Techdirt

For years telecom monopolies have downplayed the lack of competition in the broadband sector, and the chain reaction of problems this creates for everybody (from privacy infractions to net neutrality violations). At the same time, large ISP lobbyists (and the regulators, politicians and policy flacks paid to love them) have insisted that it's Silicon Valley companies the public really need to worry about. As a result, ISPs like Comcast and AT&T routinely insist that we need new regulations governing companies like Google and Facebook, but entrenched natural monopolies should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they'd like.This of course requires you ignore a few things. One, that the lack of competition in broadband makes the two sectors an apples to oranges comparison. Customers frustrated by Facebook's bad behavior can vote with their wallets, something most Comcast customers can't do. You're also supposed to ignore the fact that large ISPs are simply trying to saddle Google and Facebook with additional regulation because they're increasingly trying to challenge them for advertising revenue in the video and media space.This underlying narrative is constant, whether it's FCC boss Ajit Pai weirdly demonizing Netflix, to telecom-industry funded smear campaigns that try to suggest Google is a nasty freeloader that doesn't pay for bandwidth. Speaking at a sector trade show in Ireland this week, former FCC boss turned top cable lobbyist Michael Powell dusted off this rhetoric and turned up the volume. He began by insisting the quest for a healthy and open internet was "irrelevant" because the real villains are Silicon Valley companies hungrily gobbling up "mindshare":

The residents of Philadelphia elected new District Attorney Larry Krasner because he wasn't like the long line of police misconduct enablers that preceded him. Fed up with crumbling relationships between law enforcement officers and the people they served, Krasner secured the position by promising to clean house and start representing the people's best interests, rather than just law enforcement's.Disruption ensued.

It appears the city of Los Angeles is finally going to revise its terrible police body camera policy. Nearly $60 million was spent outfitting officers with cameras, but the end result provided little value to taxpayers. As it stands now, the only way to access footage is to engage in civil litigation with the police department (over violated rights, not rejected records requests) or be a defendant in a criminal case. Even then, a judge still has to be convinced you have a right to see the footage, even if you're one of the subjects.The proposed law change would flip the situation entirely around, putting the burden on law enforcement to show why footage should remain out of public view.

More than half of all states are now pushing their own net neutrality rules in the wake of the federal repeal. Some states are pushing for new net neutrality laws that closely mirror the discarded FCC rules, while others are signing executive orders that prohibit states from doing business with ISPs that behave anti-competitively. And while these discordant laws may make doing business from state to state harder on incumbent ISPs, that's probably something they should have thought about before dismantling arguably modest (and hugely popular) federal protections.This week Oregon became the latest state to sign net neutrality protections into law with what was largely bipartisan support. House Bill 4155 largely mirrors the FCC ban on things like paid-prioritization and anti-competitive blocking and throttling, though (also like the discarded FCC rules) it wouldn't address usage caps and overage fees or zero rating, one of the key areas where anti-competitive behavior often takes root. The bill also carves out numerous exemptions for legitimate instances of prioritization (medical care, prioritized VoIP services).The bill also mandates that state and local governments contract only with companies that abide by the principles of net neutrality. Again highlighting the popularity of these efforts, three middle school kids testified before the State Senate in support of the new law:

While site-blocking is now a global phenomena, every country appears to be on a different trajectory in how it does this new flavor of censorship. Russia, for instance, looks for any excuse to block the availability of a website on its soil, resulting in absolutely hilarious amounts of collateral damage. Italy is slightly more judicious, but still does its site-blocking sans due process, whereas Ireland has just begun to open the door to site-blocking, with all kinds of major media companies just waiting to barge through it. Here in America, site-blocking is typically reserved for streaming sites during major sporting events and the voluntary blocking companies like Comcast offer with its "Protected Browsing" service.But let's be clear: all of these points on the spectrum suck out loud. Collateral damage is the rule, not the outlier, and these efforts at justified censorship always creep, if not dash, towards the other line of reasonable behavior. As an example of this, let's go back to the site-blocking Comcast performs for customers who enable its "Protected Browsing" feature. This feature is supposed to protect internet users from malware, unwanted pornography, and pirate sites. It also apparently keeps people from being able to access news sites like TorrentFreak.

So we've noted a few times how Trump FCC boss Ajit Pai enjoys wandering the country informing everyone he's a massive champion of closing the digital divide. But those claims have been repeatedly and consistently undermined by Pai's own actions, whether that involves rolling back net neutrality (a move that will make life harder and more expensive for countless consumers, non-profits, minority communities and startups alike), or his slow but steady dismantling of programs intended to make life a little bit easier for the poor.One of Pai's biggest targets has been the FCC's Lifeline program. It's an arguably modest program that was started by Reagan and expanded by Bush, and it long enjoyed bipartisan support until the post-truth era rolled into town. Lifeline doles out a measly $9.25 per month subsidy that low-income homes can use to help pay a tiny fraction of their wireless, phone, or broadband bills (enrolled participants have to chose one). The FCC under former FCC boss Tom Wheeler had voted to expand the service to cover broadband connections, something Pai (ever a champion to the poor) voted down.Now Pai is back with a new proposal that would prevent anybody but the nation's biggest carriers from helping provide service to the poor via the Lifeline program. According to Pai's new proposal, only "facilities-based broadband" providers (companies that own and operate their own networks) could participate in the program, forcing millions of the nations' poor off of existing MVNOs and other resellers, and forcing them onto the networks of incumbent wireless carriers.If you've followed Pai's ideological rhetoric, it's pretty clear he sees government as a pesky impediment to the miracles of the broadband free market, which, in Pai's head, will always do the right thing if left in an accountability vacuum. But if you've also followed the broadband industry, you'll know it's not a free market. It's a mish-mash of regional monopolies that enjoy regulatory capture on the state and federal level, resulting in limited competition, high prices, and awful service. In telecom, history shows us that mindlessly gutting regulatory oversight instead of reforming it doesn't magically fix this problem, it makes it worse.Still, it's clear that Pai believes that slowly dismantling the FCC as both an agent of altruism (empathy is painfully unfashionable) and oversight is the path to nirvana. And he's justifying his latest efforts to scale back Lifeline by insisting that booting resellers off the program somehow will magically boost broadband deployment:

Last week I got into a bit of a debate with a SESTA supporter about the bill, which boiled down to me saying that the bill won't do what it claims, will likely make things worse for victims of sex-trafficking, and will also have massive consequences for the internet and speech online. And the response from the person I was debating was "but my side has all these anti-sex-trafficking groups supporting SESTA." That's not exactly a response to any of the points that I raised. As we've noted from the very start, we may not be experts in sex-trafficking, but we do know how the internet works -- and how laws on intermediary liability impact the internet and content online. And nothing in SESTA will work the way its supporters seem to think it will work.So I want to directly ask here the same questions I asked the individual I was debating (which he refused to answer before tossing out a few ad hominems and suggesting that I'm not worth talking to because I'm "a blogger."): what in SESTA will actually stop or limit sex-trafficking? Because as far as I can tell, it does absolutely nothing to stop sex-trafficking. It does not target sex-traffickers in any way. Supporters of the bill claim or appear to believe that it will stop sex-trafficking by stopping websites from allowing anyone to engage in sex-trafficking or advertising sex-trafficking victims on their websites. But that's not at all how the bill works.It's (obviously!) already illegal to engage in sex-trafficking. And it's already illegal to advertise sex-trafficking. And law enforcement can already go after those doing both of those things. And yet, miraculously, both of those things still occur frequently online. Now, a reasonable response to this would be to suggest that law enforcement has a good source of information with which to investigate, arrest, and prosecute sex traffickers, since the necessary information is apparently so easily obtained online.So, what does SESTA do? Rather than make it easier for law enforcement to go after those illegal activities, it creates a new illegal activity: that of running a website that is used by sex traffickers. So, as we've discussed before, this creates a serious "moderator's dilemma" for websites, leading to one of two likely outcomes. Many websites may stop moderating content, because if they're not looking at the content, they can more credibly claim a lack of knowledge. That means less moderation, less oversight, and likely more use of those platforms for sex-trafficking ads. So, suddenly, sex-traffickers will gravitate to those platforms, and those platforms will be less likely to cooperate with law enforcement because (again) they want to avoid "knowledge" of how their platform is being used, and working with law enforcement risks more knowledge.On the flip-side of the moderator's dilemma, you will get sites that much more vigorously moderate content. This seems to be the solution that SESTA supports think all platforms will embrace -- which is almost certainly incorrect. Indeed, it's incorrect on multiple levels, because not only will some platforms embrace this more heavy moderation setup, those that do will almost certainly over-moderate to a drastic degree, in order to avoid liability. That will mean fairly aggressive levels of keyword blocking, filters, and automated removals. And, as anyone who has studied how such systems work in the real world, all of those will fail. And they'll fail with both false negatives and false positives. That is, lots of perfectly legitimate content will get taken down (perhaps, as we've discussed before, it could be material to help victims of sex-trafficking), and lots of sex-trafficking content will still get through.It's that latter point that's pretty important: the people engaged in sex-trafficking are already breaking the law. SESTA changes nothing for them in terms of the illegality of what they're doing. It just means the tools they use are going to change a little bit, and anyone who thinks the traffickers won't adjust with it has apparently never spent any time on the internet. If keywords get blocked, traffickers will come up with new euphemisms (they always do). If forums get shut down, they will gravitate to other forums. If filters are created, they will figure out ways to get around the filters. Nothing in SESTA creates any disincentives at all for actual traffickers.Indeed, SESTA creates a few things that will make life easier for traffickers. As noted above, it will likely lead some sites to do less moderation, and traffickers will quickly gravitate to such sites. Additionally, it will make it much, much harder for rights groups to post information to help victims of sex-trafficking, since much of that information will be seen as a liability risk, and blocked or taken down. And, finally, it will create massive disincentives for sites to work with law enforcement or families of victims to help them, because of the risk of those actions being used to prove the requisite "knowledge."So, please: can someone who is a supporter of SESTA explain how the bill will do anything to actually stop sex trafficking? Because I can't find a single useful thing that it does.

Project management is booming as more and more companies pivot to become more efficient in their operations. The eduCBA Project Management Bundle will introduce you to this crucially important field. You'll get access more than 100 complete courses and 400+ hours of content. You'll learn about Agile, Lean, Scrum, software project management, performance analysis, TQM, and more. It's on sale for $29.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

We've seen a bunch of lawsuits of late filed by very angry people who have been kicked off of, or somehow limited by, various social media platforms. There's Dennis Prager's lawsuit against YouTube, as well as Chuck Johnson's lawsuit against Twitter. Neither of these have any likelihood of success. These platforms have every right to kick off whoever they want, and Section 230 of the CDA pretty much guarantees an easy win.Now we have yet another one of these, Jared Taylor, a self-described "race realist" and "white advocate" (what most of us would call an out and out racist), has sued Twitter for kicking him and his organization off its platform. Taylor is represented by a few lawyers, including Marc Randazza, who I know and respect, but with whom I don't always agree -- and this is one of those cases. I think Randazza took a bad case and is making some fairly ridiculous arguments that will fail badly. Randazza declined to comment on my questions about this case, but his co-counsel -- law professor Adam Candeub and Noah Peters -- both were kind enough to discuss for quite some time their theory on the case, and to debate my concerns about why the lawsuit will so obviously fail. We'll get to their responses soon, but first let's look at the lawsuit itself.To the credit of these lawyers, they make a valiant effort to distinguish this case from the Prager and Johnson cases, which appear to be just completely ridiculous. The Taylor case makes the most thorough argument I've seen for why Twitter can't kick someone off its platform. It's still so blatantly wrong and will almost certainly get laughed out of court, but the legal arguments are marginally better than those found in the other similar cases we've seen.Like the other two cases we've mentioned, this case tries to twist the Supreme Court's Packingham ruling to say more than it really says. If you don't recall, that's the ruling from last summer noting that people can't be banned from the overall internet and laws requiring people be removed entirely from the internet violate their rights. All of these cases try to twist the Supreme Court's saying the government can't ban someone from the internet to also mean a private platform can't kick you off its service. Here's Taylor's version, which is used to set up the two key arguments in the case (which we'll get to shortly):

Rhode Island lawmakers are proposing a new law (pdf) that would force ISPs to filter pornography and other "patently offensive material." It would then force state residents interested in viewing porn to pony up a one-time $20 "digital access fee" to whitelist the internet's naughty bits for each internet-connected device in the home, the money purportedly going toward helping combat human trafficking. ISPs would be required to build entire new support systems (on their dime) to help combat porn, and would face fines of $500 for each instance of offensive content that ISPs failed to censor.The bill is worded vaguely enough to suggest that hardware vendors could also be held liable if they failed to help censor said "patently offensive" material:

If you've spent time on Facebook lately, you may have come across the following advertisement:The ad is from "CreativeFuture", an MPAA front group that pretends to be representing the interests of "artists" but miraculously only seems to promote the extreme viewpoints of the giant Hollywood studios (imagine that). The group is often the go to quote for the copyright extremist position -- and has a history of basically blaming technology for Hollywood's own failures to adapt.Not surprisingly, then, that it's now running this highly unscientific "survey" with a bunch of ridiculous leading questions, to try to argue that internet companies aren't doing enough and that Congress should destroy the laws that protect the open internet. You can check out the survey yourself, but let's dig into the questions and just how leading and/or silly they are.It starts off with the following preamble:

Project Gutenberg, which currently offers 56,000 free ebooks, is one of the treasures of the Internet, but it is not as well known as it should be. Started in 1991 by Michael S. Hart, who sadly died in 2011, Project Gutenberg is dedicated to making public domain texts widely available. Over the last 25 years, volunteers have painstakingly entered the text of books that are out of copyright, and released them in a variety of formats. The site is based in the US, and applies US law to determine whether a book has entered the public domain. Since copyright law is fragmented and inconsistent around the world, this can naturally lead to the situation that a book in the public domain in the US is still in copyright elsewhere. To deal with this, the site has the following "terms of use":

Last week, a federal judge pointed out the obvious to the CIA: release-to-one is release-to-all, no matter how the agency's lawyers spin it. The CIA had emailed classified information to certain journalists. When another journalist sought copies of those emails, the CIA handed him fully-redacted versions. Obviously, they weren't redacted when they were sent to select members of the public. Why would the CIA feel the need to redact the information now when another member of the public asked for it?The CIA argued it had every right to hand out classified info to whoever it saw fit and then turn around and refuse to hand it over when an FOIA requester requested it. It said the classified info it gave to journalists was never published by those journalists, so it was technically not a public release. The judge shot back, stating that the CIA had effectively waived its right to withhold this information by handing it out to journalists in the first place.

In the conspiracy against video games that is now in full swing after the school shooting in Florida, it seems that it goes all the way to the top, by which I mean the recent comments by our Dear Leader, Donald Trump. Lower levels of the government have already begun foisting the sins of the shooter on the scapegoat of violent games, with Rhode Island looking for a plainly unconstitutional tax on adult-rated games and the governor of Kentucky trying to blame violent games for the recent shooting, sans evidence. And now it seems that Donald Trump has gotten into the mix, announcing that he will be meeting with "the video game industry" in coming weeks to see how they can stop real-world gun violence.

It wasn't very long ago that we last discussed SESTA on the podcast, but now that the House has voted to approve its version of the bill with SESTA tacked on, it's unfortunately time to dig into the issues again. So this week we're joined by returning guest Emma Llansó from the Center for Democracy and Technology and, for the first time, law professor Eric Goldman to talk about why the combination of SESTA and FOSTA has resulted in the worst of both worlds.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.

Mike Godwin (you know who he is) was recently going through some of his earlier writings, and came across an essay (really an outline) he had written to the Cypherpunks email list 25 years ago, in April of 1993 concerning the Clipper Chip and early battles on encryption and civil liberties. If you don't recall, the Clipper Chip was an early attempt by the Clinton administration to establish a form of backdoored encryption, using a key escrow system. What became quite clear in reading through this 25-year-old email is just how little has changed in the past 25 years. As we are in the midst of a new crypto war, Godwin has suggested republishing this essay from so long ago to take a look back at what was said back then and compare it to today.From: Mike Godwin

Another case of YouTube's copyright notification system being abused has filtered down through social media. A YouTuber whose channel specializes in game reviews was targeted by the developer of the game after some back-and-forth on the internet over his negative review.Chris Hodgkinson reviewed a game called Super Seducer, which supposedly teaches dudes how to pick up women through the magical art of full-motion video. Call it "edutainment." (If you must…) The developer, Richard La Ruina, didn't care for his game being featured on a video series entitled "This is the Worst Game Ever." Nor did he care for Hodgkinson's suggestion the game offered nothing to men in the way of usable pick-up artistry.

Remember the beloved classic Gameboy? The intuitive gameplay and good old fashioned plastic construction were emblematic of a simpler time where Tetris was king of the gaming world. The good times will roll again with the Wanle Gamers Console. This nostalgic iPhone case turns your smartphone into a gaming oasis, with ten classic games like Tetris, Tank, Snake, Formula One Racing, and more pre-installed. Protect your phone and play classic games at the same time. It's on sale for $34.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.

Well, well, well. At the end of last year we wrote about the weird series of events that could possibly lead to the DOJ getting possession of a one-of-a-kind Wu Tang Clan album called Once Upon a Time in Shaolin. The short version: in 2014 Wu Tang decided to experiment with a different kind of business model: selling a single copy of an album to the highest bidder. Nearly two years later, just as the entire world was learning to absolutely loathe a pharma man-child named Martin Shkreli, it came out that Shkreli was the guy who forked over $2 million or so for the album.Since then Shkreli has been arrested, and things haven't gone well for him. As you may have heard, a week or so ago, the court ruled that Shkreli caused a loss of $10.4 million for investors. And, yesterday, Judge Kiyo Matsumoto further ruled on the DOJ's asset forfeiture request, granting the request to seize a bunch of Shkreli assets... including Once Upon a Time in Shaolin. The order of forfeiture specifically lays out the following assets:

A well-intentioned effort in Oregon to drive more competition to the broadband market has instead netted Comcast a $15 million annual tax break for effectively doing nothing differently.Back in 2014 the Oregon State Supreme Court issued a hugely-controversial ruling that allowed companies to be taxed based on "intangible" assets such as the value of their brands. Lobbied by Google, the state in 2015 signed a new law rolling back those assessments to try and incentivize competitors looking to deploy faster broadband networks. But in 2015, Google was quick to point out that the sloppily-worded bill actually exempted it from gleaning any tax breaks for deploying gigabit broadband:

France's decision to inhibit free speech in response to local terrorist attacks has resulted in ridiculous applications of laws being written (and rewritten) on the fly. The current French president -- and supposed moderate -- wants to "ban" fake news and the French government has previously expressed a desire to censor websites for national security reasons. The attack on satirical publication Charlie Hebdo supposedly prompted French government officials to stand in solidarity with free speech. This show of unity was followed immediately by multiple arrests for violations of France's speech laws -- including the arrest of comedian for an anti-Semitic Facebook post and another for posting a video mocking dead policemen.I'm not sure if this latest action is approaching the French speech law event horizon, but it says nothing good about the current state of speech protections in France.

Back in 2014, Techdirt first wrote about TISA, the Trade in Services Agreement, another massive international trade deal that was being negotiated behind closed doors with no public scrutiny. Its central aim was to establish a common regulatory framework for services globally. But in doing so, it would circumscribe the ability of governments to bring in their own national laws, since many options would be forbidden by the agreement. For key areas, then, TISA would impose globally-agreed standards for services, with little freedom to diverge, whatever the local populace or democratically-elected politicians might think or want.During 21 rounds of talks, good progress was made on agreeing what should be in TISA, and it seemed that a final text was quite near. But with the election of Donald Trump, everything went quiet, as TISA negotiators waited to find out what his views on the deal would be. Since then, not much has happened, although TISA's supporters are doubtless hoping that negotiations can be picked up again at some point.As part of its participation in TISA, the European Commission is obliged to undertake a trade sustainability impact assessment of the likely effects. In this case, the analysis was carried out by the Dutch consultancy ECORYS and the London-based CEPR, both familiar names in this context. The final report was submitted in July 2017, which has given others a chance to examine what benefits the EU expects TISA to bring with it, and the assumptions that lie behind those predictions. The Chamber of Labour, Vienna, commissioned the Austrian Foundation for Development Research (OFSE in German) to produce a report on the report, and this has now been published. Drawing on the sustainability impact assessment's own predictions, the OFSE underlines that TISA is really pretty pointless from an economic point of view:

Over the past few weeks, we've mentioned in a couple of posts that the Copyright Office is currently taking public commentary for changes to the DMCA's anti-circumvention exemptions provisions. While we've thus far limited our posts to the Museum of Art and Digital Entertainment's bid to have those exemptions extended to preserving online video games and the ESA's nonsensical rebuttal, that isn't the only request for expanded exemptions being logged. A group of filmmaker associations put in a request last year for anti-circumvention exemptions to be extended to filmmakers so that they can break the DRM on Blu-ray films in order to make use of clips in new works. At issue is the fact that these filmmakers are able to make use of clips in these new works thanks to fair use but cannot readily get at them due to the DRM on the films themselves.

Last month you might recall that the NRA gave FCC boss Ajit Pai the Charleton Heston Award for Courage for his decision to dismantle popular net neutrality rules. The tone-deaf celebration was a pretty hollow attention seeking move, but was also an ouroboros of blistering idiocy. One, the NRA appears oblivious to the fact that net neutrality rules would have helped it as well, since the entire point is to ensure the internet is a level playing field for all competitors and voices. Net neutrality protects free speech (even speech you don't agree with), something you'd think the folks at the NRA would be able to appreciate.Two, there's simply nothing courageous about teaming up with Comcast to screw over the public and the nation's small businesses and startups. Pai's decision is widely derided as the dumbest decision in the history of modern tech policy. And while ISPs like to frame net neutrality as partisan to sow division and prevent meaningful rules, surveys repeatedly indicate the rules had broad bipartisan support.It didn't take long for ethics experts to point out that the award and the NRA's gift to Pai (a Kentucky long rifle) was over $200 and therefore violated ethics rules and lobbying restrictions:

The Chesterfield County Police Department is willing to violate your rights. If it's not your Fourth Amendment rights, it'll be your First. And this is fine with the department's chief, who's gone on record as a supporter of rights violations.A traffic stop for a minor violation quickly escalated into a life-or-death situation for a black college student cops. Elie Mystal of Above the Law breaks it down as only Elie can.

Here's a bit of a surprise. The Wall Street Journal's Editorial board has come out vehemently against SESTA. The reason this is surprising is that much of the push for SESTA has been a fairly obvious attack on internet companies, especially Google, by trying to undermine CDA 230. And the Wall Street Journal has spent years attacking Google at every opportunity.But, this time, the editorial gets the story right -- highlighting that the effort is clearly being driven by anti-Google animus, even though it will create all sorts of other problems (problems that Google can mostly survive easily). However, the most important part of the editorial details why SESTA is not actually needed. Throughout the process, the backers of the bill always point to Backpage.com as the reason the bill is necessary. As we pointed out, when the bill was first released, nearly every quote from Senators backing it mentioned how it was necessary to take down Backpage.But what none of them want to talk about is that we don't need this law to take down Backpage. As the WSJ report notes, Backpage is currently in court in Massachusetts where it seems likely that a judge will say that it's not protected by CDA 230, because of recent evidence showing that it was a more active participant in creating advertisements involving trafficking. Earlier ruling saying that Backpage was protected by CDA 230 did not have the evidence revealed later that Backpage actually was an active participant:

The $30 2018 Complete Finance and Economics Bundle contains 9 courses geared to helping you master personal finance, and learn more about corporate finance. Explore how risk, return, and tradeoffs are interconnected, and how to analyze the these factors to make safe and smart investments. You'll learn to use Excel and Visual Basic for Apps (VBA) for some serious financial number-crunching. You'll cover risk modeling, factor analysis, numerical optimization, and linear and logistic regression. Courses also cover macroeconomics, microeconomics, trend analysis, and more.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Once social media companies and websites began acquiescing to EU Commission demands for content takedown, the end result was obvious. Whatever was already in place would continually be ratcheted up. And every time companies failed to do the impossible, the EU Commission would appear on their virtual doorsteps, demanding they be faster and more proactive.Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft all agreed to remove hate speech and other targeted content within 24 hours, following a long bitching session from EU regulators about how long it took these companies to comply with takedown orders. As Tim Geigner pointed out late last year, the only thing tech companies gained from this acquiescence was a reason to engage in proactive censorship.

A few years ago, anger at John Deere's draconian tractor DRM birthed a grassroots tech movement. The company's lockdown on "unauthorized repairs" turned countless ordinary citizens into technology policy activists, after DRM and the company's EULA prohibited the lion-share of repair or modification of tractors customers thought they owned. These restrictions only worked to drive up costs for owners, who faced either paying significantly more money for "authorized" repair, or toying around with pirated firmware just to ensure the products they owned actually worked.The John Deere fiasco resulted in the push for a new "right to repair" law in Nebraska. This push then quickly spread to multiple other states, driven in part by consumer repair monopolization efforts by other companies including Apple, Sony and Microsoft. Lobbyists for these companies quickly got to work trying to claim that by allowing consumers to repair products they own (or take them to third-party repair shops) they were endangering public safety. Apple went so far as to argue that if Nebraska passed such a law, it would become a dangerous "mecca for hackers" and other ne'er do wells.Wary of public backlash, many of these companies refuse to speak on the record regarding their attacks on consumer rights and repair competition. But they continue to lobby intensely behind the scenes all the same. The latest example comes courtesy of the "The Security Innovation Center," a new lobbying and policy vehicle backed by hardware vendors and wireless carriers. The group issued a new "study" this week that tries to use the understandable concerns over flimsy IOT security to fuel their attacks on right to repair laws.The study starts out innocuously enough, noting how they hired Zogby to run a poll of 1015 users on consumer privacy and security concerns in the internet of broken things era:

A half-decade's worth of litigation by "FOIA terrorist" Jason Leopold is finally bearing fruit. The petition, filed in 2013 to peel back a few layers of opacity from the Feds' favorite court (DC District Court), has been partially granted by Chief Judge Beryl Howell. (h/t Mike Scarcella)Nearly two years ago, substantial progress was made when Judge Howell ordered the US Attorney's Office (USAO) to examine sealed dockets (of which there are many -- the DC circuit is home to hundreds of dockets rendered invisible by government requests for secrecy) and to start unsealing anything that wasn't related to ongoing investigations.The government fought back, but as the lengthy opinion [PDF] shows, there was much more cooperation between the USAO and Leopold than one would expect, given the government's antipathy towards him goes so far the Pentagon once offered Leopold a stack of documents in exchange for him promising to never file another FOIA request.Several pages are given over to the facts of the case. They're definitely worth reading. It details the push-and-pull of the two parties, the logistical hurdles standing in the way of compliance, and the unexpected compromises made by both parties. Leopold was requesting access to Pen Register/Trap and Trace (PR/TT) requests and Stored Communications Act (SCA) warrants, many of which are apparently obtained by DOJ components with little input from from the USAO. Leopold agreed to limit his request to USAO documents, only to find out the USAO had no reliable system in place to track its own involvement in federal prosecutions.

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Qwertygiy responding piece-by-piece to a commenter who was rabidly defending the CBP's constitution-free zones:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2013, we saw plenty of copyright fails, like NASCAR trying to get rid of videos of a crash at Daytona, and a company trying to hide a recording of its exec cursing an analyst, and sheet metal and air conditioning contractors trying to prevent the publication of federal standards, and even one of the companies in charge of administering the new six-strikes program misidentifying content. Speaking of the six strikes program, it was starting to look weird and ugly — although anyone looking at other countries saw that coming.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2008, while one court was dismissing racketeering charges against the RIAA, another was rejecting the RIAA's own claims about "making available" being infringement, and some musicians were wondering if they should take the RIAA to court to find out where all that settlement money was going. Meanwhile, a Canadian politician pushing for a Canadian DMCA was caught violating copyright himself, and Pakistan joined the list of countries to attempt to censor YouTube with disastrous results leading it to quickly reverse course.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2003, while Roxio was trying to resurrect Napster by hiring Shawn Fanning, it was becoming more common to see predictions of the death of the CD. People were starting to notice the feds seizing domain names, while congress decided it was time to target P2P sharing on college campuses. Netflix signed up its millionth customer, and lots of people were starting to see the profit potential of eBay — from businesses realizing it could be their sole distribution channel to a California airport using it to sell confiscated goods.

Late last year, we covered a very odd lawsuit brought against the BBC by the production team for The Cosby Show centering around a BBC documentary covering Bill Cosby's fall from grace in America. Bill Cosby: Fall of an American Icon used several short clips from The Cosby Show, altogether totaling less than four minutes of run-time, and all of them used to provide context to Cosby's once-held status as an American public figure in good standing. Despite the BBC distributing the documentary exclusively overseas, production company Casey-Werner filed its suit in California. Whatever the geography around the legal action, we argued at the time that the BBC's actions were as clear a case of fair use as we'd ever seen.It seems that legal argument will not be answered in this suit, however, as the court has decided instead to simply dismiss over a lack of jurisdiction. While the BBC's filings had indeed hinted at a forthcoming fair use defense, it also argued that the California court had no business adjudicating this matter to begin with.

Unsubstantiated driverless car hype may be annoying, but that shouldn't blind us to the real cost of unnecessarily delaying autonomous vehicle (AV) deployment.Last week, after exploring new data from the California AV disengagement reports, Ross Marchand of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance argued that we should "put driverless cars back in the slow lane." California requires AV companies testing in the state to report each time a human operator takes over for a driverless car — an event otherwise known as a "disengagement." Marchand offers some interesting analysis, but ultimately reads far too much into a limited dataset and pushes for a restrictive policy prescription that would undermine public safety. The discussion is worth fleshing out because it reveals important limits to the "precautionary principle" mindset that is so common in AV discussions.In 2017, Waymo — the self-driving car project formerly belonging to Google — reported driving over 350,000 miles on California roads with 63 total disengagements. Marchand claimed that, based on these data, Waymo's test vehicles are still not as safe as human drivers and that they are improving at a slower rate than those hyping AVs would have us believe. Further, he argued that until driverless cars can prove they are safer than human operators, we should keep them off public roads — and instead test them on expensive private tracks.There are a few glaring issues with this argument. First, it overestimates how applicable and reliable the California disengagement data really are. As many commentators have pointed out, disengagement data are a poor measure of AV progress. Not only are disengagement reports an apples-to-oranges comparison across vehicle manufacturers who use different definitions, strategies and road conditions for testing, but Marchand drills down by comparing particular disengagement subcategories, leaving him with sample sizes of less than 20 — several orders-of-magnitude too small to make meaningful comparisons. Furthermore, comparing disengagements to would-be fatalities is problematic given that a safety driver's presence enables testing in regions that the vehicle is still learning to handle.Marchand also left aside the successful testing and deployment of Waymo's fully driverless cars in Arizona. Since November 2017, hundreds of AVs have been providing free taxi services in the suburbs of Phoenix without any safety driver in the front seat. To date, there have been no reported accidents or fatalities. This suggests what we've known all along: these companies already face a host of legal, political, economic, regulatory and publicity pressures that incentivize them to prioritize safety in AV deployment. They know that every bump, scrape and crash will make headlines (regardless of who is at fault) and will slow or — if it's serious enough — completely derail their path to market. Waymo obviously feels confident enough to take its hands off the wheel, and so far has been right. Why rip AVs off the roads when no one has been harmed?Marchand's larger argument against AV testing on public roads provided a textbook example of the precautionary principle in practice. Simply put, the precautionary principle requires innovators to prove that their new technology will not harm society, rather than placing the onus on regulators and litigators to demonstrate that an innovation actually causes harm.And to that point, Marchand fails to specify what exactly the harm of public testing has been. Public testing has not unleashed mass fatalities on society, or even mass fender-benders. Rather, it appears to be speeding up the feedback loop of better data and more-rigorous test environments, leading to faster improvements in autonomous technology.As a society, we can't afford to wait until we are 100-percent certain that driverless cars are statistically safer than humans before letting them on the roads. As a report from RAND highlighted, it could take several decades to accumulate enough miles on private test courses to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that AVs are safer than their human counterparts. Relying on Marchand's precautionary principle approach would mean waiting decades while nearly 40,000 people die on our roads every year. Regulatory delay of this magnitude could, conservatively-speaking, cost tens of thousands of lives.That's not to say private test courses don't have a role to play in AV development. Indeed, Waymo already operates an extensive test track in Arizona where operators take real-world scenarios and experiment with hundreds of possible variations. This hybrid approach combines the advantages of real-world testing and private test courses. But forcing all AV testing onto private test tracks cuts off the real-world data necessary for this complementary approach and substantially raises the barrier to entry for new competitors.To be clear, we should avoid over-hyping the progress made in AV development. Carefully taking into account the safety data will be a key part of this effort. But halting all real-world AV deployment is a heavy-handed "solution" desperately in search of a problem.Caleb Watney (@calebwatney) is a technology policy associate at the R Street Institute. Marc Scribner (@marcscribner) is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The federal judge presiding over the prosecution of a government contractor who took home 50 terabytes of sensitive national security documents home with him has sent a message. And the message is this: collect it all.Harold Martin did what surveillance agencies do best. He built himself a haystack of government documents, some of them designated "top secret." The prosecution is counting on this haystack to put Harold Martin in prison on espionage charges. But the judge has just ordered prosecutors to prove the few "top secret" needles justify a conviction for the entire haystack. Josh Gerstein at Politico has the details.

As predictable as the sun rising in the east, whenever a tragedy occurs, such as the recent school shooting in Florida, entirely too many people trot out their favorite whipping posts and put on a public show. One of those whipping posts is violent media, with video games for some reason taking on a particularly large portion of the backlash. We've already seen grandstanding politicians jump into this fray, all the way up to America's current Dear Leader, but it isn't only at the highest levels that this occurs. In the suburbs of Chicago, a 16 year old recently made a dumb comment in the wake of local threats of a school shooting that was essentially him being exasperated about all the commentary on his preferred social media channels.

The Australian government has decided it can beat math at its own game. The laws of math will be defeated by the laws of Australia, the government declared last year. In an effort to tackle something this article calls "terror encryption," the Home Office says laws punching holes in encryption for government access are just around the corner.Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull may not understand the laws of mathematics or how signing a bunch of words into law doesn't actually suspend them, but he does know tech companies are going to figure it out for him. Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton agrees: the government just needs to mandate broken encryption and the tech companies will handle the rest. It's for the good of the country, if not the world.

Whether you're painting a room, designing a site, or anytime you're searching for just the perfect color, the Nix Mini Color Sensor is here to help. Simply scan any color critical surface, save it to your phone or tablet, and match it to an existing color library of more than 31,000 brand name paint colors, as well as RGB, HEX, CMYK, and LAB colors. It's smaller than a ping pong ball, and fits comfortably on your key chain. The Nix features high CRI white LEDs provide a consistent light source for every scan. It's on sale for $69 and comes with lifetime access to the Nix Paints and Nix Digital Android and iOS apps.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

For years, we've quoted a copyright lawyer/law professor who once noted that the standards for fair use are an almost total crapshoot: nearly any case can have almost any result, depending on the judge (and sometimes jury) in the case. Even though there are "four factors" that must be evaluated, judges will often bend over backwards to twist those four factors to get to their desired result. Some might argue that this is a good thing in giving judges discretion in coming up with the "right" solution. But, it also means that there's little real "guidance" on fair use for people who wish to make use of it. And that's a huge problem, as it discourages and suppresses many innovations that might otherwise be quite useful.Case in point: earlier this week the 2nd Circuit rejected a lower court decision in the Fox News v. TVEyes case. If you don't recall, TVEyes provides a useful media monitoring service that records basically all TV and radio, and makes the collections searchable and accessible. It's a useful tool for other media companies (which want to use clips), for large PR firms tracking mentions, and for a variety of other uses as well. The initial ruling was a big win for fair use (even when done for profit) and against Fox News' assertion of the obsolete doctrine of "Hot News" misappropriation. That was good. However, that initial ruling only covered some aspects of TVEyes' operations -- mainly the searching and indexing. A second ruling was more of a mixed bag, saying that archiving the content was fair use, but allowing downloading the content and "date and time search" (as opposed to content search) was not fair use.Some of this was appealed up to the 2nd circuit -- specifically that second ruling saying parts of the service were not fair use. Thankfully, Fox didn't even bother appealing the "hot news" ruling or the "fair use on index search" ruling. As you'd expect, the court runs through a four factors test, and as noted above, the analysis is... weird. Once again, it seems clear that the court decided Fox should win and then bent its four factors analysis to make that happen. The court separates out TVEyes operations into two things: "Search" and "Watch." Whereas the lower court separated out "Watch" into various components, here the court decides that the entire "Watch" part is not fair use, and thus there's no need to examine the components (the "Search" part remains covered by fair use -- which, again, Fox did not challenge).First, the court explores "the purpose and character" of the use, and whether or not its transformative, which would lean towards fair use. Much of the discussion focuses on the Google Books case, in which the same court found that Google scanning books and making them searchable was transformative and thus, fair use. Here, the court notes the similarities that make TVEyes transformative, which is a good start:

In the wake of the FCC's net neutrality repeal, nearly half the states in the union are now in the process of passing new net neutrality rules. Some states are pushing for legislation that mirrors the discarded FCC rules, while others (including Montana) have signed executive orders banning states from doing business with ISPs that engage in anti-competitive net neutrality violations.Of course incumbent ISPs saw this coming, which is why both Verizon and Comcast successfully lobbied the FCC to include language in its repeal that tries to "preempt" state authority over ISPs entirely. But this effort to ban states from protecting consumers (not just from net neutrality violations) rests on untested legal ground, which is why some ISPs are also pushing for fake net neutrality laws they hope will preempt these state efforts.So far, states aren't taking the FCC's threats very seriously.Washington State for example became the first state in the union this week to pass net neutrality legislation (though Oregon is neck and neck). Washington's new law largely mirrors the discarded FCC rules by prohibiting the anti-competitive throttling and blocking of competitors, as well as "paid prioritization" deals that prevent ISPs from letting deep-pocketed content companies buy an unfair advantage over smaller companies and startups. Also like the FCC's rules, it carves out notable exemptions for "reasonable network management" -- as well as for the prioritization of legitimate services that may need it (medical, VoIP services).Amusingly, the bill's sponsor doesn't appear particularly flummoxed by FCC restrictions on what states can and can't do:

Late last year, the FISA Court did something it had never done before. It performed an en banc review of an earlier decision to determine whether or not the ACLU had standing to petition the court to release decisions pertaining to ongoing surveillance programs. The judges found the ACLU could continue its legal battle -- one it has waged on and off for more than a decade. It pointed out the ACLU had raised enough of a First Amendment allegation to be heard, although it wasn't particularly optimistic about its ability to overturn decades of FISA court secrecy.The FISA court has posted the opening briefs from both parties. The government's brief [PDF] basically argues that the court has worked in near-total darkness for years and it should go on doing so for years to come. The phrase "national security" is used frequently. It points to two earlier petitions by the ACLU -- filed with different FISA judges -- as having set up a dilemma the government shouldn't even need to address. Judge Saylor's opinion in 2013 opened the door for the ACLU's standing, finding the ACLU was entitled to access at least one opinion dealing with bulk collection authority.Judge Collyer's decision, released only months later, made no such finding. Instead, Collyer noted the court's secrecy was essential to the nature of the surveillance it approved and the ACLU had no standing to allege a violation of a First Amendment right to access FISA court documents. The government argues Collyer's decision was correct, not the one recently reached by the full panel of FISA judges.

The new administration's plan to undo everything Obama ever did (along with lots of stuff other presidents put in place) continues. Fighting leakers and multiple investigations, the Trump administration is steamrolling regulation by slashing through red tape and common sense with equal aplomb. This administration may have a reputation for inadvertent openness, but its new directives aren't so much draining the swamp as building a swamp in its own image.The Bureau of Land Management is apparently viewed as the Fed version of Greenpeace. Previously-protected federal lands are being opened up for business, starting with the removal of environmental impact reviews. This should speed up the return of the government's land to certain people -- mining companies, the CBP's inland expeditions, wall builders, etc. This affects nearly 950 million acres of federal land. A raft of exclusions would make it easier for the Bureau of Land Management to manage land however it sees fit.

About a half-decade ago, Customs and Border Patrol turned roads in and out of a small Arizona town into East Germany. Now, the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has ruled residents of Arivaca, Arizona can move forward with the civil rights lawsuit against several federal government agencies, including the DHS and CBP.The backstory to the lawsuit is stunning, in a "surely this can't be happening in America" sort of way. The New York Times covered the misery of Arivaca residents back in 2014. It shows what can happen when the federal government is allowed to turn large swathes of American soil into a proto-DMZ with armed guards and "papers, please" checkpoints.

Last week, the Communist Party of China issued a short statement:

While America is in desperate need for strong federal anti-SLAPP legislation, it's useful to point out when versions of these laws at the state level do their good work. One such law is the Texas Citizens Participation Act, or TCPA. Stories featuring the TCPA protecting the speech of those leaving ratings and comments online have been featured in our pages before, such as when a Houston law firm sued a former client for comments she made on Yelp and Facebook, or when a pet-sitting company sued one of its clients over a Yelp review that mentioned that the customer's fish was overfed.The latest lawsuit to be defeated by the TCPA is that of Jennifer Lane, an opera singer of some renown (more on that later) and a professor at the University of North Texas. It seems that Lane had few fans among her students, judging by the defamation suit she filed against Christine Phares and several Does over negative reviews they gave on singer forums and ratemyteacher.com. From the latest ruling, for background:

If you've paid attention to the net neutrality debate, you'll recall that large ISPs routinely threaten to hold back on network investment if governments pass rules protecting an open, healthy internet. They also routinely try to claim that the passage of such protections cause a massive slowdown in overall sector investment, something that simply isn't supported by actual facts (remember them?). Such rhetoric is fear mongering designed to scare regulators away from imposing "job killing regulations," even if those regulations make sense for a telecom market where limited competition fails to keep bad actors in check.This hollow fear mongering has played a starring role as carriers worldwide begin to deploy faster fifth-generation wireless (5G) networks. You'll recall that both American and European telcos have routinely tried to claim that the deployment of these faster, more efficient wireless networks will be derailed by net neutrality.Usually, this rhetoric is accompanied by claims that 5G will be the centerpiece of the smart cities of tomorrow, and that net neutrality rules will prevent ISPs from using these networks to provide prioritized connectivity for health and other related services. Ignored is the fact that this has never been a problem, since any well-crafted net neutrality rules carve out massive loopholes for all manner of essential services, especially on the medical front. Of course that doesn't stop ISPs from routinely claiming that net neutrality hurts sick people all the same.With the Mobile World Congress trade show underway this week in Barcelona, all of this debunked rhetoric is being regurgitated like a bad hairball. Speaking at the trade show, Ericsson CEO Börje Ekholm tried to inform attendees that Europe's net neutrality rules must be weakened lest they derail Europe's efforts to build 5G Networks:

When you're out and about looking for the perfect picture, you don't want a tripod that's going to weigh you down. Compact, lightweight, and waterproof, Pakpod is the ultimate adventure tripod. Weighing less than a pound, Pakpod stashes in your backpack easily and sets up in just moments so you can get the perfect pic fast. It features stabilizing stakes for securing in turf, sand and snow, 36 rigging points, and 180 degree leg motion. It's on sale for $69.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Way back in the summer of 2013, Justin Carter, a teen living in Texas, made a joke on Facebook while chatting with other League of Legends players. Responding to facetious comments he was insane, Carter sarcastically agreed, using a very regrettable choice of words.

So when the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules were passed, we warned how the agency's failure to include zero rating (exempting an ISP's own content or the content of a deep-pocketed partner) was going to let ISPs creatively engage in anti-competitive behavior. And sure enough, companies like Verizon and AT&T began exempting their own content from usage caps, giving them a leg up in the market. Carriers like Sprint similarly began to fracture the internet experience, at one point charging users more money if they wanted to enjoy music, video and games without having their connection throttled.T-Mobile pushed these creative barriers further with its Binge On offering, which exempted only the biggest and most popular video services from the company's usage caps. This automatically put thousands of smaller video providers, non-profits, educational institutions and startups at a notable market disadvantage, but by and large nobody outside of the EFF and academia gave much of a damn because a) ill-informed consumers are happy laboring under the illusion that they're getting something for free and b) the public (and by proxy media) was lazy and tired of debating net neutrality.Just as the Wheeler FCC realized the error of their ways and began showing signs of cracking down on carriers that use usage caps and zero rating as an anti-competitive weapon, Trump won the election and Ajit Pai's FCC began dismantling the rules entirely. You know, for "freedom." As the U.S. moved further away from a truly open internet, regulators in other countries (like India) moved to prohibit ISPs from using usage caps or zero rating as an anti-competitive bludgeon against smaller operators, startups and non-profits.With the rules now on the chopping block, and ISPs successfully gutting FCC and state oversight of ISPs, zero rating is going to be the least of our problems. We're back to now worrying about things like "paid prioritization," or the ability of ISPs to give their own video content (or the content of the deepest-pocketed companies) priority treatment on the network. And ISPs that were previously against such deals are now walking back their promises at an unsurprising pace.Throughout all of this, carriers like Sprint repeatedly professed their breathless dedication to net neutrality while they continued to implement policies that made consumer connectivity less transparent, more expensive, and less open. And speaking at the Mobile World Congress this week, Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure made it clear that the company doesn't think this whole paid prioritization thing is that big of a problem, either:

Violent video games may not cause violent people, despite what some people think, but we can certainly point out that they make a certain class of people very, very stupid. That class is the political class. Every time some violent happening occurs in America, the reaction by grandstanding politicians with no imagination is to lash out at video games for causing all the world's violence, to propose such games be banned entirely, or to propose a tax on them. On the question of taxing or banning these games, these politicians fortunately run face-first into the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's 2011 decision that video games are art, they are speech, and the government can't infringe upon that speech.Sadly, it doesn't keep some from trying. In the wake of the tragedy in Florida, one Rhode Island state representative announced new proposed legislation that would tax games with an "M" rating or higher.