Techdirt

Expressing your displeasure with law enforcement via hand gestures is not an arrestable offense. It can't even justify a traffic stop. Officers are learning this, one federal case at a time.Tim Geigner covered a case five years ago involving a cop, a veteran, and the veteran's upraised middle finger. It was expressive conduct the cop manning the speed trap found worthy of a traffic stop. A federal court disagreed, finding the officer's stated reason for conducting a traffic stop laughable.

For readers of this site, we writers would simply need to utter the name "Monster Energy" to get their eyes rolling. The makers of energy beverages have been notorious in their trademark bullying habits and have built a reputation for being both blowhards and litigious. If one actually reviews our stories about the company, however, these bullying attempts just as often lead to pushback and losses for Monster Energy. And now it seems we have another such instance on our hands.A little over a year ago, a pizza joint in the UK applied to register its business name, Monsta Pizza, as a trademark. Monster Energy, which again I will point out makes drinks and not pizza, immediately opposed the registration, citing its own trademarks and claiming that the public would somehow be confused. A year and lots of legal fees later, the trademark office has finally ruled that Monster Energy's opposition is denied and Monsta Pizza's mark will be granted. The pizza company will not need to change any of its branding moving forward. Monster Energy has also been ordered to pay some of Monsta Pizza's legal fees.The folks at Monsta Pizza are understandably pleased.

This case, coming to us via Andrew Fleischman, would be Keystone-Cops-comical if it weren't such a hideous example of law enforcement using someone's rights as a doormat. What began as a 911 call for assistance with an unresponsive infant soon devolved into a full-blown search of house by several officers without a single warrant between them.Arielle Turner was indicted by a grand jury for the death of her infant. That's gone now, thanks to the careless, self-destructive actions of the officers at the scene. All evidence obtained during the unlawful search has been suppressed, with this Georgia Supreme Court ruling [PDF] upholding the lower court's decision.Arielle and her mother, Terry Turner, called 911 to report her 10-week-old baby was unresponsive. EMTs arrived and began treating Turner's daughter before taking her (and Arielle) to the hospital. The child's grandmother remained at home.The first officer to arrive was Joseph Wells who comforted Terry Turner while standing on the porch. Terry invited Officer Wells to come in and sit down because her legs were starting to hurt. They sat and conversed. Detective Victoria Bender arrived shortly thereafter, letting herself in through the open front door. Neither of these two officers performed any searches or seized any property.Over at the hospital, an examination did not turn up any signs of abuse or foul play. Investigators believed the infant's death to be accidental. This information was relayed to Detective Bender, who passed it on to Terry Turner. Either something got lost in translation or the officers already on the scene decided to make a command decision. Suddenly, the home they were already in was declared a crime scene, despite there being no evidence of foul play.Once that happened, the floodgates opened. From the decision:

One of the things we've talked about for decades at Techdirt is that companies need to not freak out so much when someone copies their product -- whether physical or digital. There are some who believe you need to stop copying at any cost. That always seemed silly for multiple reasons. First, if you have something people want, it's going to get copied. At some point you have to do something of a cost benefit analysis of whether or not it's truly worth it to go crazy stopping every copy. Second, if you truly created the original, then you have a leg up on any copycat, in that you have a much better understanding of just about everything: you understand the customers better, you've built up brand loyalty and you understand the hidden reasons why people like your product. So you'll almost certainly continue to innovate above and beyond any copycats. Third, many efforts to stop copycats end up punishing your actual customers, saddling them with a worse product because you're so overly concerned about copying. This is a story of a company that has gone in the other direction.For the last year or so, I've been telling a bunch of people about my exercise regime (my coworkers are sick of hearing about it). It began two years ago when I saw a Kickstarter project for Monkii Bars 2 -- a suspension training system not unlike TRX (if you're familiar with that), but a lot more portable. If you spend time on Kickstarter, there are a ton of exercise equipment products there, but nearly all of it looks like most late night infomercial crap (also, I noticed that most of them are based in LA, which perhaps isn't too surprising). Most of them look snazzy, but also are likely to be the kinds of things that no one ever uses for more than a week. The Monkii bars didn't look like that at all, though. First, it was from a Colorado company, and the team who made it seemed more like the kind of people I'd actually hang out with, rather than the folks who pitch most exercise equipment. More importantly, though, something about the way the Monkii Bars worked just seemed like a perfect way to get a workout. For whatever reason, I knew that they wouldn't be a "use it for a week and forget about it" kind of thing (though, I did still at least worry a little bit they would turn out that way).But what really pushed me over the edge in deciding to back the project was two things. First, they not only had a successful Kickstarter campaign under their belts, but you could see that many backers of the new campaign were returning customers who raved about the original. That's always a good sign. Second, and more importantly, on their own website they had a page on how to make your own monkii bars, with the following:

It's no secret that the DMCA process is often abused. Typically, this abuse takes the form of one entity issuing a takedown notice not over true copyright concerns, but rather to either silence speech it doesn't like or to harm a competitor. It's a very real problem. But sometimes the misuse of the DMCA takedown process takes a turn towards the bizarre.That appears to be the case with Columbia Pictures suddenly issuing takedown notices for a promotional poster for the upcoming Will Ferrell movie, Holmes and Watson.

Australians will be thrilled to discover they won't have to visit the United States to have their electronic devices brutalized and mercilessly probed in the name of security. Why spend all that money flying halfway around the world when you can experience the same intrusive discomfort at home?

How often do you find something on the Web and set it aside to read later? And how irritating is it when you bookmark that page and it won't load correctly on a different device? Save yourself the trouble with EmailThis. This clever program lets you save interesting articles and web pages and send them straight to your email inbox, ready for reading on any device. EmailThis organizes your content into a neatly packaged email minus all the ads, distractions, and clutter from web pages. Simply open your inbox and start reading anytime and anywhere you like. You can even forward the entire article on to your friends instead of just sending a link. EmailThis is on sale for $25.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 repeatedly tried to make it clear that while everybody tends to focus on the death of net neutrality itself, the Pai FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order killing net neutrality had a far broader impact than just killing net neutrality rules. As part of the repeal, Comcast, Verizon and AT&T also convinced FCC boss Ajit Pai to effectively neuter FCC authority over ISPs entirely, making it harder for the agency to hold giant ISPs accountable on a wide variety of issues ranging from privacy to transparency (the recent fire fighter kerfuffle being a prime example).The order also attempts to ban individual states from holding giant ISPs accountable as well, though early ISP efforts to take advantage of this legal language haven't gone very well. In an effort to double down on weakening state oversight of natural telecom monopolies, Comcast lobbyists at the NCTA (the cable industry's biggest lobbying and policy organization) have also started petitioning the FTC, urging it to similarly "pre-empt" (read: ban or ignore) state-level efforts to protect consumers:

Lots of tech is being deployed by law enforcement around the world -- often far in advance of thorough testing, privacy impact assessments, or public input. Biometric scanning, facial recognition software, cell site simulators, social media monitoring tools, and, of course, "predictive policing."The last one on the list brings together a bunch of data and tells cops where to go to stop crime before it happens. Pre-crime is no longer relegated to sci-fi movies providing chilling glimpses of a totalitarian future. It's here now and it's converting certain neighborhoods into instant probable cause.The Chicago PD is only one of several agencies using the software to generate "heat lists" of citizens in need of arresting. There may be no criminal activity occurring when patrols begin, but the algos say it's inevitable, so off the cops go to round up people who may be likely to commit crimes.India is starting to dip its toes into the pre-crime waters. A new program introduced in Maharashtra will dovetail with the local government's cybersecurity plans, possibly converting the second-largest state into India's leading surveillance state.

We have talked in recent years how the scourge of copyright trolling has hit the nation of Denmark particularly hard. While trolling operations started off about the same as they do elsewhere in the world, their requests to unmask ISP customers soon ramped up to enormous levels. It was enough to turn two ISP rivals into allies, with Telenor and Telia fighting in court for their respective customers' privacy rights. After an initial loss, the companies appealed up the legal chain and managed to get a win with the court siding with the ISPs' privacy concerns over the copyright trolls' nefarious business model. After that, one of the copyright trolls appealed to Denmark's Supreme Court, hoping to reverse the decision once again.It didn't work. The Supreme Court is refusing to hear the case, potentially putting an end to copyright trolling in Denmark.

For several years now, there have been a parade of articles examining the "churn and burn" culture at Amazon. For example a 2015 New York Times piece profiled the "bruising" culture at the company while noting that employees weeping at their desk was not an uncommon sight. And while the profile was contested by some employees at the company, a substantial number of different reports have also highlighted the poor working conditions in Amazon distribution warehouses, including employees having to pee in garbage cans for fear of missing targets by going to a proper restroom.Hoping to correct the "public perception" of poor working conditions at the company's warehouses, Amazon executives have crafted a new "solution" to the problem. They've started paying some warehouse employees to create Twitter accounts and speak positively of not only their working experiences, but CEO Jeff Bezos. Under the tags of "Amazon FC Ambassadors," these employees are broadly encouraged to respond to any criticism of Amazon with positivity and, apparently, copious use of emojis as they proudly insist they can pee any time they'd like:

Earlier this week, we wrote about how the USTR itself appeared to be totally confused about its own NAFTA-replacement agreement with Mexico in the "Intellectual Property" section, in that it was reporting that the agreement included copyright in some works for "75 years" in places and "life + 75 years" in other places, and acted as though they were the same thing. The USTR seemed legitimately confused over this issue, which did not give people much confidence that it knew what it was doing in these negotiations on the intellectual property questions. However, since that issue appeared to be one of pure confusion, which should be easily fixed in the final text, we should put our attention more towards the actual problems with what the USTR appears to be doing here.We don't yet have the full text -- though that should be available soon -- but from the USTR's fact sheet there are many reasons to be concerned that this agreement is a massive handout to Hollywood and patent trolls, and against innovation. Let's dig in:

There is a long tradition in conservative politics for blaming video games whenever a mass shooting is carried out by a relatively young person. It's a monumentally stupid argument, given the complicated and twisted nature of mass shootings and the motivations behind them. But, since policy and politics are now offered merely in soundbite formats, the end result of a mass shooting is for every person to retreat to their familiar corners and make lots of noises that ultimately accomplish nothing but stagnation.The mass shooting that happened in Florida recently could have been a different story. While it indeed happened at a video game tournament, the gamers involved were playing Madden, not some violent shoot 'em up. If playing a football video game makes people angry enough to shoot people, just wait until those decrying video game violence turn on their TVs on Sunday and realize that there are actual people playing the same game for real. There was no indication anywhere that this shooting was carried out by anything other than an individual that likely had some severe mental problems and access to weapons. And, yet, somehow Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi addressed this latest shooting by pivoting directly to the dangers of kids playing video games and the predators that will harm them.

Tons of copyright lawsuits (and even more copyright trolling shakedowns that never even reach court) are based on one single bit of data: the IP address. We've seen numerous district courts reject using a bare IP address as evidence of infringement, but now we have a very important (even if short and to the point) ruling in the 9th Circuit that could put a serious damper on copyright trolling.

The Google Cloud Mastery Bundle is ready to help you develop your own cloud projects. You'll learn about Dialogflow, Google's conversational interface for bots, devices and applications, and TensorFlow and the Google Cloud ML Engine for Deep Learning, Hadoop, Pub/Sub, and more. You'll also learn about how to become a certified Cloud Architect. These four courses are 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.

Passwords and PINs still beat fingerprints when it comes to the Fifth Amendment. But just barely. Nothing about the issue is settled, but far more cases have been handed down declaring fingerprints to be non-testimonial. Fingerprints are obtained during the booking process -- a physical, traceable representation of the suspect. If they can be obtained during booking, they can certainly be obtained again to unlock a device. A physical aspect of a human being can't be considered "testimonial" as far as courts have interpreted the Fifth Amendment.Passwords are a different story, but not by much. In a handful of cases, courts have said the compelled production of passwords and PINs has no Fifth Amendment implications. Defendants, conversely, have argued compelled password production forces them to testify against themselves by facilitating the production of evidence to be used against them.This argument hasn't had much success. Judges have frequently found password production to be just as non-testimonial as a person's fingerprint. The argument here is that all law enforcement wants is a password, not the production of evidence. Under the "foregone conclusion" theory, all the government has to prove is that the person being asked to unlock a device can unlock the device.This decouples password production from its consequences: the production of evidence by defendants that the government will use against them in court. When this theory is applied, the Fifth Amendment is sidelined and replaced with the ultra-low bar of foregone conclusion.But passwords aren't fingerprints and can be testimonial. Unlocking a device law enforcement is going to search for evidence states clearly that a person owns or controls the device and its contents. That makes it very easy for the government to link a device's illicit contents to the person who was ordered to unlock it.A case from Indiana's Court of Appeals -- via FourthAmendment.com -- addresses these arguments with a bit more sympathy for compelled testimony arguments. The government argued there's nothing testimonial about a password. The court, in a lengthy decision [PDF], disagrees.

With the bipartisan majority of Americans supporting net neutrality, the broadband industry often has to resort to outright falsehoods to try and make its case that we don't need net neutrality rules (or any meaningful oversight of natural telecom monopolies). From paying civil rights groups to parrot industry positions to hiring fake journalists to deny the obvious, the broadband industry has a long, proud, multi-decade history of using outright bullshit to scare the public, press and regulators away from the idea of net neutrality.The latest case in point: after AT&T lobbyists successfully sabotaged initial efforts to pass new net neutrality rules in California, the state this week revisited the effort with a new vote on the state assembly floor. In a bid to try and scuttle the effort, an AT&T-linked group by the name of Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) has been robocalling senior citizens in the state, informing them that their cell phone bill will jump $30 if the new rules pass. California State Senator Scott Wiener, the author of California's bill, wasn't particularly impressed:

While most of the attention on the upcoming votes around the EU Copyright Directive is on the mandatory filters found in Article 13, we should be just as concerned about the link tax in Article 11. European publishers have been flat out lying about the proposal, which is little more than an attempt to just demand cash from Google and Facebook.We've already explained why this is a bad idea. And it's not a theoretical issue either. This very same proposal has been tried in Germany and Spain and it failed miserably in both places, to the point of doing serious damage to traffic to news sites, without increasing revenue.Unfortunately, it appears that at least some journalists don't want to hear about the facts. AFP's Baghdad Bureau Chief, Sammy Ketz has pieces in the Guardian and La Stampa (and possibly elsewhere) making an impassioned -- if somewhat confused -- plea in support of Article 11.The reasoning is fuzzy, because there is no legitimate basis for Article 11, but Ketz basically says "there are fewer reporters these days, because news orgs are failing, but Google and Facebook have lots of money, so Article 11 is important, because they'll give us money." Really.

Juice Media has been doing its brilliant Honest Government Ads satires for a while now, and its latest target is all about the awful Article 13 in the EU's Copyright Directive, which is returning to Parliament for another vote in just a few weeks. It's a bit silly, but worth watching:If you're in the EU and this kind of clueless, dangerous regulating concerns you, speak out now. If you're not in the EU, it still helps to speak out about this. Contact the EU Parliament or just spread the word so that others know just how much damage the EU may do to the internet if this moves forward.

In order for something to be patentable subject matter, it has to meet a few criteria, listed out in the Patent Act. It needs to be a "useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" and it needs to be "non-obvious" to someone "having ordinary skill in the art." But, perhaps most importantly it needs to be a new invention. You can't patent something someone else already invented. That's why prior art is so important.Already, the US Patent Office is notoriously bad at finding prior art, which has been a big complaint here at Techdirt for over a decade. Part of this is that they limit what they'll even look at as prior art, unless information is put directly in front of their faces by those trying to invalidate bad patents. Generally, most of the prior art that patent examiners look at consisted of... earlier patents and scientific journals. And that's not nearly enough for a whole variety of reasons. But, now the Federal Circuit has suggested that even earlier patent applications may not really count as prior art.EFF and R Street teamed up to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court asking it to reverse the Federal Circuit (something the court has done over and over and over and over and over again in the last dozen or so years).At issue was an attempt to invalidate a patent showing prior art in an earlier patent application. Seems like this should be a slam dunk. There's the patent and an earlier application showing the prior art. Therefore, not novel and not patent eligible. But the courts decided to get nitpicky, and argued that because the prior art in question wasn't directly in the "claims" of the patent, but in the description, it somehow didn't count. The brief explains why this is ridiculous:

Is the way companies are currently structured and operated conducive to long-term innovation? It's a tough question, but there are plenty of reasons to consider that short-term profit incentives might be getting in the way of better overall innovation strategies — and lots of possibilities for how we might rethink companies to change this. This week, the regular crew of Mike, Hersh and Dennis discuss how this problem could be addressed, and whether there's truly a problem at all.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.

In an article picked up by Drudge Report and then tweeted by President Donald Trump himself, PJ Media editor Paula Bolyard makes the shocking claim that Google deliberately manipulates its search results to favor left-wing views and undermine the President.In supporting this allegation, she goes to Google and looks through the first hundred listings on the search engine results page. Therein, she finds that 96 percent of results for "Trump" are from liberal media outlets. Bolyard remarks:

Back in 2015, we wrote about some apparent backroom dealing in Nevada, in which the legislature seemed poised to get rid of that state's very good and thorough anti-SLAPP law. As a reminder, anti-SLAPP laws are designed to stop an unfortunately common practice of wealthy individuals and companies from suing critics and reporters for defamation, even though the defamation cases themselves had no chance. The plaintiffs knew that merely dragging the defendant to court would be costly in terms of time, money and general stress. Anti-SLAPP laws were a way to deal with that unfortunately common practice usually by (1) putting the immediate burden on the plaintiff to show a likelihood of success and then dismissing the case quickly if they fail to do so, (2) halting the expensive and time-consuming discovery process, and (3) often making the plaintiffs pay the defendants' legal fees. The idea is that this is a deterrent to frivolous lawsuits, while leaving legitimate defamation lawsuits unharmed. As we've pointed out for years, unfortunately, only about half of the states have such anti-SLAPP laws, of varying quality, and there is still no federal anti-SLAPP law.In 2013, Nevada passed one of the best anti-SLAPP laws in the country. But, by 2015, there was an effort underway to throw it out. Nevada-based lawyer, Marc Randazza, pointed out that it appeared that billionaire Steve Wynn was a driving force behind the effort to kill Nevada's anti-SLAPP law, perhaps in response to having recently lost a defamation lawsuit in California, thanks to California's own anti-SLAPP law. Thankfully, that effort failed.And now the National Law Review is pointing out that Wynn has lost yet another defamation lawsuit, under the very Nevada anti-SLAPP law that he was rumored to be seeking to get rid of a few years back. National Law Review has the full story in which Wynn sued the Associated Press and one of its reporters, Regina Garcia Cano.

Skip converters, iTunes, and even wires altogether when you transfer files with WALTR 2. Designed to automatically search and connect to your iOS devices, this app lets you transfer any music, ringtone, video, PDF and ePUB file with a simple drag and drop. It comes loaded with clever tricks, like Smart Adaptive Conversion for 5x faster audio and video conversions, and content recognition that brings along metadata. Plus, WALTR 2 goes beyond iOS devices, supporting the entire lineup of Apple iPods—starting with the original iPod Classic, built in 2001. You can choose a Windows or Mac license for $19.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

The FBI has admitted -- albeit not that publicly -- that Stingray devices disrupt phone service. Spoofing a cell tower has negative effects on innocent phone users as the device plays man-in-the-middle while trying to locate the targeted device. An unsealed document from a criminal prosecution and assertions made in warrant affidavits alleging "minimal" disruption are all we have to go on, at least in terms of official statements.Supposedly, Stingrays are supposed to allow 911 service to continue uninterrupted. But it's hard to square that with the fact every phone in the device's range is forced to connect to the Stingray first before being allowed to connect with a real cell tower. In some cases, the device might force every phone in range to drop to a 2G connection. This may still allow 911 calls to take place, but almost any other form of communication will be impossible as long as the Stingray is in use.Ron Wyden's staff technologist, Chris Soghoian (formerly of the ACLU), will be fielding answers from the DOJ and FBI about 911 service disruptions, if those answers ever arrive. Wyden's office has sent a letter [PDF] demanding to know the extent of cell service disruption when Stingrays are deployed. And he'd also like to know if these agencies are being honest about the negative side effects when agents seek warrants.

We've noted how the telecom industry been having great success in the Trump era eliminating FCC, FTC, and state authority over telecom monopolies. The underlying industry justification is that gutting consumer protections will somehow magically improve competition and spur investment by regional telecom monopolies, a decades-old claim that has never been true, and yet somehow never dies. In reality, when you kill regulatory oversight of natural monopolies (without shoring up the underlying competition issues beneath), the problem only tends to get worse. It's something you probably noticed if you've had any interactions with Comcast lately.Last week the perils in this particular course of action were laid bare when Verizon was busted first throttling and then trying to upsell first responders while they were trying to combat wildfires in California. Gigi Sohn, one of the ex-FCC staffers that helped craft the rules, did a good job pointing out how the FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order didn't just kill net neutrality, it punted the FCC's ability to hold ISPs like Verizon accountable for issues just like this one:

Over in the EU Parliament, they're getting ready to vote yet again on the absolutely terrible Copyright Directive, which has serious problems for the future of the internet, including Article 13's mandatory censorship filters and Article 11's link tax. Regrading the mandatory filters, German music professor Ulrich Kaiser, has written about a a very disturbing experiment he ran on YouTube, in which he kept having public domain music he had uploaded for his students get taken down by ContentID copyright claims.After exploring ways to teach his students Beethoven's music, and putting together a collection of public domain recordings, he encountered the following thanks to YouTube's filters:

It's been a while since we last wrote about Paul Ceglia. If you don't recall, way back in 2010, Ceglia suddenly claimed that years earlier, he had hired Mark Zuckerberg to do some software development, and bizarrely (and literally unbelievably), that part of the contract for Zuck to work on Ceglia's project... was an agreement to hand over 50% of Facebook, which didn't even exist yet. Making it more ridiculous, Ceglia then claimed some weird interest amounts, and therefore was demanding ownership of 84% of Facebook. The whole thing was nonsensical, and while Zuckerberg admitted he had done some work for Ceglia prior to starting Facebook, nothing about the supposed contract made any sense at all. Beyond the bizarre nature of the contract Ceglia claimed he had with Zuckerberg, it quickly became clear that other evidence Ceglia presented, including purported emails, didn't look real.A year later, during the discovery process in the lawsuit, the actual original contract was found and it didn't mention Facebook at all, just as most people assumed. Instead, it became clear that Ceglia doctored their contract. Ceglia tried, weakly, to claim that even though the original was found on his computer during discovery, that it was actually Photoshopped and planted by Facebook. As you might imagine, literally no one believed that. It also probably didn't help that he kept some of the details of his plan in an email account called GetZuck.Finally, in 2012, Ceglia was arrested for fraud. He was set to go to trial in 2015 when he disappeared -- apparently cut off his ankle bracelet and disappeared with his family. Late last week, however, it was reported that he had been found and arrested in Ecuador and was likely to be sent back to the US shortly.I guess it's hard to just disappear in the age of Facebook. Even if you pretend to own a giant chunk of it.

Soooooooo, you've probably heard the news on Monday about how the Trump adminstration had struck a preliminary trade agreement with Mexico to replace NAFTA. Most of the attention over the deal has to do with the lack of Canada being a part of it, with Mexico making it clear it still thought that this was a new deal with both the US and Canada and President Trump repeatedly acting as if this deal was a "take it or leave it" deal for Canada, and if they left it, it would just be US and Mexico.There will, of course, be plenty of time to dig into the details of what's in the actual agreement, but on stuff that matters to us, it already looks bizarre. The USTR put out a "fact sheet" about the intellectual property part of the agreement and it's causing quite a bit of consternation. In particular, it claims that copyright will be extended to life+75 years. Literally no one has been asking for this. While the movie and recording industries have pushed to extend copyrights in the past, this time around, they more or less acknowledged that it was a bridge too far to keep extending copyrights this long, and some have even expressed a willingness to shorten copyright terms.But there's been a lot of confusion about what the "life+75 years" even means here -- and it now seems quite likely that the USTR simply misunderstood its own agreement (yes, really). Current in the US, for works made for hire or corporate works, copyright lasts 95 years, and for those made by individuals, it's life+70 years. In Mexico, it's been an upward ratchet from life+50 years, to life+75 years, to life+100 years as of 2003. There were some stories that during TPP negotiations, Mexico had pushed for life+100 years in the US as well, but that seemed like a non-starter.So why would the USTR give an okay for life+75 years when basically no one in the US is still pushing for such a thing, and in fact seem to be in general agreement that, if anything, the term should go in the other direction? Either the USTR negotiators have no idea what they're doing (possible!), don't realize why this is a big deal (also possible) or are misreporting what's actually in the agreement. It appears the last one is likely. While the USTR told reporters on a call that they absolutely mean extending copyright to life+75 years, after that, USTR representatives started claiming that this is not an extension of copyright, but was merely supposed to be setting the floor on copyright terms of 75 years, not "life plus 75 years," in which case copyright wouldn't change in either country. But, because this administration appears to be so clueless, someone at the USTR may have taken this news and mistakenly claimed it was now life plus 75, rather than a 75 year floor.This does not inspire very much confidence in this USTR.Either way, if this really is an attempt to extend copyright, at some point this would need to come back to Congress to change the law, and that might be a pretty big fight on their hands, no matter how what the administration foolishly agreed upon in this preliminary agreement.Other aspects of the IP section are also troubling, as it all seems focused on the belief that more draconian patent, copyright and trademark laws and enforcement are what's most desirable:

For years now, we have discussed Denuvo's reputation sliding from being once thought of as the potential ender of video game piracy to just another DRM corpse fit for the funeral pyre. Despite this precipitous fall, we also discussed a few months back that the company had been bought by another security company, Irdeto. While the announcement of the deal was generally bizarre, with Irdeto referring to Denuvo as the "world leader" in gaming security, we mentioned at the time that Irdeto is mostly invested in anti-cheating platforms for online gaming. It seemed likely that Irdeto thought that Denuvo's tech might somehow fit into that chief offering.And now, with an announcement from Irdeto, it indeed seems that Denuvo is pivoting to combating online cheating.

There's more than one way to skin the Fourth Amendment cat. A person who feels her rights were violated by the seizure and search of phone data at the border is sidestepping the expected civil rights lawsuit to expedite the deletion of the seized phone contents. Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica has more details:

The Complete Unity Game Developer Bundle features 7 courses to help you step up your animation game. You'll learn about procedural content generation, working with huge worlds, and integrating AR. There are courses on storytelling, mobile game development, monetizing your game, and more. 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 narrative making the political rounds recently is that the big social media platforms are somehow "biased against conservatives" and deliberately trying to silence them (meanwhile, there are some in the liberal camp who are complaining that sites like Twitter have not killed off certain accounts, arguing -- incorrectly -- that they're now overcompensating in trying to not kick off angry ideologues). This has been a stupid narrative from the beginning, but the refrain on it has only been getting louder and louder, especially as Donald Trump has gone off on one of his ill-informed rants claming that "Social Media Giants are silencing millions of people." Let's be clear: this is all nonsense.The real issue -- as we've been trying to explain for quite some time now -- is that basic content moderation at scale is nearly impossible to do well. That doesn't mean sites can't do better, but the failures are not because of some institutional bias. Will Oremus, over at Slate, has a good article up detailing why this narrative is nonsense, and he points to the episode of Radiolab we recently wrote about, that digs deep on how Facebook moderation choices happen, where you quickly begin to get a sense of why it's impossible to do it well. I would add to that a recent piece from Motherboard, accurately titled The Impossible Job: Inside Facebook’s Struggle to Moderate Two Billion People.These all highlight a few simple facts that lots of angry people (on all sides of political debates) are having trouble grasping.

Last year you'll recall that the cable and broadband industry lobbied the government to kill off broadband privacy rules at the FCC. The rules were fairly basic, requiring that ISPs and cable operators clearly disclose what data is being collected and sold, but also provide working opt out tools for users who didn't want to participate. The rules also contained restrictions requiring that consumers opt in to more sensitive data collection (financial), as well as some requirements that ISPs and cable ops adhere to standard security procedures, and quickly inform consumers when their private data was exposed by a hacker.In recent months, the cable industry has been showcasing how it's simply not very good at keeping its websites secure. Comcast, for example, has seen three privacy breaches in almost as many months, with security researcher Ryan Stevenson discovering numerous, previously-unreported vulnerabilities that potentially exposed the the partial home addresses and Social Security numbers of more than 26.5 million Comcast customers.Not to be outdone, now Buzzfeed has found that a vulnerability on the Charter Communications (Spectrum) website made it possible for just about anyone to take over customers’ accounts without a password. According to the report, this flaw was again discovered by Stevenson (who goes by the monicker Phobia), and involved tricking a Spectrum website that let subscribers create a Time Warner Cable (the company Charter just acquired) ID.If a targeted customer hadn't yet registered for such an ID, a website flaw let a hacker trick the website into creating one by replacing their own IP address with the customer’s using the “X-forwarded-for” technique, a relatively trivial affair:

A tiny unincorporated town in Michigan continues to draw national heat, thanks to the police department's apparent abuse of the Defense Department's 1033 program. This program allows law enforcement agencies to obtain military surplus -- which can include armored vehicles, aircraft, and weapons -- for next to nothing through its Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO).This program has contributed greatly to the militarization of US police forces, allowing officers to dress up like soldiers while waging the War at Home on the constituents they supposedly serve. What happened in Thetford, however, wasn't a sudden ramping up of military gear/tactics. Instead, the Thetford PD -- which boasts two officers -- simply took the 1033 program for an extended ride. Chief Robert Kenny managed to obtain 950 items through the 1033 program, valued at over $1.1 million... at least according to his own, very conservative estimate.Obviously, a two-person police force had no use for much of this equipment, much less the room to store it. So, vehicles and other items ended up on land owned by residents. After the town started asking questions, it quickly became clear the chief didn't know where all this acquired property was actually located.Things went from bad to worse to farcical in a hurry. Town residents began dumping PD equipment previously stored on their property in the city hall parking lots. Town meetings were called. Accusations (and the occasional chair) were hurled and recalls were threatened. A nearby sheriff's office was called in to investigate and the Thetford PD's building was raided for 1033 records. Along the way, an envelope stuffed with cash was discovered among the PD's many, many stashes of 1033 goods. Chief Kenny said the money it contained came from the sale of equipment for scrap metal, but otherwise couldn't explain why it was located in a pile of stuff, rather than in a bank account.Explanations will be forthcoming. The Genessee County Sheriff's Department seems to have its investigation of the Thetford PD almost wrapped up.

This week, our top comment on the insightful side comes in response to the latest story of a prison phone company recording privileged conversations and passing them o law enforcement. That One Guy was having none of their "technical error" excuse:

Five Years AgoOnce in a while, when evens really heat up in a given week, we skip the five/ten/fifteen-year retrospective and focus in on the big events — and this is one of those times, with the NSA spying debacle elevating to another level this week in 2013.Firstly, hings heated up on the other side of the Atlantic, with the UK government detaining David Miranda and seizing all his electronics and telling him he'd go to jail if he didn't turn over his passwords in a blatant act of intimidation. While the UK Home office claimed the detention was fully justified, a US official told Reuters that it was done to send a message. That admission was buried in a report about another disturbing action by the UK: forcing The Guardian to destroy hard drives with info from Snowden — an order that came directly from the Prime Minister. On top of all that, a new and questionable revelation in The Independent prompted Edward Snowden to accuse the UK government of leaking additional documents itself to make him look bad.Back in the US, we were getting a closer look at the loopholes that allowed the NSA to withhold information from Congress, and a glimpse of the agency culture that encouraged deception. Defenders threw up their hands and claimed "we didn't mean it", and got some help from the guy who wrote legal memos defending the CIA torture program. Then the agency revealed that it performs a staggering 20-million database queries per month. It seemed that if some of these more serious leaks had come out a bit earlier, a bill to defund the NSA may have stood more of a chance, while a new bill was introduced to make the agency pay for every abuse of power.And then things continued to escalate. A new leak showed that the NSA truly could spy on almost anything and set its own filters. The EFF's success in getting a key FISA court ruling declassified revealed that the NSA repeatedly lied to the court, too. Documents showed that a program continued for three years after it was declared unconstitutional, right after tech companies (who the NSA was paying for their help) got immunity in warrantless wiretapping cases. And during the 2002 Olympics, the NSA and FBI spied on every single email in Salt Lake City.Meanwhile, the US still couldn't even figure out what exactly Snowden took, but it could put together a surveillance review board packed with Washington insiders and NSA sympathizers. By the end of the week, the agency was fumbling to accuse the Wall Street Journal of misleading the public, but then finally (buried on a Friday night in the hopes of avoiding coverage) admitted that yes, there had been a lot of intentional abuses of the system (in contrast to the many denials of this idea).And the circus wasn't over yet — tune in next week...

A study has been released confirming what many have suspected: militarization of law enforcement doesn't make communities safer, has zero effect on officer safety, and is rarely deployed as advertised when agencies make pitches for the acquisition of military gear.The most frequent recipient of military tools and training are SWAT teams. Professor Jonathan Mummolo's research -- published by the National Academy of Sciences -- gained unprecedented access to SWAT deployment numbers, thanks to a public records request and a Maryland state law requiring documentation of every SWAT raid performed. (That law was allowed to expire by legislators who apparently felt it provided too much transparency and accountability.)With these numbers, Mummolo was able to compare SWAT deployments to other stats, as well as see just how often SWAT teams were deployed to handle dangerous situations like robberies, shootings, hostage-taking, etc. What he discovered was, sadly, unsurprising. Police officials talk about the necessity of SWAT teams and military gear using references to barricaded suspects, terrorist attacks, active shooters…. pretty much anything but what they actually use them for. From the paper [PDF]:

Viacom has decided to take its trademark bullying game international and possibly against the most sympathetic target it could find. Nickelodeon, owned by Viacom, has decided to oppose the trademark registration of a 12 year old girl in New Zealand, claiming its trademark on the word "slime" is too important. Katharina Weischede has managed to build up an online brand in New Zealand for producing and playing with "slime." She made a business out of it and attempted to trademark "slime princess", only to find Nickelodeon opposing it.

The long saga of the BMG v. Cox case is now over. If you don't recall, BMG had hired the copyright trolling outfit Rightscorp to bombard ISPs with shakedown letters, based on accusations of copyright infringement. Rightscorp really wanted ISPs to pass those letters on to ISP subscribers, including the part where they demand money to leave you alone. As was revealed during the case, Rightscorp would blatantly lie to those subscribers, telling them that if they were innocent they needed to first hand their computers over the police for a forensic search. Cox, after being bombarded with these shakedown letters, started ignoring the Rightscorp letters, leading BMG to sue.Cox pointed to the DMCA safe harbors to protect itself, but the judge, Liam O'Grady, made it pretty clear that he didn't care much for the internet at all, and didn't seem to mind Righscorp and BMG shaking down people for money with the threat of losing their entire internet access. Of course, it did not help at all that Cox itself had some damning emails about how they treated subscribers accused of infringement. While plenty of attention has been placed on Cox's apparent "thirteen strikes" policy for those accused (not convicted) of copyright infringement, the real problem came down to the fact that Cox didn't follow its own repeat infringer policy. So, in the end, Cox lost to BMG in the lower court and it was mostly upheld on appeal.However, the case was sent back down to the lower court because O'Grady messed up with his jury instructions, providing them with the wrong standard for contributory infringement (O'Grady's jury instructions about contributory infringement presented it as a much broader standard than it actually was). And thus, the case was supposed to go back for another trial... but that's now over as the two sides have settled and Judge O'Grady immediately signed off on the settlement.This isn't all that surprising. Cox was basically in a no-win situation, since its own failure to abide by its own repeat infringer policy had already sunk it, and spending a few hundred thousand dollars more on lawyers to argue over contributory infringement in hopes of lowering the damages award probably wasn't worth it if they could just settle the case and move on.Oh, and of course, Cox now also has a brand new fight with all the major labels that was launched a few weeks ago in response to the results of the BMG case. And Cox is right back in Judge O'Grady's unwelcome court room for that case. I wouldn't be surprised if Cox tries to settle its way out of that case as well.

Sometimes public sentiment is useful. And sometimes it's only useful in demonstrating how little the general public understands some issues. It would appear that a new survey done by the Knight Foundation about how the internet giants should handle "news" content is one of the latter ones. While there's lots of discussion about what the poll results "say," the only thing they really say is that the public has no clue about how the internet and news works -- and that should be the focus. We need much greater tech and media literacy. Unfortunately, the poll seems more likely to do the opposite.There are two "headline" findings out of the report -- and the fact that the two are almost entirely contradictory should have maybe been a warning sign:

An oddball, but interesting, decision [PDF] flowing from the Supreme Court's Carpenter ruling has been issued by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. While the Carpenter decision centered on the long term collection of historic cell site location information, the ruling could be applied to a number of situations where records created by citizens are stored and housed by other parties and accessible without a warrant.This case deals with smart meters, issued by the government (via the public electric utility) to track electric use in citizens' homes. With the old meters, readings were performed by utility employees every few weeks. The new smart meters send back info on electric use every fifteen minutes. This frequency was chosen by the City of Naperville government. It could have gone with something less intrusive, but it chose this method instead.The city was sued by citizens opposed to being snooped on by the new smart meters. The plaintiffs argued the frequent readings allowed to government to make a great deal of inferences about activities inside citizens' homes, based on the rolling delivery of energy use amounts. The district court tossed the case. So does the Appeals Court, but only after making some interesting findings. (via Orin Kerr/Volokh Conspiracy)First, the court rules that the government's use of smart meters to retrieve information about electric usage is actually a search under the Fourth Amendment. To do that, it looks to the Supreme Court's Kyllo decision, which dealt with the warrantless deployment of thermal imaging scanners by law enforcement. That decision found deployment to be a search, even if officers never physically entered the residences being scanned. Enough could be inferred about inside activity from the thermal images to be considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Appeals Court says the same rationale applies here.

The Ultimate IT Certification Training Bundle is designed to get you up to date with the latest in IT. With 11 courses and over 200 hours of video instruction, this $39 bundle will help you prep for 11 essential certifications. You'll start off with learning the fundamentals of computer technology, installation and configuration of PCs, laptops and related hardware, as well as basic networking and progress to courses focused on networking, the cloud, project management and more. You'll receive training for certification exams from CompTIA, Microsoft, and Cisco.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 opening sentence of US Attorney Bobby L. Cristine's statement on leaker Reality Winner says it all, even if it's not exactly how Cristine wants it to be read.

We've repeatedly explained how T-Mobile and Sprint's latest attempt to merge will be terrible for both jobs and competition. Despite what T-Mobile and Sprint executives have claimed, history suggests the reduction of total wireless carriers from four to three will likely result in less incentive than ever to seriously compete on price. Similarly, while T-Mobile and Sprint have told regulators that the deal will somehow create an explosion in new jobs, Wall Street analysts have predicted that the deal could kill off anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000 jobs as the new company inevitably eliminates redundant positions.While some diehard T-Mobile and Sprint fans have bought into these claims, most objective observers with a firm grasp on history realize that the promised "synergies" of telecom mergers like this one almost never materialize. And the obvious impact on competition and jobs is a major reason this merger and others like it (including AT&T's attempt to acquire T-Mobile) have been scuttled by regulators. There's simply too many examples of this kind of consolidation resulting in massive monopolies with little incentive to give a damn (hi Comcast and AT&T, didn't see you standing there).T-Mobile's looming merger is so unpopular, the company was forced to quietly hire Trump ally Corey Lewandowski in an effort to seal the deal (the whole mocking a kid with Down Syndrome thing be damned). Reuters notes that the company has also started reaching out to smaller wireless carriers, urging them to not only express support to the FCC, but submit favorable editorials to major papers supporting the merger. The problem: they don't much like the deal either:

A few years back, prison communications provider Securus was caught -- via hacker-obtained data -- recording privileged calls between inmates and their legal reps. Yes, ALL CALLS ARE RECORDED, as the sign says, but certain calls shouldn't be. Securus did it en masse, hoovering up 14,000 privileged calls over an unspecified time period. The total could be much higher than that. The data obtained only covered part of Securus' massive network, with 12,000 privileged calls alone in this data dump coming from a single state.Now, another prison phone company has been caught recording privileged conversations and turning them over to law enforcement.

Back in June we discussed Valve's somewhat odd announcement that it was getting out of the games curation business, and opening its platform to what it said would be far more games. The restrictions on what type of content would now be allowed on the gaming platform was said to mostly be limited only to games that are "trolling" or "illegal." As with all things Valve, this apparent announcement aimed at transparency and making sure developers knew what expectations Valve had for games on Steam mostly achieved the exact opposite, with everyone wondering immediately what qualified as "trolling." Nobody could really agree on where exactly Valve would be drawing the lines on the types of content it would allow. That said, most people, including most of the participants of the podcast we conducted on the topic, essentially agreed that this would chiefly allow more games with sexual content onto the platform.And, yet, it seems that even that hasn't been true thus far. Kotaku has a post up discussing the many, many sexuality related games that had been disallowed from Steam, but which were gearing up to be included based on the new policy. It seems the policy hasn't opened up the platform to many of them after all.

Back in February we noted how Facebook had launched a new security tool the company promised would "help keep you and your data safe when you browse and share information on the web." The product was effectively just reconstituted version of the Onavo VPN the company acquired back in 2013. We also noted how some reports were quick to point out that instead of making Facebook users' data more private and secure, Facebook used the VPN to track users around the internet -- specifically what users were doing when they visited other platforms and services.From a report in the Wall Street Journal just about a year ago:

In a coordinated response to Trump's incessant attacks on the press, more than 300 news organizations joined together last week and published editorials about the important role of a free press.The effort is led by the Boston Globe, who called for editorial boards of publications across the country to publish their own editorials defending—in their own words—the importance of press freedom. Participating publications include outlets big and small, from the New York Times to small, local, and independent papers.Trump has called the press "enemy of the American people," and said that journalists "don't like our country." He responded to the editorials in a predictably petty manner. He has also vowed to revoke broadcast licenses over coverage he didn't like, and has threatened to sue critical news organizations and journalists. And, of course, he engages in constant Twitter diatribes about "fake news."The president's verbal attacks on the press are certainly appalling, but his rhetoric gets an outsized amount of attention, when his administration's actions against press are much worse. They deserve just as much condemnation as his tweets.Here are four actions the Trump administration has taken that are more dangerous to media and the First Amendment than anything Trump has said:1. Escalating the war on whistleblowers and spying on journalistsTrump inherited Obama's unprecedented prosecution of whistleblowers who give information to the media, and the Trump administration has escalated its investigations and prosecutions of leaks. Last year, the Daily Beast reported that leak investigations were up 800% under Trump's Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and in the first 18 months of his administration they've already brought four prosecutions. All leak investigations—whether they target whistleblowers to provided information to journalists or other entities—are a serious press freedom threat.Reality Winner became the first whistleblower prosecuted by the Trump administration for leaking information to the press. She was charged with, and eventually plead guilty to, violation of the archaic Espionage Act for making Russian hacking attempts of U.S. election infrastructure public. For her act of public service, she was sentenced to 63 months in prison—the longest sentence a leaker has received in federal court.Trump's Justice Department also secretly obtained a year's worth of phone and email records of New York Times reporter Ali Watkins as part of its investigation into her alleged source—in seeming direct violation of Justice Department guidelines. While this is the first publicly known instance of the Trump administration directly targeting a journalist with surveillance, there may be many others.And beyond whistleblowers who leak information to the press, the Trump administration has cracked down on freedom of information. Trump has forced senior White House staff to sign non-disclosure agreements, and conducted unofficial leak investigations in the White House. While the NDAs are likely unenforceable, this could chill and intimidate government employees who may have blown the whistle into silence.2. Potential prosecution of publishersThe New York Times reported in May 2017 that Trump began a conversation with then-FBI Director James Comey by "saying that Mr. Comey should consider putting reporters in prison for publishing classified information." While it's unclear if he has privately kept pushing the FBI and DOJ to take such actions, there's ample evidence that they might try to do just that with WikiLeaks.Top Trump officials have vowed to prosecute WikiLeaks for publishing documents. If the Department of Justice brings charges against WikiLeaks or Julian Assange for their work, it would open any news organization that reports on or publishes classified information to prosecution, too. Attorney General Jeff Sessions even refused to rule out using the precedent of prosecuting WikiLeaks against other news organizations.With reports indicating that Assange will soon be kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, CNN has reported that "according to US officials, charges have been drawn up relating to previous WikiLeaks disclosures of classified US documents."Regardless of what one thinks of Assange, everyone who cares about the press' ability to publish leaks should loudly condemn any attempt to prosecute WikiLeaks.3. Targeting immigrant journalists with deportation threatsLast December, immigration officials arrested a Mexican journalist and his son who had sought asylum in the United States after being threatened by the Mexican military. He was detained for more than seven months. Internal ICE emails strongly suggest that Emilio Gutiérrez-Soto was targeted for arrest in retaliation for his criticism of United States immigration policy.Gutiérrez-Soto isn't the only journalist targeted by ICE for his First Amendment protected speech. Manuel Duran, a reporter for a Spanish language paper in Memphis, was arrested while covering a protest. Although all charges against him were quickly dropped, he was transferred to ICE custody, where he has remained detained without charge and could be deported at any time. Duran's attorneys say it was his critical coverage of law enforcement that led the government to target him. ICE has also been accused of targeting activists who are accused of being publicly critical of Trump's immigration policies too.Gutiérrez-Soto and Duran both came to the United States because they were threatened in their home countries. Their work, and criticism of cruel law enforcement agencies like ICE, is critical, and it's a huge press freedom threat that the United States government retaliates against their speech by detaining them.4. Threatened journalists with decades in prison for covering protestsOn Trump's Inauguration Day, over 200 people—including protesters, legal observers, medics, and journalists—were swept up in an indiscriminate arrest for being present at a protest. Among them were at least nine journalists doing their jobs. And while charges against seven were dropped quickly, Trump's Department of Justice targeted two— both independent journalists—with felony charges.Alexei Wood and Aaron Cantú faced outrageous charges that carried the possibility of approximately 60 and 10 years in prison respectively. While charges against both were eventually dropped after the Justice Department's case seemed to fall apart, their cases are not clearly victories.The J20 prosecutions will undoubtedly have chilling effects on press freedom as well as political speech and protest. Trump's Department of Justice has sent a disturbing precedent of targeting the press for reporting on a demonstration, and endangering its fundamental ability to make newsworthy political events public.Trump's rhetoric and his administration's legal actions are both abuses of power and comprise assaults on press freedom. But beyond his tweets, vague libel threats, and baseless fake news accusations, the Trump administration poses a very real threat to press freedom, and has taken steps that have made critical reporting materially more dangerous in the United States. It's never been more important for news organizations to speak up in defense of their important work.Reprinted from the Freedom of the Press Foundation

The $39 AWS & DevOps Certification Training is designed to help you apply the latest in DevOps methodology to automate your software development lifecycle right out of the class. You'll master configuration management, continuous integration and continuous deployment, continuous delivery, continuous monitoring using tools like Git, Docker, Jenkins, Puppet, and Nagios, and much more. These technologies are revolutionizing the ways apps are deployed on the cloud today and each is a critical skill set to master in the digital age. Plus, you'll get an introduction to the fundamentals of Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud computing, an extremely valuable skill set for any web-based enterprise operation.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.