Techdirt

Law enforcement agencies aren't going to stop using cheap, faulty field drug tests. But they might soon be spending a lot more of the public's cash settling lawsuits springing from false arrests. NPR has rounded up a few stories of field drug tests declaring normal, legal "substances" to be illegal contraband, starting with a man whose Krispy Kreme donut residue led to an arrest… and a $37,500 payout.Here's how the plaintiff's story began:

So if you've followed the debate over net neutrality for much of the last decade, you probably remember images like these, purporting to show what the internet might look like if we let broadband duopolies like AT&T or Comcast dictate internet access pricing structure: And while these mock ups were tongue in cheek, large ISPs have given every indication that this idea of freedom costing extra isn't too far from their ideal. And abusing a lack of broadband competition to force users to shell out additional funds to access to the content and services of their choice isn't too far off of what has already happened, whether we're talking about AT&T's decision to block Facetime from working unless users shelled out for more expensive plans, or Verizon's recent decision to charge users $10 more just to avoid arbitrary video throttling.In Portugal however, there are no net neutrality rules. And ISPs there have already started taking advantage of it in a way that eerily echoes the warnings net neutrality advocates have been making for years. Lisbon-based mobile and fixed broadband provider MEO has been selling broadband service tiers for some time that cap your internet data usage, after which they're happy to sell you additional buckets of data depending on which types of services you traditionally use:

Sen. Ron Wyden is again raising concerns about NSA tactics, this time through his recently-submitted Section 702 reform bill. The USA RIGHTS Act contains a number of improvements, including addressing backdoor searches of NSA data by federal agencies and increasing the reporting requirements for access of US persons communications and data. It also permabans the NSA's "about" collection -- one it shut down voluntarily after years of misuse but recently expressed an interest in restarting.There's another form of surveillance being eyed by Wyden's bill: technical assistance. Marcy Wheeler points out some of the limitations imposed by the bill, which appear to target compelled assistance by tech companies.

The so-called "impact factors" of journals play a major role in the academic world. And yet people have been warning about their deep flaws for many years. Here, for example, is Professor Stephen Curry, a leading advocate of open access, writing on the topic back in 2012:

The fever-pitch from those that claim that violent video games lead to real-life malicious activity is such that it produces some truly dumb diatribes and soundbites. Despite vast evidence that human beings are at least intelligent enough to separate digital violence from real-world violence, and given how rife with error and purposeful obfuscation the opposing research has been, we still get the silliness. Dr. Oz spouts off about the harm video games do to teenagers, forgetting to back it up with anything resembling evidence for his position. Dan Brown was sure video games lead to real-life violence, forgetting apparently that his own novels are stuffed with violent episodes. And Pat Robertson told his addled audiences that killing in a game is no different at all than killing someone in real life, indicating that we are a nation chock full of mass murderers that will be judged harshly by the Lord his god.But it's something of a new low to see oil-business advocacy group Energy Builders attempt to label the creator of a video game an "eco-terrorist" because the game includes some mild violence against oil pipelines.

There are a lot of people out there that don't understand intellectual property issues. But perhaps no one misunderstands them quite as badly as internet marketing guru Dan Dasilva. And Dasilva has no excuse. He's been on the losing end of a copyright infringement lawsuit. Despite this, Dasilva continues to express his ignorance -- and proclaim his victimhood -- publicly on his YouTube channel. (h/t Techdirt reader Andy Gural)Dasilva snagged an image from Google's image search and used it on a website he set up for one of his clients. The photographer who took the picture -- Michael Grecco -- sued Dasilva for infringement, ultimately ending up with $27,000 settlement and $10,000 in legal fees.Dasilva has seemingly learned nothing from this experience. In fact, it appears the lawsuit may have actually made him stupider.

The war on security researchers continues. But then, it's never really shown any sign of abating, has it? Report after report comes in of security researchers being threatened with lawsuits or arrest simply for finding and reporting security breaches.The war on Jean Camp continues to this day, with the researcher on the receiving end of multiple legal threats from the American law firm representing Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank. Camp came under fire from the bank last year, after a story came and went mistakenly insinuating a Trump server was in engaged in lively conversation with Alfa Bank's servers during the run-up to the presidential election.That was back in March. Law firm Kirkland & Ellis sent legal threats and communication retention demands to Camp. In addition to demanding she retain all communications possibly relevant to Alfa Bank's vendetta, the firm also threatened to file CFAA charges.Nothing has improved over the last several months. The law firm's tactics now apparently include the use of FOIA laws to grab even more of Camp's communications. The Intercept reports on the latest developments in the Alfa Bank case.

Last week, the DOJ changed its policy on gag orders. In the past, the DOJ loved attaching indefinite gag orders to nearly everything it submitted to service providers. This prompted some backlash in the form of courtroom challenges. It appears the DOJ has decided to choose its battles more carefully. Gag orders can still accompany warrants and subpoenas, but they now have a more definitive end date.

Learn how to master databases with the Certified Oracle Database Administrator Bundle. Even if you have never coded before, these 7 courses will help get you up to speed running Oracle databases in no time. The first course covers general programming foundations featuring JavaScript. The next two courses cover the basics of writing Oracle SQL statements, and using the advanced features of SQL in order to query and manipulate data within a database. Then you'll be introduced to PL/SQL, Oracle's proprietary database language over the next two courses. Finally, in the last two courses, you'll get a full-scale introduction to using and administering databases with Oracle software. This bundle comes with lifetime access and is on sale for $199 for a limited time.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.

MuckRock has been digging into a large pile of declassified CIA documents for the past several months and has come up with some surprising finds. It recently liberated nearly 13 million pages of CIA documents -- known as the CREST archive -- via a FOIA lawsuit. Since this monumental release, MuckRock has covered everything from a CIA report on an Italian pasta shortage to deeper, darker topics like a CIA asset in Mexico being linked to a long list of atrocities.Digging through the CIA's archives has dug up dirt on other agencies as well. Emma Best details another MuckRock/CIA gem -- one that shows the NSA attempting to prosecute a journalist for obtaining documents via FOIA requests.

The DOJ's reps -- along with the new FBI boss -- keep making noises about device encryption. They don't like it. What they want is some hybrid unicorn called "responsible encryption," which would keep bad guys out but let law enforcement in. The government has no idea how this is supposed to be accomplished, but it has decided to leave that up to the smart guys at tech companies. After all, tech companies are only in it for the money. The government, however, answers to a higher calling: public safety -- a form of safety that apparently has room for an increase in criminal activity and nefarious hacking.There's one cellphone company that's been conspicuously absent from these discussions. A lot of that conspicuous absence has to do with its conspicuous absence from the cellphone marketplace. Pretty much relegated to governments and enterprise users, Blackberry has been offering encrypted messaging for years. But it's been offering a different sort of encryption -- one it can remove if needed.Enterprise users hold their own encryption keys but individual nobodies have their encryption keys held by Blackberry. Blackberry would likely be held up as the "responsible encryption" poster boy by the DOJ if only it held enough marketshare to make an appreciable difference. Instead, it's of limited use to the DOJ and FBI.But that doesn't mean Blackberry isn't willing to submit multiple height bids whenever government says jump. Over the past couple of years, it has come to light Blackberry routinely decrypts messages for inquiring governments. Apparently, there's some sort of golden key law enforcement can use to access communications -- one multiple governments seem to have access to.There are still some unanswered questions about enterprise accounts -- the ones Blackberry doesn't hold the keys to. This poses the same problem for law enforcement that other, more popular phones do. But rather than point out the problems with the government's demands for "responsible encryption," Blackberry has irresponsibly chosen to proclaim its willingness to hack into its own customers' devices if the government asks.

Techdirt has mentioned a couple of times the EU's important ePrivacy Regulation that is currently working its way through the legislative process. It's designed to complement the EU's new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which comes into force next year, and which is likely to have far-reaching effects. Where the GDPR is concerned with personal data "at rest" -- how it is stored and processed -- the ePrivacy Regulation can be thought of as dealing with personal data in motion. That is, how it is gathered and flows across networks. Since that goes to the heart of how the Internet works, it will arguably have an even bigger impact than the GDPR on the online world -- not just in the EU, but globally too.That's led to lobbying on an unprecedented scale. A recent report on the Regulation by Corporate Europe Observatory quoted a source in the European Parliament as saying it was "one of the worst lobby campaigns I have ever seen". Despite that pressure, and a last-minute attempt to derail proceedings, the European Parliament has just agreed a text for the ePrivacy Regulation. That's not the end of the story -- the other parts of the European Union legislative machine will weigh in with their views, and seek to make changes, but it's an important milestone.The European Parliament has produced an excellent briefing on the background to the ePrivacy Regulation (pdf), and on its main elements. A key feature is that it will apply to every business supplying Internet-based services, not just telecom companies. It will also regulate any service provided to end-users in the EU, no matter where the company offering it may be based. There are strict new rules on tracking services -- including, but not limited to, cookies. Consent to tracking "must be freely given and unambiguous" -- it cannot be assumed by default or hidden away on a Web page that no one ever reads. Cookie walls, which only grant access to a site if the visitor agrees to be tracked online, will be forbidden under the new ePrivacy rules.IAB Europe, the main European-level association for the digital media and advertising industry, says giving the public the right to refuse to be tracked amounts to "expropriation":

There were a few posts that dominated the comments this week, with the attempts by Charter's CEO to blame Netflix for all its problems delivering all our comments on the insightful side. In first place, it's an extremely long and thorough anonymous comment discussing many things more deserving of the cable industry's focus:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2012, we noted that the US was remaining steadfast in its opposition to a treaty promoting access to creative works for the disabled, and it was beginning to become clear that negotiators were holding it hostage in order to demand a new ACTA or SOPA-like regime. Meanwhile, the Librarian of Copyright announced the new anti-circumvention exceptions... and denied DVD ripping rights, and knocked phone unlocking off the list. Aereo was pointing out that it was being accused of infringement specifically because it closely followed the law, while the infamous John Steele was giving extremely stupid justifications for his copyright trolling activities. Also, this was the week that some Italian scientists were (shockingly and unbelievably) convicted of manslaughter for failing to predict an earthquake.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2007, the UK made the highly questionable move of arresting the operator of TVLinks for "facilitating infringement", right as the IFPI was celebrating its whac-a-mole success of shutting down the OiNK torrent tracker — and, seemingly high off these "victories", the UK parliament started mulling over the idea of forcing ISPs to block file sharing. (Sadly all this anti-filesharing sentiment seemed to be succeeding in making everyone forget that P2P is a powerful concept with all sorts of applications).Fifteen Years AgoSpeaking of P2P, this week in 2002 it appeared that the pushback against the horrible "Hollywood Hacking" bill was having at least some impact, even as movie studios and the RIAA were going around trying to warn everyone they could about the dangers of file sharing — though they apparently were successfully confusing everyone, what with some writers thinking that any act of burning a CD must be music piracy and eBay blocking a musician from selling his own music under the assumption it was infringing. The copyright fight was so annoying it was even slowing down broadband growth, so amidst all this it was nice to see at least one person fighting the good fight, with Lawrence Lessig doing everything possible to spread a better understanding of intellectual property.

It used to be a laughable claim: that the US should emulate the Great Firewall of China and support much greater internet censorship. Sure, you'd have people like the MPAA's Chris Dodd or U2 frontman Bono cheer on Chinese censorship as a good example of how to censor the internet (in their cases, to block infringing content), but most people still remained rightly horrified by the idea that the answer to "bad" content online is a massive censorship regime. But, apparently, that may be changing.Last year, right after the election, we directly warned that everyone freaking out about "fake news" on Facebook would eventually lead to calls to censor the internet a la China. And, now the NY Times has taken a big step in that direction, by posting a ridiculous article talking about how China has been "vindicated" by its approach to censoring the internet:

The Xbox One has been back in the news recently as Microsoft has rolled out an update that makes the system backwards compatible with some original Xbox games. Much as with the backwards compatibility roll out for Xbox 360 games that Microsoft performed in 2015, fans of the system have been cheering this on. It's something a no-brainer, with this functionality making the system all the more appealing and increasing brand loyalty for the console as gamers will be conditioned to expect that the investments they've made in gaming titles won't go to waste once the shelf-life of a particular generation of systems runs its course.Which raises the obvious question: why in the world did Microsoft wait until 2015 to put backwards compatibility in place? The answer, it seems, is that Microsoft suddenly became too busy cleaning up after the backlash to its always-online plans for the Xbox One to roll it out.

It isn't unusual or unwarranted for Section 230 to show up as a defense in situations where some might not expect it. Its basic principles may apply to more situations than may necessarily be readily apparent. But to appear as a defense in the Cockrum v. Campaign for Donald Trump case is pretty unexpected. From page 37 of the campaign's motion to dismiss the case against it, the following two paragraphs are what the campaign slipped in on the subject:

Dennis Prager is the rather affable conservative radio host and commentator whose chief skill appears to be in presenting laughably simple answers to immeasurably complex questions. Whatever your politics, it should be fairly clear that he's of a certain mold that tends to see political opponent boogeymen around every corner, hiding under his bed, and defiling his breakfast cereal. Those types exist on both sides of the aisle, of course, but it's important to understand Prager's paranoia when digesting his lawsuit against YouTube over how the site is filtering the videos his organization creates.

Like most pay TV providers, Charter Communications (Spectrum) continues to bleed pay TV subscribers tired of paying an arm and a leg for giant, bloated channel bundles. Also like most pay TV providers, the company isn't willing to really own the fact that their only real "solution" to this problem has been to double down on the same, bad ideas. Charter just got done gobbling up Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks subscribers in a $79 billion deal that resulted in rate hikes as high as 40% and somehow even worse customer service than the historically-awful customer service the sector is known for.That said, it shouldn't be particularly surprising that Charter lost another 104,000 traditional video subscribers last quarter. Those losses came after losing 90,000 TV subscribers during the second quarter, and another 100,000 during the first quarter of the year. While skyrocketing prices, horrible customer service, and the rise of streaming video competition are the obvious culprits here, Charter CEO tried lay the blame elsewhere. Namely, those troublesome rabblerousers who share streaming service passwords:

The $30 Microsoft VBA Bundle will help you learn how to automate your tasks in Excel. You'll learn all about Pivot Tables, and about practical methods for using macro errors to improve your VBA code. The advanced course teaches you how to modify the Excel user interface, including the Ribbon and context menus to interact with your VBA code, how to create cross-functional flowcharts, and more. You'll gain a comprehensive understanding of how using VBA in Excel can transform the way you manage and communicate with data.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.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wrote the disapproving memo that President Trump used as a pretext to fire FBI Director James Comey in May. But on at least one area of law-enforcement policy, Rosenstein and Comey remain on the same page—the Deputy AG set out earlier this month to revive the outgoing FBI director's efforts to limit encryption and other digital security technologies. In doing so, Rosenstein has drawn upon nearly a quarter century of the FBI's anti-encryption tradition. But it's a bad tradition.Like many career prosecutors, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is pretty sure he's more committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law than most of the rest of us are. This was the thrust of Rosenstein's recent October 10 remarks on encryption, delivered to an audience of midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy.The most troubling aspect of Rosenstein's speech was his insistence that, while the government's purposes in defeating encryption are inherently noble, the motives of companies that provide routine encryption and other digital-security tools (the way Apple, Google and other successful companies now do) are inherently selfish and greedy.At the same time, Rosenstein said those who disagree with him on encryption policy as a matter of principle—based on decades of grappling with the public-policy implications of using strong encryption versus weak encryption or no encryption—are "advocates of absolute privacy." (We all know that absolutism isn't good, right?)In his address, Rosenstein implied that federal prosecutors are devoted to the U.S. Constitution in the same way that Naval Academy students are:

Back in February you might recall that a little something called competition forced Verizon Wireless to bring back unlimited data plans it had spent the last few years insisting nobody really wanted. But the plans nobody wanted or needed wound up being so immensely popular, they caused some very modest slowdowns on the Verizon network. As a result, Verizon announced last August that it was getting rid of its truly unlimited plan, and replacing it with a series of even worse "unlimited" plans that throttled every video touching the Verizon network. For good measure, Verizon proceeded to ban 4K video streaming entirely.Fast forward a few months, and Verizon has now introduced a new "solution" to the company's own caveats. Starting on November 3, Verizon will be graciously allowing you to pay them an additional $10 per month to lift these arbitrary and artificial restrictions:

There is nothing more dangerous than a government without a sense of humor. This is true for a myriad of reasons, but chief among them must be that a government unable to incorporate humor into its ethos is all the more likely to attempt to outlaw forms of humor held dear by the general public. To see an example of this in action, we can look to Australia and its strange battle against Juice Media, makers of the series Honest Government Adverts, such as the one they did on Australia.Those of you who haven't been hit in the head with a hammer recently likely noticed that the Australian shield on display on that clearly satirical video is slightly off in that it doesn't spell "Australian" correctly. Hammer attacks or not, if that was the only clue you had that this video is pure and brilliant satire, you need immediate help from healthcare professionals. And, yet, despite all of that, the National Symbols Officer of Australia, which is apparently a real thing, has begun banging its drums over the various laws it claims using that satirical symbol violates. Via the EFF post:

Rozcomnadzor has been featured in our pages often as of late. The Russian agency tasked with censoring the internet for any number of reasons including copyright, discussions about illicit behavior, and supposed security risks from anonymous speech, has actually proven itself to be far better at sweeping up innocent sites in its efforts in the kind of collateral damage normally reserved for cluster bombs. This was always going to be the case with a censorship operation such as this, with the only real question being whether it would be corruption or ineptitude that would take center stage.Thus far, ineptitude has been the order of the day. But that seems to be changing, with several people at the top of Rozcomnadzor coming under investigation for what would amount to fairly blatant corruption.

It probably goes without saying that while improving in spots, American broadband isn't much to write home about. Americans pay more money for slower service and worse customer support than a long list of developed countries. Some of that's thanks to geography, but more of it's due to a lack of competition. That lack of competition is, by proxy, thanks to our refusal to address the stranglehold these giant companies have over our federal and state regulators and lawmakers. Instead of fixing this problem, current regulators seem more interested in weakening deployment definitions to help industry pretend the problem doesn't exist.In a growing number of towns and cities, residents have increasingly pushed to either build their own broadband networks, or strike public/private partnerships to help improve service quality and availability. Instead of trying to make these efforts irrelevant by offering better service at lower rates, incumbent ISPs have focused on paying often clueless lawmakers to help pass protectionist bills restricting what locals can and can't do with their own local infrastructure and taxpayer dollars. More than twenty states have now passed laws to this effect quite literally written by ISP lobbyists.Both San Francisco and Seattle have considered building their own broadband networks in a quest to end this duopoly logjam. In Seattle, Mayoral Candidate Cary Moon is promising to build a citywide fiber network if elected, something lobbying spending indicates is making regional ISPs Comcast and CenturyLink nervous. And in San Francisco, the city is now promising to build the biggest municipal broadband network yet, with a new report (pdf) indicating the cost to connect every home and business in the city would be somewhere around $1.9 billion.Unlike some projects where the city owns both the network and the service provided on top, San Francisco's model would be open access -- meaning any ISP -- small or large -- would be invited in to compete:

For many years now, we've pointed out that whenever people -- generally legacy content companies and politicians -- started pushing for internet platforms like Google, Facebook and Twitter to "police" content, that no matter what those platforms did, it was never going to be enough. For example, after years of resisting, Google finally caved to the demands of the MPAA and the RIAA and started using DMCA notices as a signal for its ranking mechanism. This was the first time that Google ever allowed outside actors to directly have some level of control in how Google ranked them in organic search. And in doing so, we feared two things would happen: (1) it would just encourage others to start demanding similar powers over Google and (2) even those to whom Google caved would complain that the company wasn't doing enough. Indeed, that's exactly what happened.With that in mind, it was great to see UK lawyer Graham Smith (of the excellent Cyberleagle blog, where he regularly opines on issues related to attempts to regulate internet platforms) recently come up with a simple set of rules for how this works, which he dubbed the Three Laws of Internet Intermediaries (might need some marketing polish on the name...).

For as long as Techdirt has existed, we've highlighted how most implementations of electronic voting simply aren't safe or secure. The Diebold disaster in 2006, Sequoia's security scandal in 2008, and a rotating flood of similar stories since, have driven this point home time, and time, and time again. And despite these warnings neither the companies that make these machines, nor the election commissions or local governments tasked with overseeing them, have done enough (or, in many cases, much of anything) to ensure that our Democratic process is secure.The latest example of just how not under control this problem is comes out of Georgia, where reports indicate that somebody managed to completely wipe a server integral to a lawsuit against Georgia election officials. The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of election reform advocates, is attempting to force Georgia to retire antiquated and heavily-criticized election technology that has been under fire in the media since June, after security researchers indicated that the touch-screen machines could be easily tampered with without leaving much of a trace:

I know that the cynical among you already assume -- falsely -- that the surveillance state ignores all rules and spies willy nilly on everyone. That is not true. However, they do have a long and scary history of "reinterpreting" or stretching the definitions of things to do widespread surveillance in ways that clearly violate the letter and spirit of the law, even as they try to justify it. For many years now, we've written about concerns with Executive Order 12333 -- a Reagan-signed Executive Order that enabled much greater surveillance oversees. In the summer of 2014, State Department whistleblower Stephen Napier Tye revealed that everyone focusing on other programs -- such as Section 215 under the PATRIOT Act or Section 702 under the FISA Amendments Act -- were missing the point: nearly everything was being done under EO 12333, and those other programs were just used to fill in the gaps. Here's what he said at the time:

Pay what you want for the Linux Lifetime Mastery Bundle and you'll get access to the Fundamentals of Operating Systems course. Over six hours, you’ll discuss the various functions of operating systems and the interrelationships of those functions. Plus, you’ll receive a companion textbook to get more detailed info whenever you need it. If you beat the average price of the bundle ($7.38 at the time of writing), you unlock three more courses. In the Introduction to Programming and Coding for Everyone with JavaScript course, you'll gain a solid foundation in the world’s most popular computer language, JavaScript. The Linux V7 Essentials course will teach you the basics of Linux V7 using Red Hat Linux, preparing you to sit for the Certified System Administrator exam given by Red Hat. Finally in the Linux V7 System Administration course, you will learn how to install Linux V7, handle system initialization, work with disk partitions, and manage packages, users and groups. Plus, you’ll dive into more advanced concepts like the Linux kernel, the X Windows system, and learn to troubleshoot.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 new director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, has apparently decided to take up James Comey's anti-encryption fight. He's been mostly quiet on the issue since assuming the position, but the DOJ's recent calls for "responsible encryption" has emboldened the new FBI boss to speak up on the subject.And speak up he has. Although the FBI still hasn't released the text of his remarks to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, more than a few sites are reporting it was the usual "go team law enforcement" boosterism, but with the added zest of phone encryption complaints.

We've long noted how one of the sleazier telecom industry lobbying tactics involves paying minority, diversity, or other groups to parrot policies that actually undermine their constituents, but provide the illusion of public support for shitty positions. Like when the cable industry paid Jesse Jackson to claim that trying to bring competition to the cable box was akin to racism in the 1960's American South. Or when AT&T paid the The Hispanic Institute to support the company's planned acquisition of T-Mobile, ignoring that the deal would have killed tens of thousands of jobs, while driving up wireless rates for all Americans.Because there appears to be zero public repercussion for this grotesque tactic, it has continued to be highly effective -- and has been of great use to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast as they attempt to gut net neutrality rules. While this sort of group co-opting is always in bad taste, the Intercept noticed that the Verizon-funded National Puerto Rican Chamber of Commerce decided to take things to the next level this week. In an editorial over at The Hill, executive director Justin V&‌eacute;lez-Hagan claimed killing net neutrality would aid storm-stricken Puerto Rico:

Techdirt has been writing about the (slow but steady) rise of open access for a decade. That's as long as the Annual International Open Access Week has been running. Cambridge University came up with quite a striking way to join in the celebrations:

For years we've written about the idiocy of the DMCA's 1201 triennial review. If you don't recall, Section 1201 of the DMCA is the "anti-circumvention" part of the law, saying that anything that gets around DRM is, itself, copyright infringement. This was so obviously stupid and counterproductive when it passed, and Congress knew it was so obviously stupid and counterproductive, that it included an even stupider "safety valve" to deal with the obviously bad results of the law. That safety valve, known as the "triennial review" is that every three years, people need to beg and plead with the Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress to make explicit exemptions from the law, where circumventing DRM won't be considered infringing. Over the years, this lengthy and costly process has at least allowed certain key exemptions for security and academic research. Though, of course, even when exemptions are granted, it's often a hot mess.But, astoundingly, the exemptions only last until the following triennial review, meaning that every few years, everyone has to waste their time and go through the whole damn process again. This blew up in everyone's face in 2012 when the Librarian of Congress rejected an exemption for phone unlocking that had been in place for the previous round. Lots of people got angry, and even the White House weighed in to say it was a mistake that should be fixed. Of course, rather than fixing Section 1201, they just passed a separate law specific to phone unblocking.However, the whole issue got so much attention and so much interest (both from the public and politicians) that I'd be surprised if the Copyright Office ever decided to drop an exemption after it had been issued. And, indeed in the newly released notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the latest exemptions, the Copyright Office easily renews all of the old exemptions:

It seems like barely enough time has passed for the filing fee check to clear, but Twitter-alternative Gab's lawsuit against Google has already been dropped. (h/t SophisticatedJaneDoe)The dismissal [PDF] -- only the second item on the docket -- is as brief as the complaint (which alleged anti-trust violations by Google) was long.

Like many people today, I have a decent amount of experience using Facebook's language translations. With Geigners the world over, including an eyebrow-raising number of them in South America, I've found the translations to be a useful if imperfect way for me to interact with distant family members that reside in countries and continents far from the States. Imperfect is a key word there, however, as some of the garbled nonsense that results from translations can range from somewhat funny to downright perplexing. It goes without saying that relying on a website's translation alone to interpret someone writing in a different language is a harrowing experience fraught with error.Or maybe I should say that all of that should go without saying, because it seems that Israeli police relied solely on Facebook's translation services to lead them to arresting a Palestinian man who appeared to simply try to be congenial.

Yesterday we broke the crazy story of how the DOJ issued a subpoena to Twitter attempting to identify five Twitter users, not because of anything they had done, but because someone else the DOJ disliked -- a security researcher named Justin Shafer -- had tweeted an emoji at them in response to a discussion about a different case. You can read all the details in that original post, in case you missed it yesterday. There was so much craziness in that story that I didn't even get to cover all of it. Some of those named in the subpoena have posted their thoughts -- including Ken "Popehat" White and Keith Lee. I suggest reading both, as the subpoena directed at each of them was particularly silly, given that both freely make their identities public. The DOJ didn't seem to do even the slightest research into the accounts it was demanding info on, or it would have known just how easy it was to "unmask" White and Lee.As for the other three Twitter accountholders -- all of them are anonymous. But the DOJ certainly has zero legal basis for unmasking them. As we've discussed repeatedly in the past, anonymous speech is also protected by the First Amendment, and there's a very high bar for law enforcement to get past to unmask anonymous speakers. EFF's Kurt Opsahl pointed to a concise statement on this in a recent ruling in the Awtry v. Glassdoor case, which Lee also reposts in his blog:

The last two posts I wrote about SESTA discussed how, if it passes, it will result in collateral damage to the important speech interests Section 230 is intended to protect. This post discusses how it will also result in collateral damage to the important interests that SESTA itself is intended to protect: those of vulnerable sex workers.Concerns about how SESTA would affect them are not new: several anti-trafficking advocacy groups and experts have already spoken out about how SESTA, far from ameliorating the risk of sexual exploitation, will only exacerbate the risk of it in no small part because it disables one of the best tools for fighting it: the Internet platforms themselves:

An emergency radio is an absolute must have for any emergency situation, especially in the event of a natural disaster. This handy lightweight Emergency Multi-Function Radio And Flashlight will catch the NOAA weather broadcast 24 hours/day, and is self-sufficient if it needs to be, drawing power from solar panels or a built-in hand crank so you'll never have to worry about it running out of power. It includes an LED flashlight and an on board battery as well to help you charge your other devices. It is on sale for $19 for a limited time.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 made this point over and over again: if you give people the power to force down someone else's content, it will be abused. We see this most clearly in things like DMCA takedown notices, which are rife with abuse -- either through automated takedowns or just by people who want certain things to disappear. But here's a variation we haven't seen quite as much: DMCA abuse as extortion. This story involves musician/composer Keitaro Ujile who variously goes by Ujico* and Snail's House and who has a pretty big following. As an aside, he describes his electronic music as "Happy Music" and, damn, is it ever. I've been listening to it while writing this post, and you can too at Soundcloud, Bandcamp or... YouTube.It's that last one that this story is focused on. Because a few of his songs on YouTube currently look something like this right now:Yup, so someone named Lazy Channel is claiming infringement on three Ujile videos. "Lazy Channel," whoever that is, has his own YouTube page, and it appears to have a bunch of Vietnamese songs on it. It doesn't have many followers (350 subscribers). I'm not linking to it, because no need to give that guy any extra attention, because here's the rather incredible message that "Lazy Channel" sent to Ujile soon after his videos got taken down:If you somehow can't read that, it says:

It appears public pressure -- coming in the form of lawsuits and gag order challenges -- has finally had an effect on the DOJ. Ellen Nakashima is reporting the Justice Department will no longer attach indefinite gag orders to routine requests for data and communications.

Earlier this year the GOP and Trump administration rushed to kill consumer broadband privacy rules. While the broadband industry cried like a colicky toddler when the rules were originally proposed, they were relatively modest -- simply requiring that ISPs clearly disclose what they're selling, who they're selling it to, and provide working opt out tools. The rules were proposed after ISPs repeatedly showed they were incapable of self-regulating on this front (see Verizon's zombie cookies, AT&T's attempts to charge you more for privacy, and CableOne's declaration it wanted to use credit scores to provide even worse customer support).As a direct result of the GOP and Trump administrations attack on consumer privacy rules, more than a dozen states began proposing their own privacy rules to try and close the gap. While there's a real threat of these state laws being downright bad and/or inconsistent, that's probably something ISP lobbyists should have thought about before killing the FCC's modest and more uniform rules. You might recall that the EFF threw its support behind California's privacy law (AB 307, pdf), noting that it was solid enough to provide a template to other states for some uniformity on the consumer privacy protection front.But thanks to some immense, cross-industry lobbying pressure, that proposal was killed back in Septmeber. In a new blog post, the EFF details precisely how Google and Facebook (under the blanket proxy of the Internet Association) joined forces with their historical nemeses in the broadband industry, using a rotating crop of outright lies to vilify the proposal:

The results of another police camera study are in and there's not much good news in them. While cautiously hailed as tools of accountability, body worn cameras so far have proven to be anything but. In the early days of body camera adoption, a study of a pilot program in Rialto, California produced very positive results.

Net neutrality is the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without improper discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services. It's a principle that's faced many threats over the years from ISPs and government agencies seeking to exercise control over the free and open Internet.With the roll back of net neutrality protections looming, many people are now asking, "What if there is no net neutrality?"This "what-if" debate is surprising, however, because we have a clear, documented history of the kinds of non-neutral, discriminatory practices that ISPs have actually deployed in recent years. Here are just a few ways ISPs have throttled or blocked content in the past:

As smartphones and other mobile devices have gotten smarter and smarter, they've taken over more and more of most people's general computing needs, and the importance of the classic personal computer has waned. And so for some time the question has been: will the PC ever go away entirely? That's our topic this week as we try to figure out who really needs a PC these days, and when and if that will change.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.

As promised, Ron Wyden (along with Rand Paul) has delivered an antidote to the Senate Intelligence Committee's completely terrible Section 702 "reform" bill. That bill, authored by Sen. Burr, would extend the NSA's 702 powers until 2025 while allowing US law enforcement to use collected intelligence for normal law enforcement purposes. It also would have turned the NSA's "about" collection back on, provided no one opposed it with directly-targeted legislation. This program's ability to "inadvertently" sweep up US persons' communications was so concerning the NSA voluntarily shut it off. (It asked to have it turned back on less than two months later, however.)Charlie Savage of the New York Times has published the latest draft of the Wyden reform bill, titled the USA RIGHTS Act of 2017. (His annotated version of the bill can be found here.) Wyden's bill [PDF] makes several significant changes, including codification of the NSA's voluntary "about" collection shut down.Beyond preventing the NSA from resuming a collection it has abused since inception, the bill also shortens the extension period to 2021, ensuring the next debate over Section 702 collections isn't put off for nearly a decade. (The Burr bill extended the sunset to 2025. The House Subcommittee's lukewarm reform bill set it at 2023.)It also would attempt to close the "backdoor search" loophole that allows US government agencies to obtain domestic communications without a warrant. Wyden's bill adds a warrant requirement for these searches -- including those with a national security purpose. This serves two purposes. First, it brings the collection of domestic communications via NSA surveillance back in line with the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, it provides for better accountability by ensuring any database searches leave a paper trail. It also bans the acquisition of content "known to be entirely domestic."The bill also provides for better notification of prosecutors' use of Section 702-derived evidence. It limits the use of Section 702 surveillance to national security cases, with one exception: direct approval from the Attorney General. The new notification requirements will attempt to circumvent parallel construction by preventing the government from withholding notification if there is any other conceivable way it could have obtained the same evidence (inevitable discovery, normal law enforcement surveillance methods, etc.).It also adds further reporting requirements, including mandatory production of numbers Wyden has been seeking for years: incidentally-collected US persons' communications. It would also require the FBI to turn over the number of US persons queries it performs using NSA-collected intel.There are other good aspects to the bill -- stuff normally not discussed during surveillance authority sunsetting. The bill would divest the power currently held by Chief Justice John Roberts. Chief justices have controlled FISA court judge selection for most of the last 30 years, resulting in a long stream of conservative picks, many of them former government prosecutors. This bill would allow all 13 circuits to nominate judges for FISC posts, which should help prevent future FISA judge picks from being so closely aligned with the Chief Justice's views.Finally, the bill also provides for additional Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board input. The PCLOB is all but dead, but if it's revived, it would have access to Intelligence Community whistleblower complaints.This is the best reform bill we've seen offered yet. But the clock continues to tick down to 702's renewal. Chances are, Sen. Burr's control of the Senate Intelligence Committee isn't going to do much to ensure this bill moves forward intact, if it moves forward at all. Between Burr and Sen. Feinstein, the oversight committee has been internally limited in terms of actual oversight. Wyden's presence on the committee is the wild card, but entrenched powers continue to limit his effectiveness. Hopefully, some of this bill will replace the worthless, toothless "reforms" proposed by Sen. Burr and continue to nudge the Intelligence Community towards compliance with a number of Constitutional amendments.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has released its Section 702 reauthorization bill [PDF]. Rather than fix anything, it makes pretty much everything worse. This is largely due to Sen. Burr's influence, who probably felt he had to bring something to the debate, but couldn't bear to part completely with his "clean, forever reauthorization" dreams.Senator Burr is somehow claiming this is a "reform" bill. Marcy Wheeler has written an excellent post describing all the ways in which it isn't, especially the tail end of the bill which pretends to limit US law enforcement access to NSA collections.

Scared to look at your email sometimes? You won't be with Postbox 5. This power email app lets you access all your accounts in one place with an extremely functional, intuitive interface that lets you organize and access everything you need within a few keystrokes or clicks. Packed with features to allow you to compose messages faster, send and find attachments more easily, and clean up your inbox clutter. This single user license is on sale for $29.99.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.

So, here's a fun one. Back in May, the Justice Department -- apparently lacking anything better to do with its time -- sent a subpoena to Twitter, demanding a whole bunch of information on a five Twitter users, including a few names that regular Techdirt readers may be familiar with:If you can't see that, it's a subpoena asking for information on the following five Twitter users: @dawg8u ("Mike Honcho"), @abtnatural ("Virgil"), @Popehat (Ken White), @associatesmind (Keith Lee) and @PogoWasRight (Dissent Doe). I'm pretty sure we've talked about three of those five in previous Techdirt posts. Either way, they're folks who are quite active in legal/privacy issues on Twitter.And what info does the DOJ want on them? Well, basically everything:

As the Supreme Court readies itself for an important Fourth Amendment decision, the supporting briefs are beginning to trickle in. At stake is a potential redefining of the expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, something that was diminished by the 1979 Supreme Court decision that created the so-called Third Party Doctrine.In Carpenter's case, the third party records in question are something gathered by all cell phone companies: location data. The government used months of cell site location data to retrace Carpenter's movements, all without a warrant. This warrantless access turns cell phones into proxy tracking devices for the government. The government is perfectly fine with this turn of events and is asking the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court's decision.A brief [PDF] siding with the government has been submitted by George Washington University law prof (and Volokh Conspirator) Orin Kerr. In it, Kerr makes some strange arguments.The least weird argument is Kerr's assertion cell site location records shouldn't be covered by the Fourth Amendment because they are the equivalent of "observation in a public space." This is undoubtedly true, but it does allow the government to perform these "observations" without actually having to use its own eyeballs. Instead of tracking someone's movement through direct, in-person surveillance, the government can serve a subpoena to phone companies and use constantly-collected data to perform retrospective tracking.Kerr goes on to serve up an analogy to buttress his assertion the Fourth Amendment should provide no protection for ostensibly "public" activities. And that's where the arguments start going off the rails.

Last week we noted how Freshman Michigan Representative Michele Hoitenga has been pushing a broadband competition-killing bill she clearly neither wrote nor understands. The industry-backed bill, HB 5099 (pdf), would ban Michigan towns and cities from using taxpayer funds to build or operate community broadband networks, and would hamstring these communities' abilities to strike public/private partnerships. The bill is just the latest example of broadband industry protectionist laws ISPs ghost write, then shovel unobstructed through the corrupt state legislative process.ISPs want to have their cake and to eat it too; they don't want to upgrade or deploy broadband into rural or lower income areas, but they don't want others to either. Why? Because these communities might highlight how there's creative, collaborative alternatives to the duopoly status quo we all despise. And they certainly don't want added outside pressure disrupting the good thing (read: duopoly regulatory capture resulting in no competition and higher rates) they've enjoyed for the better part of a generation.While companies like AT&T could deter towns and cities from looking for creative alternatives by offering better, cheaper service, it's much less expensive to throw money at lawmakers who, with the help of groups like ALEC, craft and pass laws protecting their regional mono/duopolies. All while pretending that their only real motivation is to protect the taxpayer, of course.And while this process has played out in dozens of states repeatedly over the last fifteen years (more than twenty states have let ISPs write similar state laws), Hoitenga's lack of experience provided a closer look at the often-grotesque process. As we noted last week, Hoitenga doesn't appear to even remotely understand how the broadband industry works, from her belief that Michigan residents had 37 different ISPs to choose from, to her argument that letting giant ISPs dictate what locals can do in their own communities somehow...helps the little guy.As the press began to politely highlight how Hoitenga should probably actually understand the industry she's legislating and the bill she's supporting, the lawmaker refused to comment -- and instead chose to flee Twitter: