-to retort whenever someone brings up the necessity for DRM. While the platform has always been something of a kid brother to Valve's Steam, GOG has made a name for itself by refusing to allow DRM on any titles it sells and, more importantly, being hyper-engaged with its customers and community and fostering that relationship by being genuinely open and human. What many people might not know, however, is that GOG first started in Europe, trying to figure out how to compete with piracy and the grey market long before it waged its war on DRM.Well, GOG is taking a moment to remind everyone of that fact while celebrating its 10 year anniversary.

Earlier this week, a bunch of organizations -- including Techdirt's own sister organization, the Copia Institute -- announced the launch of a new project, called Future Congress. It's a coalition of organizations, some of whom rarely agree on anything with some of the other members. It is made up of organizations with a variety of political viewpoints and policy ideas. But, this coalition does agree one one thing: we need to stop Congress from being so damn clueless about technology.For many years, we've talked about the unfortunate decision by a Newt Gingrich-led Congress back in the mid-90s to dismantle the Office of Technology Assessment (or OTA). This was the organization that was a non-partisan, careful think tank focused on providing useful technology briefings to anyone in Congress who needed it. And yet, just as technology was becoming central to our every day lives, Congress defunded it (technically, the office still exists on the books, but it has no funding and no staff). Over the years there have been many calls to bring OTA back, and every so often someone in Congress floats a bill... which always gets shot down (the latest was just a few months ago).The goal of the Future Congress coalition is to try to convince Congress to fix this -- for its own good. For many, many, many years now, we've highlighted how every time there's a hearing related to issues regarding technology, nearly all of our elected officials come off looking totally clueless to a degree that is outright embarrassing. They could easily fix this -- in a way that will both stop making them look clueless in front of the world and likely lead to better policy outcomes. Hopefully, they realize this.I will note that last month there were some baby steps towards this, with Congress putting some language into an appropriations bill that fund a study of reviving the OTA while also moving to let the GAO take on some of the work that OTA used to do. It's unclear if this will actually survive or do very much, and Congress should be willing to step up and do much more. Hopefully, this Future Congress coalition will help make it clear to Congress why it should stop being so ignorant on technology -- especially when it has the means to better educate itself.

Spain's speech laws continue to be a nightmare. What started out as merely terrible has progressively gotten worse over the years as the government continues to strip protection from speech for the stupidest of reasons. The country's laws against hate speech have resulted in the prosecution of comedians, artists, and critics of the government. The laws forbidding speech supporting terrorism have seen more of the same locked up as jokes about a politician's assassination were determined to be promoting an "unhealthy humoristic environment" and "justifying terrorism."Yes, the Spanish government gets to decide what's funny in Spain. It also apparently gets to decide how offended followers of certain faiths will be when dead/imaginary religious figures are disparaged on social media. Thanks to Spain's insane laws, a complaint from a religious group is enough to get someone arrested.That someone is an actor and activist who made the mistake of saying nasty things about Jesus and his mom.

Just recently we wrote about how a guy in France, Michael Francois Bujaldon, who had been sued in the US and accused of securities and real estate fraud, had apparently been using the GDPR's right to be forgotten features to get the court docket about this lawsuit deleted from the web (in at least one case) or have his name removed from it (in the other). Our story focused on the situation with the website PlainSite, which is run by Aaron Greenspan and hosts tons of public court dockets. In our comments, it was interesting to note that at least one person seemed hellbent on trashing Greenspan. Greenspan and I have had our own differences throughout the years, and he has been a vocal critic of the way I've covered him in the past, but these comments seemed to go way over the line.And now, Greenspan informs me that someone is trying to get his original tweet -- which alerted me to this abuse of the GDPR to delete public documents -- disappeared from the internet as well. On Wednesday morning Greenspan discovered that both his PlainSite Twitter account and his personal Twitter account were "limited" due to reports. It's unclear why his personal account was limited, but Twitter told him that his original tweet about Bujaldon violated its rules on "posting personal information."It is difficult to see how a tweet that simply reads "French scam artist Michael Francois Bujaldon is using the GDPR to attempt to remove traces of his United States District Court case from the internet. He has already succeeded in compelling PacerMonitor to remove his case. We have 24 hours to respond" (and then links to the PlainSite docket) could possibly violate any Twitter rules, but the company told him he needed to delete the tweet in question:Once again, we're in a situation where if you hand people tools to delete content they dislike -- whether it's a DMCA takedown process, a GDPR "right to be forgotten" or a private platform's "report abuse" button -- some percentage of people are going to abuse that. And, as we've discussed many times, with the private platform decision making process involving overworked, underpaid workers who have to make determinations on each "report" with about 5 seconds to consider the report, many, many mistakes are going to be made. This is yet another one, and is yet another example of why we should be careful about giving people even more tools for deleting content.

The problem with giving law enforcement access to so many databases full of personal info and so many tech tools to fight crime is that, inevitably, these will be abused. This isn't a law enforcement problem, per se. It's a people problem. When the job demands the best people but still needs to maintain minimum staffing levels, things like this happen:

The Cisco Networking & Cloud Computing Bundle offers 6 courses and over 100 hours of training. Start with a course on Windows PowerShell where you'll learn to write scripts for data storage, condition checks, loops, and more. Then you move on to learn about Azure Active Directory, and get test prep help for Microsoft's Azure Certification Exam (70-533). Next, you'll learn to prepare for the Graphical Network Simulator-3 (GNS3), Cisco's ICND2 200-105, ICND1 100-105, and ICND2 100-105 exams. This bundle is on sale for $39.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

One of the reasons why I'm so adamant about the negative impacts on free speech from making internet platforms liable for the speech of their users, or even just by pushing for greater and greater content moderation by those platforms, is that this is not a theoretical situation where we have no idea how things will play out. We have reams and reams of evidence, just in the US alone (and plenty outside of the US) by looking at the copyright world. Remember, while CDA 230 makes platforms immune from a civil lawsuit regarding content posted by users or for any moderation choices regarding that content, it exempts intellectual property law (and criminal law). On the copyright side, we have a different regime: DMCA 512. Whereas CDA 230 creates a broad immunity, DMCA 512 creates a narrower "safe harbor" where sites need to meet a list of criteria in order to be eligible for the safe harbor, and those criteria keep getting litigated over and over again. Thus, we have quite a clear parallel universe to look at concerning what happens when you make a platform liable for speech -- even if you include conditions and safe harbors.And it's not good.Corynne McSherry, EFF's legal director has put together an excellent list of five lessons on content moderation from the copyright wars that should be required reading for anyone looking to upset the apple cart of CDA 230. Incredibly, as someone who lives and breathes this stuff every day, it's quite incredible how frequently we hear from people who haven't looked at what happened with copyright, who seem to think that the DMCA's regime is a perfect example of what we should replace CDA 230 with. But... that's only because they have no idea what a complete and total clusterfuck the copyright/DMCA world has been and remains. Let's dig into the lessons:

If you hadn't noticed, the telecom industry has been on a tear lately, completely dismantling most government oversight of its natural monopolies. From killing net neutrality to gutting FCC and state authority to rein in ISP bad behavior, companies like AT&T dream of a future where neither competiton nor even modest regulatory oversight prevent it from its god-given mission to rip off and otherwise overcharge the company's largely captive customer bases.At the same time, AT&T is now part of a coordinated effort between the telecom sector and the Trump administration to saddle Silicon Valley giants like Facebook and Google with additional regulation while demonizing them as out of control monsters. Why? As AT&T and Comcast push deeper into the online ad industry, they're looking for any advantage they can get against entrenched search and social media giants. And, given their political power, domination of the broadband last mile, and the government's apathy to both problems, those advantages run deep.At the heart of this little stage play sits our national conversation about what new privacy laws might look like. Last week, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing consumer advocates weren't even invited to. Instead, companies with utterly terrible track records of privacy abuses were given starring roles in dictating just what said privacy legislation should look like. That included Facebook but also AT&T, which for weeks has been quick to claim on multiple fronts that it just really, really, loves the idea of comprehensive privacy protections for consumers:

New Zealand's "digital strip searches" of travelers' electronic devices are now backed by law. When we covered this last year, customs officials were already seizing devices and performing invasive searches. But a new twist has been added with the enactment of New Zealand's most recent customs law: compelled password production.

Techdirt has written a number of stories recently about unfortunate developments taking place in the African digital world. The Alliance for Affordable Internet (A4AI ) site has usefully pulled together what's been happening across the continent -- and it doesn't look good:

The Institute for Justice has secured a big win in Philadelphia. The city's asset forfeiture program is being torn down and rebuilt as the result of IJ litigation.

As expected, the broadband industry filed suit against the state of California today over the state's shiny new net neutrality law. The lawsuit (pdf), filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of California, echoes many of the same arguments made in the DOJ's own recent lawsuit against the state. For a moment, let's just stop and pause to appreciate the fact that the federal government is now, with zero pretense, officially working hand in hand with some of the least-liked monopolies in America to ensure their right to be able to screw you over.It if it wasn't so obnoxious with so many far-reaching impacts on consumer welfare, internet health, and competition--it could be deemed high art.ISP lawyers argue California's state law violates the dormant commerce clause of the Constitution (they've previously, unsuccessfully, tried to argue that net neutrality also violates their First Amendment rights). Both lawsuits rely heavily on language embedded in the FCC's net neutrality repeal (at direct Comcast and Verizon lobbyist behest) attempting to prohibit states from stepping in and filling the consumer protection void. This "preemption" language, the broadband industry insists, directly prohibits states from protecting consumers from bumbling telecom monopolies:

There's an old saying in statistics: figures don't lie, but liars figure. Nowhere is this more the case than when you hear numbers streaming from the mouths of those in the anti-piracy business and copyright industries. Examples of this are legion, from the infamous practice of Hollywood accounting rendering hilariously successful films to red-ink status, to bogus piracy costs, to industry claims that rely on every download being a lost sale, to the overall prevalence of piracy statistics more generally speaking. While MUSO, the antipiracy outfit out of Europe, has made some recent noise about copyright holders tweaking their business models to reduce piracy instead of whining about, it has also participated in this liars-figuring practice.A great example of that can be found in MUSO's recent partnership with the Association of Independent Music (AIM), where the latter has put out a press release about just how much great work MUSO has performed in taking down pirated content in the past four months.

Police body cameras are the savior that failed to materialize. Accountability was the end goal, but obstacles were immediately erected by internal policies, cop-friendly legislation, and existing public records carve-outs for anything "investigation"-related.Making things worse are the officers themselves. When excessive force or other unconstitutional tactics are deployed, body cams seem to malfunction at an alarming rate. And that's only if officers can be bothered to turn them on at all. Body cams have served up a bunch of exonerating footage and delivered evidence to prosecutors, but have done little to make law enforcement more accountable.This trend isn't in any danger of reversing. Body cam manufacturers are seeking to expand their offerings, but the focus appears to be on giving law enforcement the extras it wants, rather than what the public is actually seeking. A good summary of recent body cam developments by Sidney Fussell at The Atlantic contains a discussion a new patent application by body cam manufacturer Digital Ally.While the patent application contains some nice "triggering" effects that may result in more captured footage of questionable incidents, it also contains something that would turn passive recordings into active surveillance.

Channel your inner tinkerer and take to the skies with your own customizable drone! Compatible with all major toy building blocks, the Force Flyers DIY Building Block Drone pack teaches you key STEM concepts while you build your own flying (or driving) machine. Explore aerodynamics and weight distribution as you engineer the perfect design. Then, get airborne and weave through tight spaces with a 6-axis gyro that makes for even smoother flying. And, don't worry, the drone is engineered with auto-stabilization and crash-resistant plastic, making it perfect for new pilots. There are 4 different themed packs to choose from: space, fire fighter, police and army. Each drone pack is on sale for $43.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.

Before FOSTA became law, plenty of experts in the space tried to warn everyone that a bill that was frequently promoted as being necessary to help "save the lives" of vulnerable women involved in sex trafficking, would actually put more lives at risk. And we've already had some evidence to support that this prediction was entirely accurate. Various law enforcement officials have been complaining that it's now more difficult to catch sex traffickers.And, now the Associated Press has a big article looking at the impact of FOSTA and it's not pretty. The closing down of various online forums for sex workers has driven more sex workers into the street, where their lives are at significantly higher risk:

With net neutrality on the ropes, major U.S. carriers continue to experiment with new ways to nickel-and-dime their subscribers. One of the cornerstones of this new effort involves erecting arbitrary restrictions, then charging mobile consumers extra money to overcome them. Case in point: Sprint's attempt to charge users more money if they want to avoid arbitrary throttling of games, video, and music. Another example: Verizon's decision to throttle all video on its network to 480p unless you pay the company for a more expensive, not really "unlimited" data plan.While carriers like to insist that they only throttle user wireless connections in cases of network congestion, a recent study explored how that wasn't remotely true. Carriers are increasingly throttling connections just to create arbitrary restrictions, and these restrictions, more often than not, have less and less to do with actual network congestion, and more and more to do with nickel-and-diming subscribers:

The Chinese government is rewriting history in its own distorted self-image. It wants to distance itself from its unseemly past, so it's retconning history through selectively-edited educational material and blatant censorship. Sure, the Chinese government has never been shy about its desire to shut up those that don't agree with it, but a recent "heroes and martyrs" law forbids disparaging long dead political and military figures.The government alone will decide how much praise must be slathered on designated "heroes and martyrs." Criticism has been banned, so citizens are at least clear on that aspect. The law went into effect on May 1st, immediately leading to the ban of a Chinese "rage comic" site. This site is the first to be successfully sued under the new law.

Everyone who knows me knows I love two things more than anything in this world: animals... and puns. And, to my delight, much of the pet industry considers using puns as something of a religion. You've all seen this, with groan-worthy names of pet stores, doggie daycares, and treat makers. And because the world simply can't be a fun place in which to exist, sometimes these punny names cause intellectual property disputes, such as when the Prosecco people managed to oppose a trademark for a pet treat named "Pawsecco", or when a real-life human being hotel called the Chateau Marmont sent a cease and desist notice to the Cateau Marmont, a hotel for, I don't know... raccoons?And now one fashion designer has decided to oppose the trademark for a maker of parody pet clothing, arguing ostensibly that the public both cannot tell the difference between human clothes and pet clothes, as well as that this same public doesn't have a sense of humor.

It's pretty difficult to have been on the internet over the past year or so and not come across the distracted boyfriend meme. It has been everywhere. And, unlike many other memes, this one's popularity has shown little sign of waning. If somehow you did miss it, uh, welcome back to the internet after a year away? The meme involves a stock photo of what appears to be a guy checking out a girl who just walked by him, while his somewhat unhappy girlfriend looks angrily at him. Then to make it "meme-like" you put captions over all three characters. Here was one of the early ones that kicked off the meme:There are thousands of other ones, some of which are actually kinda funny.The reason this is in the news again is that the Swedish ISP Banhof attempted to use the meme in an advertisement on Facebook and Instagram:A bunch of people complained that the ad was sexist, and reported it to the Swedish Advertising Ombudsman, who recently agreed that the ad was sexist.

This week, we've got a special cross-post from Rob Reid's excellent After On podcast. After a conversation between Mike and Rob about the possible end of the world, we pivot to the full episode of After On in which Rob talks to neuroscientist David Eagleman about his fascinating work using technology to create new human senses. We hope you enjoy it!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.

The only surprise about this is that it took this long to happen.

Let's start with the simple concept that it's not at all clear why intellectual property and intermediary liability issues should even be in various free trade agreements, other than to acknowledge that the legacy copyright industry has spent decades demanding that they be included in those agreements. I've mentioned it many times in the past, but the book Information Feudalism should be required reading on this subject, showing how copyright interests effectively hijacked the international trade agreement process to force through domestic policies they wished to have. The internet community mostly ignored the trade agreement process for years, allowing the RIAAs and MPAAs of the world to run rampant and get more or less whatever they wanted in smokey backrooms, before running home to Congress demanding that we pass new laws to "live up to our international obligations."When NAFTA was originally passed, this practice wasn't as common. Nowadays, it's more or less considered mandatory to include these issues in trade agreements. This is unfortunate for a large number of reasons, but it does mean that if these issues are going to show up in trade agreements, at least they ought to come out in a way that isn't harmful.And that takes us to NAFTA, which our current president demanded be renegotiated for no clear reason other than he was sure it was bad and we were being ripped off. And, voila, we now have a new agreement called the USMCA agreement designed to replace NAFTA (though I agree that we really missed a huge opportunity in not calling it the CAMUS agreement (or at least *something* that is pronounceable). And, because the RIAA and MPAAs of the world forced these issues into trade agreements, this new USMCA has a bunch of issues that have literally zero to do with "trade" but could have pretty widespread impacts on innovation and the internet.Michael Geist has the best overview I've seen of the agreement, highlighting both the good and bad aspects of the agreement. On the bad side of the ledger, it forces Canada to extend its copyright terms from "life plus 50" to "life plus 70." Thankfully, it appears the weird USTR confusion over the earlier idea that it was going to require life plus 75 years is now gone. But requiring life plus 70 is already problematic. It's especially bad for Canada in that it will involve a massive taking of the public domain, and locking it up for two extra decades for no good reason. But it's also bad for the US and Mexico in that it effectively blocks any chance of rolling back copyright terms to more reasonable levels (a proposal that even the US Copyright Office appeared to support in years' past).Also bad: expanding the data protection term of biologics. This is something that the US has pushed for in other agreements over the years and it's really dangerous for basic science and innovation in the drug space. Big pharma companies want it because it allows them to extract monopoly rents, but it harms our ability to actually understand the efficacy of drugs and to make better drugs. We've also discussed how this can lead to real harm in silencing people pointing out health risks of certain drugs.We also remain concerned about the vague "anti-counterfeiting" language that has been used in the past to justify some truly draconian policies that could create huge problems for innovation and privacy.On the more neutral-to-possibly-bad side of the ledger, the agreement does allow Canada to retain its current "notice-and-notice" copyright policy, as opposed to a "notice-and-takedown" policy for copyright infringement that both the US and Mexico have. This is good, because Canada's notice-and-notice policy was the result of many years of difficult negotiations and an attempt to do something not as draconian and problematic on questions of free speech than the notice-and-takedown system that we see abused nearly every day here in the US and elsewhere. Unfortunately, what puts this in the "neutral-to-possibly-bad" category is that Canada is only allowed to keep notice-and-notice because it's effectively grandfathered in. The agreement more or less blocks the US or Mexico from moving to such a system.This is ridiculous. Just as we're getting evidence of how much better a system notice-and-notice is compared to notice-and-takedown, suddenly the US and Mexico will be barred from moving to such a system, even if the evidence shows that it's better for everyone? That makes no sense at all.On the neutral-to-possibly good side of the ledger, despite concerns that it was missing in earlier drafts and reports, the agreement does include a provision on what they refer to as "limitations and exceptions," but which we note are really user rights such as fair use. It's good that this is there. But... it's less good that it uses the traditional "three steps test" found in Berne Convention. That's concerning because at least some interpret the three step test to limit fair use (and some even argue -- incorrectly -- that US fair use is not permitted under the three step test). So, the "good" part is that the agreement includes something on user rights, but the bad part is that it defaults to the three step test which could be used to significantly limit just how fair use is applied.Finally, on the "good" side of the ledger, the USMCA does provide language establishing strong intermediary liability protections:

The Complete Learn To Design Bundle has 8 courses that will teach you how to create stunning digital content. You start with an intro to HTML and CSS, then move on to SVG and WordPress. The next courses cover part of the Adobe Suite of offerings: Illustrator, PhotoShop, and InDesign. You'll finish with learning about Sketch App and building apps in Bootstrap 4. It's on sale for $39.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

The DOJ is now 0-for-2 in encryption-breaking cases. The DOJ tried to get a judge to turn an All Writs Order into a blank check for broken encryption in the San Bernardino shooting case. Apple pushed back. Hard. So hard the FBI finally turned to an outside vendor to crack the shooter's iPhone -- a vendor the FBI likely knew all along could provide this assistance. But the DOJ wanted the precedent more than it wanted the evidence it thought it would find on the phone. It bet it all on the Writ and lost.Other opportunities have arisen, though. A case involving wiretapping MS-13 gang members resulted in the government seeking more compelled decryption, this time from Facebook. The FBI could intercept text messages sent through Messenger but was unable to eavesdrop on calls made through the application. Facebook claimed it didn't matter what the government wanted. It could not wiretap these calls for the government without significantly redesigning the program. The government thought making Messenger less secure for everyone was an acceptable solution, as long as it gave investigators access to calls involving suspected gang members.The case has proceeded under seal, for the most part, so it's been difficult to determine exactly what solution the government was demanding, but it appears removal of encryption was the preferred solution, which would provide it with future wiretap access if needed. If this request was granted, the government could take its paperwork to other encrypted messaging programs to force them to weaken or destroy protections they offered to users.The ruling in this case is still under seal, but Joseph Menn and Dan Levine of Reuters were able to obtain comments from insiders familiar with the case to determine the outcome.

Europe really seems to have it in for the internet these days -- from the GDPR to antitrust actions to the Copyright Directive to the Right to be Forgotten, almost every legal issue popping up in Europe is coming out terribly for innovation and the public's ability to communicate freely with one another. The latest may seem a bit more narrowly focused, but it could be super important. As described on the always wonderful IPKat blog, the Paris Tribunal heard a complaint brought against Twitter by the French Consumers' Association challenging the validity of Twitter's terms of service for a whole long list of reasons.But just to keep this more focused we'll discuss the part that matters to us: the copyright license. We've discussed the "copyright license" terms (that basically every online platform has somewhere in the terms) a few times in the past -- mainly because every so often someone totally misreads or misunderstands it and a huge, viral, and totally misleading freakout occurs. That's because basically any service that hosts user content has some basic term that effectively says "when you're posting something to our site, you are granting us a perpetual license to host it on this and future iterations of our site, and that extends to other sites where our stuff might appear." That's the plain language version of it, but some people act as if it's an outrage that a platform is claiming that it can have such a broad license to include the content on future sites or with partners. Many -- incorrectly -- claim that this means that the sites are planning to "sell" your content to third parties. That's not the case. The clause really just allows for things like "embedding" where the same content will appear on other sites, and that alone shouldn't be seen as an infringement. So you're licensing the content for such uses.But, some people still find this offensive... and apparently that includes the Paris Tribunal. Twitter's terms attempt to explain this situation pretty clearly:

World governments continue to believe Twitter is the best conduit for oppression. Twitter is the main target of Turkish president Recep Erdogan's loutish attempts to mute dissent and criticism. Other countries find Twitter's speedy delivery of punchy content a constant threat to their power and routinely block their citizens' access to the microblogging site.Twitter is too compliant too often, so the cycle of dissent-crushing continues. Twitter will push back now and then but, like other service providers, often places market share ahead of protecting users from their encroaching governments.Brazil's government was hoping to speak to a more compliant Twitter when complaining about mean tweets, but the call appears to have been answered by the steelier side of its international relations unit.

Back in June, we talked about a fun little bit of trolling that Xbox and Nintendo teamed up for at the expense of Sony and its PlayStation 4. At issue was Sony's longstanding stance against inter-console play for multiplayer games that would otherwise allow for it, whereas Xbox and Nintendo players all over the world were happily playing MineCraft and Fortnite against one another. The end result of Sony's stance has been both a decent level of frustration by gamers that expect modernity in their console's features, and several YouTube videos and Twitter exchanges between Xbox and Nintendo highlighting that their own consoles had inter-console functionality. In that post, we said it was an open suggestion whether or not this public ribbing would change Sony's stance on the subject.Narrator: it changed Sony's stance on the subject.