Techdirt

A few weeks ago, we noted that Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a judge in East Texas who is infamous for handling approximately 25% of all patent cases in the entire country, appeared to be ignoring the Supreme Court in an effort to keep all those patent cases in his own docket. You see, earlier this year, in an important case, the Supreme Court said that the proper venue for a patent lawsuit to be brought should be where the defendant "resides" rather than just wherever they "do business." Previously, patent trolls had said that the lawsuits could be brought wherever a company did business -- which, with internet firms, meant anywhere -- allowing them to file in their favorite court in East Texas. The Supreme Court said "that's not what the law says."But Gilstrap tried, somewhat creatively, to twist himself around those rules, by arguing that all sorts of other factors could be used to determine "residence" -- basically including (again) if you had any connection to that jurisdiction at all -- and thus continue to allow East Texas to be an acceptable venue. We listed out those factors in the earlier post, but don't need to do so again, because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has already weighed in and said "nope, that's not how it works."The ruling is pretty straightforward. Basically, it says "when we say a defendant has to reside in that venue, we mean it."

There was a shocking moment in this week’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA). Prof. Eric Goldman had just pointed out that members of Congress should consider how the bill might affect hundreds of small Internet startups, not just giant companies like Google and Facebook. Will every startup have the resources to police its users’ activity with the level of scrutiny that the new law would demand of them? “There is a large number of smaller players who don’t have the same kind of infrastructure. And for them, they have to make the choice: can I afford to do the work that you’re hoping they will do?”Goldman was right: the greatest innovations in Internet services don’t come from Google and Facebook; they come from small, fast-moving startups. SESTA would necessitate a huge investment in staff to filter users’ activity as a company’s user base grows, something that most startups in their early stages simply can’t afford. That would severely hamper anyone’s ability to launch a competitor to the big Internet players—giving users a lot less choice.Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s stunning response: “I believe that those outliers—and they are outliers—will be successfully prosecuted, civilly and criminally under this law.”Given the extreme penalties for under-filtering, platforms would err in the opposite direction, removing legitimate voices from the Internet.Blumenthal is one of 30 cosponsors—and one of the loudest champions—of SESTA, a bill that would threaten online speech by forcing web platforms to police their members’ messages more stringently than ever before. Normally, SESTA’s proponents vastly understate the impact that the bill would have on online communities. But in that unusual moment of candor, Sen. Blumenthal seemed to lay bare his opinions about Internet startups—he thinks of them as unimportant outliers and would prefer that the new law put them out of business.Let’s make something clear: Google will survive SESTA. Much of the SESTA fight’s media coverage has portrayed it as a battle between Google and Congress, which sadly misses the point. Large Internet companies may have the legal budgets to survive the massive increase in litigation and liability that SESTA would bring. They probably also have the budgets to implement a mix of automated filters and staff censors to comply with the law. Small startups are a different story.Indeed, lawmakers should ask themselves whether SESTA would unintentionally reinforce large incumbent companies’ advantages. Without the strong protections that allowed today’s large Internet players to rise to prominence, startups would have a strong disincentive to grow. As soon as your user base grows beyond what your staff can directly police, your company becomes a huge liability.But ultimately, the biggest casualty of SESTA won’t be Google or startups; it will be the people pushed offline.Many of SESTA’s supporters suggest that it would be easy for web platforms of all sizes to implement automated filtering technologies they can trust to separate legitimate voices from criminal ones. But it’s impossible to do that with anywhere near 100% accuracy. Given the extreme penalties for under-filtering, platforms would err in the opposite direction, removing legitimate voices from the Internet. As EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn put it, “Again and again, when platforms clamp down on their users’ speech, marginalized voices are the first to disappear.”The sad irony of SESTA is that while its supporters claim that it will fight sex trafficking, trafficking victims are likely to be among the first people it would silence. And that silence could be deadly. According to Freedom Network USA, the largest network of anti-trafficking advocate organizations in the country (PDF), “Internet sites provide a digital footprint that law enforcement can use to investigate trafficking into the sex trade, and to locate trafficking victims.” Congress should think long and hard before passing a bill that would incentivize web platforms to silence those victims.Internet startups would take the much greater hit from SESTA than large Internet firms would, but ultimately, those most impacted would be users themselves. As online platforms ratcheted up their patrolling of their users’ speech, some voices would begin to disappear from the Internet. Tragically, some of those voices belong to the people most in need of the safety of online communities.Republished from EFF's Deeplinks blog

This might seem like a harsh title, but let's go back a bit into history. In 2010, at the direct urging of the RIAA, the US government, in the form of ICE, suddenly decided that it could seize domains right out from under websites with zero due process. Specifically, the RIAA gave ICE a list of websites that it insisted were engaging in piracy. It later turned out that this list was completely bogus -- and the seized domains included some music blogs and a search engine -- and when ICE asked the RIAA to provide the evidence (incredibly, many months after seizing the domains...), it turns out that they had none. Even with all of this, ICE kept one blog's domain for over a year, while denying that site's lawyer even the chance to talk to the judge overseeing the case -- and (even more incredibly) kept two other sites for five whole years.The RIAA, who was directly quoted in the affidavit used to seize these domains (including falsely claiming that a non-RIAA song, that was personally given to the site by the independent artist in question, was an RIAA song and infringing) later tried to downplay its role in all of this, while still insisting that seizing entire domains based on flimsy claims and zero evidence was a perfectly reasonable strategy.Fast forward to the present. Over in Spain there's a big political fight over Catalonia independence, with an upcoming referendum that the Spanish government has declared illegal. Things got very messy with Spanish law enforcement raiding government buildings, offices and homes. There are all sorts of human rights issues being raised here, let alone questions of democracy. However, those aren't directly the kinds of things we cover here. What did catch our attention, however, is that one of the raids was on the operators of the .cat domain, puntCAT, in order to seize the websites promoting the upcoming referendum and to arrest the company's head of IT for sedition (yes, sedition).As EFF's Jeremy Malcolm explains, this should raise all sorts of alarms and concerns:

Adapted from spacesuit technology, the PHOOZY is a thermal capsule that protects your phone from the damaging effects of the sun and crazy temperature extremes. The chromium shell reflects more than 90% of solar radiation, provides an extra layer of drop protection from your phone, and will ensure it floats safely if dropped in water. It's a great way to protect your phone on your adventures from the desert to the slopes and everywhere in between.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

One of the most shocking pieces of information to emerge from the Snowden documents was that the NSA had paid RSA $10 million to push a weakened form of crypto in its products. The big advantage for the NSA was that it made it much easier to decrypt messages sent using that flawed technology. A few months after this news, the National Institute of Standards and Technology announced that it would remove the "Dual Elliptic Curve" (Dual EC) algorithm from its recommendations. But of course, that's not the end of the story. Betraying trust is always a bad idea, but in the security field it's an incredibly stupid idea, since trust is a key aspect of the way things work in that shadowy world. So it should come as no surprise that following the Dual EC revelations, the world's security experts no longer trust the NSA:

Moral panics take many forms, from Dungeons & Dragons being a lure to satanism in the eyes of parents to the wonderful theory that playing chess would turn children into violent psychopaths. What these moral panics tend to share in common is the extraction of seemingly nefarious details on a subject which, out of context, are interpreted in a demonizing manner and then exported for public consumption. Thus the public gets often well-meaning but highly misleading information on the terribleness of some innocuous thing.This practice continues to this day, often times helped along by a media environment desperate for clicks and eyeballs. A recent example of this would be British media's Channel 4 News finding that Amazon's algorithm had a habit of recommending a combination of products together that appeared designed for terrorist-style explosives.

The Trump Administration is so frustrated by constant leaks, it's willing to try anything to stop them. Apparently, this may one day involve questionable tech with an extremely-spotty track record. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has an idea -- a bad one -- to address the ongoing White House leakstravaganza.

This week, after we expressed some serious concerns about Senator Blumenthal's comments on SESTA, Uriel-238 won most insightful comment of the week by summarizing and questioning the train of thought:

Five Years AgoThere was all sorts of copyright nonsense this week in 2012, beginning with a claim from the Canadian Mint over a musician's album cover photo that included some pennies sitting on a table. We noticed some disturbing things hiding in the history of US copyright, like the fact that the Copyright Act explicitly says disruptive innovation should be blocked, or that somehow a letter written by John Adams in 1755 had still not entered the public domain. The Spanish octogenarian who gained notoriety after her extremely poor "restoration" of a fresco of Jesus decided, for some reason, to start exercising her copyright over the famous failure, and we also saw the beginning of the copyright dustup over The Innocence of Muslims.Also, this was the week that the Big Four record labels became the Big Three, with regulators approving Universal's purchase of EMI.Ten Years AgoThings weren't much better this week in 2007, with the copyright czar stepping up to sing the praises of the DMCA and copyright holders gloating over every mole successfully whac'd in their pointless crusade. NBC seemed insistent on making life harder for paying customers> (though CBS seemed to have a better handle on internet video), the Canadian recording industry was flip-flopping on private copying levees lest people get the impression downloading was legal, and a book store at Harvard was trying to claim copyright on... its book prices.Fifteen Years AgoGuess what? More of the same this week in 2002. The music industry was touting new "CD-killer" music formats without mentioning their real motivation was the enhanced copyright protection of new, pointless devices, while at least one record company was taking the absurd anti-leak action of sending reviewers individual players containing the CD and glued shut. Cablevision gave everyone a preview of the DRM future by accidentally turning on new copyright protection technology for a little while. At least CEA head Gary Shapiro was eloquently making the point that downloading is neither immoral nor illegal, though that sensible understanding of the situation unsurprisingly didn't catch on with the entertainment industries.

By this point, the half-baked security in most internet of things devices has become a bit of a running joke, leading to amusing Twitter accounts like Internet of Shit that highlight the sordid depth of this particular apathy rabbit hole. And while refrigerators leaking your gmail credentials and tea kettles that expose your home networks are entertaining in their own way, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that the same half-assed security in the IOT space also exists on most home routers, your car, your pacemaker, and countless other essential devices and services your life may depend on.The lack of security in the medical front is particularly alarming. The latest case in point: security researchers have discovered eight vulnerabilities in a syringe infusion pump used by hospitals to help administer medication to patients intravenously. The flaws in the Medifusion 4000 infusion pump, manufactured by UK medical multinational Smiths Group, were discovered by security researcher Scott Gayou. The device is utilized to deliver medications, blood, antibiotics and other fluids to critical care patients, patients undergoing surgery (anesthesia) -- and newborn babies.The flaws were severe enough to warrant a new warning from the Department of Homeland Security, which issued an advisory that, like similar past advisories, rather downplays the fact these flaws could be utilized by a skilled hacker to kill somebody covertly:

Earlier this spring, a jewelry company CEO earned himself a federal indictment for his bespoke reputation management efforts. Realizing it was extremely difficult to erase negative reviews from the net, National Sapphire Company boss Michael Arnstein took one such reviewer to court. He was awarded an injunction after the defendant no-showed, resulting in the delisting of 54 URLs.But the negative reviews kept coming. Rather than hire a lawyer and bring more defamation suits, Arnstein opted for the initially less-costly option: mocking up delisting orders and forging a judge's signature. This apparently worked well enough Arnstein felt comfortable sharing his fraudulent tactics with others. This swaggering, inculpatory statement was included in the federal complaint.

Gritted-teeth lip service to freedom of information laws continues in the public sector. If stonewalling and/or outrageous fee demands aren't enough to dissuade requesters from seeking documents, more and more government agencies are deploying Plan C.

Turkish president Recep Erdogan is at it again. Not content to merely be viewed as a megalomaniacal, ring-coveting authoritarian, Erdogan is using his time in mixed company to assure the world he's angling for the title of "tyrant."Erdogan's long history of abusing laws to shut critics up has been covered extensively here. He's gone from a comical but dangerous politician to the leading abuser of his own constituents in record time. When not attempting to push foreign countries to play by his censorship rules, Erdogan is locking up dissidents and journalists at an alarming rate.Of course, they're not journalists… at least not when Erdogan's telling the story. While speaking at the Bloomberg Global Business Forum in New York City, the Turkish president had this to say about the journalists in his country's jails.

As more documents are released -- whether due to FOIA lawsuits or the Intelligence Community's begrudging attempts at transparency -- more evidence continues to pile up indicating the NSA has always abused/misused its collection programs.A report written for Demand Progress by foremost NSA wonk Marcy Wheeler compiles a 12-year run of NSA overcollection and underreporting. These findings are summarized (lol) in a couple-thousand-word piece Wheeler wrote for Motherboard. Either route you take, you'll see the NSA has been given a long leash by its overseers. The end result of this mostly hands-off approach speaks for itself. From the Demand Progress white paper [PDF]:

Whether you're a developer, blogger, graphic designer, or anything in between, chances are a lot of your workday is spent flipping between tabs and digging through folders to find specific things you need for a project. It's high time you get organized. Freeter Pro is the personal productivity app that lets you gather everything you need in one easy-to-use interface. Quickly and directly access analytics, open Task Manager, fire off a line of code—whatever your project needs, Freeter makes it easy to find it and implement it. It's on sale for $9.99 and good for use on any computer and operating systems where you are the primary user.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

One of Backpage's most vocal critics in law enforcement has been Cook County Sheriff, Thomas Dart. As you may recall, this has been a nearly decade-long obsession with Sheriff Dart, in which he has been slapped down many, many times by courts. In 2009 he sued Craigslist for hosting adult ads, only to get slapped down pretty hard by a court explaining to him that you can't blame an online service for how its users use it. Once the ads on Craigslist moved to Backpage, Dart had a new target, which he regularly complained about in the press. In 2015, knowing he couldn't sue Backpage directly, he instead (successfully) strongarmed all the payment companies that worked with Backpage into cutting off service.In response, Backpage sued Dart and very quickly won. The district court quickly pointed out that this seemed like a pretty clear First Amendment violation, with a government official using the law to attack non-criminal actions, creating classic prior restraint. The appeals court agreed with a masterful ruling by Judge Posner, about how this appeared to be a clear abuse of power by Sheriff Dart to bankrupt a company he disliked, but over whom he held no jurisdiction.The case was then sent back to the lower court on a few points, and the two sides have been flinging paper back and forth for a while -- mostly to no avail. There had been little to no action in the case for many months... until last week Sheriff Dart suddenly sprung up to ask the court to reopen the process so he can issue subpoenas to Backpage, to dig more into what he insists must be criminal activity.He's basing this on media reports related to a separate investigation into Backpage, which at the very least do raise some questions about whether Backpage is truly involved in the creation of its ads (which would take away its CDA 230 protections). Dart claims this proves that Backpage was lying to the court about how much of a hand it had in crafting ads on its site.

So far this week, we've explained why SESTA is such a bad bill and how it will create a massive chilling effect that could impact nearly every online service. And while the Senate hearing on the bill wasn't as bad as we feared it would be, it certainly had its problematic moments -- such as when the bill's co-author, Senator Richard Blumenthal, argued that companies that couldn't afford to moderate/filter everything should be prosecuted. However, in the days since the hearing, I've had a few thoughts about aspects of the debate that are, to say the very least, troubling."Do Something Now!": While it was good to see many Senators at least pay lip service to the idea that the bill needed changes to not have massive unintended consequences for the entire internet, it was troubling the way they approached this process. Prior to the hearing, Emma Llanso wrote up a list of four important questions Senators should ask during the hearing -- and none of them were asked. The key questions were fairly fundamental ones: what actual gap is there in the law and will this fix it? It was disturbing that no one seemed to discuss that at all.After all, under CDA 230 today, nothing stops federal law enforcement from going after Backpage (other than if the DOJ doesn't think Backpage broke the law). CDA 230 does not cover federal government law enforcement. Similarly, CDA 230 does not cover content "developed" by a company itself. So, if as many people claim, Backpage develops illegal content itself, it's still liable. Finally, just a few years ago, Congress passed the SAVE Act, with the exact same stated intent: to carve a hole in CDA 230 to go after Backpage by making it a federal crime to advertise sex trafficking. That law hasn't been used -- and none of the Senators seem to be asking why.Instead, there's very much the traditional politician's syllogism of "we must do something, this is something, we will do it." A few times during the hearing, Senators demanded from the two opponents to SESTA that they provide better language if they're concerned about this language. Notice the problem here: they were admitting that this language is problematic, but seemed to have no interest in understanding why or how to fix it -- instead, demanding that others give them new language, with the implicit threat that if they don't, this language will stay because this is "something."That may be all too common, but it seems like a dreadful way to make policy.The knowledge standard is a mess: This is important, and got some discussion during the hearing, but not nearly enough. The "knowledge" standard in the bill is a complete and total mess. The supporters of the bill brushed it off as no big deal, often by misstating what the bill actually says. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra focused solely on the criminal standards for knowledge, saying he needed to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that there was intent, while NCMEC's Yiota Souras insisted the knowledge standard was very narrowly tailored.Both of them are wrong -- in somewhat staggering and dangerous ways. Again, the actual text of the bill says the following:

One of the biggest reasons for soaring cable rates is the bloated and soaring cost of sports programming. Similarly, one of the biggest causes for the unprecedented rise in cord cutting (ditching cable and going with a streaming alternative) is the cost of sports programming. Surveys have shown that 56% of ESPN viewers would dump the channel just to save the $8 per month it costs each subscriber. Once streaming alternatives emerged for the sports-bloated traditional cable bundles that let them do just that, users began flooding to the exits at a historic rate.The reality is millions upon millions of customers don't give a shit about sports, yet are forced to pay $120 or more per month for cable bundles filled with content they don't watch, and didn't want. And when some cable companies initially tried to offer "skinny bundles" without ESPN or other sports networks, they were sued by ESPN for trying to give consumers what they wanted. And while that has slowly started to change with the rise of live TV streaming alternatives, for traditional cable providers something in this cycle of dysfunction needs to change. Quickly.Case in point: Axios points to Magna's latest Media Sports Report that highlights how cable companies are now paying significantly more money for sports programming than they make off advertising during the games. For example, cable operators now pay the NBA $2.6 billion annually in licensing fees, but "only" make $1.3 billion from the ads run during sports events. The associated graphic highlights how it's the same for most leagues:Of course cable companies make up for the difference by not only imposing endless cable TV rate hikes, but via the bevy of misleading fees they've long used to jack up the advertised rate of service post sale. But their ability to do this has been dramatically compromised by the mass exodus of users fleeing traditional cable. And the problem is notably worse for broadcast networks:

Last year we discussed a dispute between Roberto Escobar, brother of the infamous drug kingpin Pablo Escobar and the Medellin cartel's accountant, and Netflix over the latter's hit show Narcos. It was a strange dispute for any number of reasons, ranging from Roberto Escobar's demand for one billion dollars and the rights to alter content in future episodes to the fact that Escobar's demands didn't lay any actual claim to any intellectual property in dispute, all the way up to the fact that Narcos doesn't actually portray Roberto Escobar at all. Much like the silly dispute between Activision and Manuel Noriega over publicity rights, it was pretty much assumed that this nonsense would be done away with more quickly than a federal informant working on the inside of the cartel.Sadly, however, this still appears to be a thing, and it's getting quite strange. For starters, Escobar's legal team claims that a capitulation of sorts by the show might be in the works. It all starts as you'd expect, with the legal team for Narcos detailing via a letter how silly Escobar's claims are, as well as how plainly false the applications Escobar subsequently made for trademarks on terms and titles from the show were.

At the beginning of this week, reports emerged that Avast, owner of the popular CCleaner software, had been hacked. Initial investigations by security researchers at Cisco Talos discovered that the intruder not only compromised Avast's servers, but managed to embed both a backdoor and "a multi-stage malware payload" that rode on top of the installation of CCleaner. That infected software -- traditionally designed to help scrub PCs of cookies and other tracking software and malware -- was subsequently distributed by Avast to 700,000 customers (initially, that number was thought to be 2.27 million).And while that's all notably terrible, it appears initial reports dramatically under-stated both the scope and the damage done by the hack. Initially, news reports and statements by Avast insisted that the hackers weren't able to "do any harm" because the second, multi-stage malware payload was never effectively delivered. But subsequent reports by both Avast and Cisco Talos researchers indicate this payload was effectively delivered -- with the express goal of gaining access to the servers and networks of at least 18 technology giants, including Intel, Google, Microsoft, Akamai, Samsung, Sony, VMware, HTC, Linksys, D-Link and Cisco itself.Cisco's researchers say they obtained a copy of the hackers' command-and-control server from an unnamed source. That server contained detailed logs of the 700,000 or so computers that had "phoned home" to the hackers earlier this month. Subsequent investigation has concluded that the hackers didn't really care about most of the infected customers, and that this may have been a sophisticated state-sponsored attack specifically designed access and copy internal information and trade secrets from major tech firms:

The latest batch of Snowden docs published at The Intercept cover a lot of ground. The internal informational sheets from the Signals Intelligence Directorate include info on a host of surveillance programs that haven't been revealed by previous document dumps. Nor do they discuss the programs in full. As such, some of the information is limited.One of those published last week mentions the NSA's targeting of internet cafes in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries using a program called MASTERSHAKE. Using MASTERSHAKE, analysts were apparently able to drill down location info to which target was sitting in which chair at the cafes under surveillance.Further down the page [PDF], past this brief mention of a program discussed more fully elsewhere, there's another interesting tidbit. Apparently, the NSA can suss out electronic dead drops using harvested metadata. (h/t Electrospaces)

The UK government has apparently already asked WhatsApp to provide it with an encryption backdoor, according to Sky News. The app developers were told they needed to come up with a way to give law enforcement access to message content but WhatsApp politely declined the probably not-all-that-polite "request."That doesn't mean WhatsApp doesn't have anything it can give the government when it comes asking.

Readers of this site will be well-versed in trademark threat letters. With the sorts of trademark stories we cover here, our discussion about threat letters typically take the form of trademark holders going out of their way either to overstate their rights or to act as aggressive and threatening as possible. Or, of course, both of those things at the same time. But not every company goes full bully when sending out trademark cease and desist notices, as exemplified by Netflix this week, when it sent out a notice to a Chicago popup bar called The Upside Down, an obvious reference to Netflix's hit show Stranger Things.

The Ultimate Microsoft SQL Certification Bundle is designed to help you prepare for 7 Microsoft certification exams. The courses cover administering and querying databases, managing, configuring and deploying SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS) packages, learning maintenance strategies for database servers, exploring Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) cube design, and much more. It's a great bundle for those looking to learn more about SQL Server Databases or for those looking to brush up their skills. It's on sale for $44.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.

It's fairly stunning just how much people believe that it's easy for companies to moderate content online. Take, for example, this random dude who assumes its perfectly reasonable for Facebook, Google and Twitter to "manually review all content" on their platforms (and since Google is a search engine, I imagine this means basically all public web content that can be found via its search engine). This is, unfortunately, a complete failure of basic comprehension about the scale of these platforms and how much content flows through them.Tragically, it's not just random Rons on Twitter with this idea. Ron's tweet was in response to UK Prime Minister Theresa May saying that internet platforms must remove "extremist" content within two hours. This is after the UK's Home Office noted that they see links to "extremist content" remaining online for an average of 36 hours. Frankly, 36 hours seems incredibly low. That's pretty fast for platforms to be able to discover such content, make a thorough analysis of whether or not it truly is "extremist content" and figure out what to do about it. Various laws on takedowns usually have statements about a "reasonable" amount of time to respond -- and while there are rarely set numbers, the general rule of thumb seems to be approximately 24 hours after notice (which is pretty aggressive).But for May to now be demanding two hours is crazy. It's a recipe for widespread censorship. Already we see lots of false takedowns from these platforms as they try to take down bad content -- we write about them all the time. And when it comes to "extremist" content, things can get particularly ridiculous. A few years back, we wrote about how YouTube took down an account that was documenting atrocities in Syria. And the same thing happened just a month ago, with YouTube deleting evidence of war crimes.So, May calling for these platforms to take down extremist content in two hours confuses two important things. First, it shows a near total ignorance of the scale of content on these platforms. There is no way possible to actually monitor this stuff. Second, it shows a real ignorance about the whole concept of "extremist" content. There is no clear definition of it, and without a clear definitions wrong decisions will be made. Frequently. Especially if you're not giving the platforms any time to actually investigate. At best, you're going to end up with a system with weak AI flagging certain things, and then low-paid, poorly trained individuals in far off countries making quick decisions.And since the "penalty" for leaving content up will be severe, the incentives will all push towards taking down the content and censorship. The only pushback against this is the slight embarrassment if someone makes a stink about mistargeted takedowns.

One of the problems in the debate about the impact of unauthorized downloads on the copyright industry is the paucity of large-scale, rigorous data. That makes it easy for the industry to demand government policies that are not supported by any evidence they are needed or will work. In 2014, the European Commission tried to address that situation by putting out a tender for the following research:

For months now we've noted how somebody is intentionally filling the FCC's net neutrality comment proceeding with bot-generated bogus comments supporting the agency's plan to kill net neutrality protections. Despite these fake comments being easily identifiable, the FCC has made it abundantly clear it intends to do absolutely nothing about it. Similarly, the FCC has told me it refuses to do anything about the fact that someone is using my name to file comments like this one falsely claiming I support killing net neutrality rules (you may have noticed I don't).While nobody has identified who is polluting the FCC comment system with fake support, it should be fairly obvious who this effort benefits. By undermining the legitimacy of the public FCC comment proceeding (the one opportunity for transparent, public dialogue on this subject), it's easier for ISPs and the FCC to downplay the massive public opposition to killing popular net neutrality rules. After all, most analysis has shown that once you remove form, bot and other automated comments from the proceeding, the vast, vast majority of consumers oppose what the FCC and Trump administration are up to.Attempts to dig deeper into this mystery haven't gone well. Freelance writer Jason Prechtel filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on June 4 asking the FCC for data on the bogus comments, the API keys used, and how the FCC has worked to address the problem. But while the FCC acknowledged the FOIA request, it wound up giving Prechtel the runaround throughout the summer -- stating on June 14 that it would be extending the deadline for responding to his request from July 3 to July 18 -- before ultimately deciding to ignore his request altogether.As a result, Prechtel has filed a lawsuit against the FCC (pdf), stating the agency is breaking the law by sitting on its hands. From a Medium post written by Prechtel explaining the suit:

Several years ago, in an unfortunate display of police bending the knee to the copyright industries, Swedish law enforcement raided the offices of Undertexter, a site chiefly dedicated to fan translations for subtitles of films. While these fan translations have been handcuffed to film piracy -- mostly through the messaging efforts of film and television content producers -- the raid registered as an extreme escalation in the battle on subtitles. Most folks have a hard time understanding why such action was taken, with most fan translations only being useful due to the content makers underserving parts of the earth that speak a variety of languages. These fan translations mostly open up those markets for makers of movies and television who have otherwise chosen not to translate their work into the relevant languages.For its part, Undertexter vowed to fight the legal action, proclaiming its work non-infringing by virtue of serving up mere dialog translations.

Solvera -- a reputation management firm allegedly engaging in legal fraud to delist criticism -- is facing multiple legal problems as a result of its highly-questionable services. In late August, the Texas Attorney General filed a complaint against the company, alleging it defrauded courts by filing bogus defamation lawsuits on behalf of possibly-unaware clients, utilizing duped lawyers with bogus statements from fake defendants.This sort of behavior has been uncovered in recent months through investigations by Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen and lawprof/blogger Eugene Volokh. It has also been revealed through independent research by Pissed Consumer, an obvious target of these unsavory (and illegal) reputation management tactics.Pissed Consumer is also going against Solvera. It has sued the company in Contra Costa County, California -- Solvera's backyard -- along with a number of other firms in the reputation management business and the companies they've created to act as plaintiffs in bogus defamation lawsuits.It's pretty much identical to the lawsuit Pissed Consumer filed last year against a number of defendants, including the lawyers whose name appeared on the bogus paperwork: Mark Lapham and Owen Mascott. The previous lawsuit referenced Nevada Corporate Headquarters -- the apparent origin point of some of these bogus lawsuits -- but the latest adds Solvera as a defendant.It also places much of the alleged blame on the embattled rep management firm. From the filing [PDF]:

Over the last few years, you may have noticed that Verizon is attempting a pivot from stodgy old telco to sexy new advertising juggernaut. Part of that effort has involved refusing to upgrade its lagging DSL infrastructure in countless towns and cities as it shifts its focus toward wireless and using its AOL and Yahoo acquisitions to sling videos and advertisements at Millennials. To justify its failure to upgrade its fixed-line network during this period (something it's being sued for by cities like New York), Verizon has long proclaimed that wireless is a "good enough" replacement for fixed-line alternatives.But the company is now inadvertently highlighting just how not-ready for prime time wireless connections truly are. Verizon has been taking heat over the last few weeks for kicking thousands of customers off of its wireless network in more rural areas. Why? The company insists these customers (at last count 8,500 customers utilizing 19,000 lines across 13 states) are being kicked off the Verizon wireless network for using a "substantial" amount of data. But Verizon is refusing to tell these users what "substantial" actually means, after marketing "unlimited" data plans to these users for much of the year:

Another large batch of Snowden docs have been released by The Intercept. The new documents are part of the site's "SID (Signals Intelligence Directorate) Today" collection, a sort of interoffice newsletter featuring discussions of intelligence-gathering efforts the agency has engaged in, as well as more mundane office business.The one discussed in this Intercept post details some careless opsec by Intelligence Community (IC) employees. Like anyone in any office anywhere, IC employees use their office computers to send personal email, shop online, and fritter away the downtime with some web surfing.That's where they're running into problems. This SID Today document [PDF] deals with the IC's personal use of company computers -- namely, the "attribution" problem that develops when outside websites are accessed using IP addresses that can be traced back to the NSA and other IC components.The IC uses a system called AIRGAP to provide internet access for IC employees while supposedly still preventing outsiders from tracing IP addresses back to sensitive locations. Set up in 1998 by "one of the world's largest internet providers," the system was supposed to provide non-attributable access to the outside internet world.Unfortunately, as is detailed by the SID Today doc, the execution of AIRGAP was lacking.

Google's decision to boot a controversial social media app from its Play store has resulted in a lawsuit. And it's a very strange lawsuit -- one that attempts to turn inconsistent moderation efforts into anti-trust allegations against Google.Some background information is necessary. Some of this can be gleaned from the complaint [PDF], which was put together by Marc Randazza (of First Amendment fame), Ron Coleman (key to the Slants' Supreme Court trademark win), and Jordan Rushie (who has participated in/fought against copyright trolling efforts). Given the litigation credentials behind the filing, it's surprising there's not more to the complaint.But first, the background:Gab.ai is the plaintiff in this suit. Gab sprung to life as a Twitter alternative, built in response to a perceived crackdown on alt-right accounts. It's not as though the accusations are false. Twitter has frequently applied its moderation standards unequally, resulting in bans and shadowbans of alt-right accounts. As the lawsuit points out, Twitter removed alt-right figurehead Milo Yiannopoulos verified checkmark -- not because Milo wasn't who he said he was, but because it apparently didn't like him or his millions of followers. Six months later, Twitter banned him for good, citing his harassment of actress Leslie Jones.So, much like Voat became a Reddit for people who thought Reddit censored too much speech, Gab became Twitter for those who felt Twitter censored too much speech. Gab became a mostly-free alternative Twitter, supported by subscribers, and heavily-populated by alt-right Twitter users.Gab claims to embrace free speech. It engages in very little moderation of users' content, only culling certain content like child porn, posting of private information, threats, spam, and use of the platform to sell illegal goods. It does not police "hate speech" like Facebook, Twitter, and Google do. It's the last part that bothers Google. Or at least that's the stated reason for Google's ban of Gab from its app store.But this wasn't Gab's first app store ban. Apple blocked it twice, first citing pornographic content as the reason. (Obviously, Twitter allows pornographic posts and yet remains available in the iOS app store...) Gab added porn-blocking by default but was rejected again by Apple, with the company pointing to its rules on hate speech.Pretty much the same thing happened with Google. Google claimed Gab did not include a "sufficient level of moderation" and did not act to remove content "encouraging violence and hate against groups of people."Gab's response to Google's ban pointed out it shouldn't need to police speech that isn't actually unlawful just to stay in Google's app store graces. Roughly a month after Google's decision, Gab has sued. What should probably have been left to public shaming of Google for belatedly distancing itself from Gab's social media construct has now become a plea for federal intercession.The lawsuit runs down the history of Gab, as well as Twitter's shutdown of prominent alt-right/white supremacist accounts. The antitrust action appears to be limited to Google's partnership with Twitter. Google now has access to Twitter's "firehose" -- all public posts from all Twitter users in real time. This allows Google to return tweets in its search results.Apparently, this partnership -- combined with Google's domination of Android app services -- is evidence of Google's anticompetitive behavior. The problem with the argument is Google's unwieldy application of its app store policies doesn't appear to be Google attempting to eliminate a competitor. Gab doesn't directly compete with Google+. If anything, it's a Twitter competitor. Google's only interest in Twitter is better search results. Kicking Gab out of the app store doesn't remove its web presence, nor does it prevent Gab users from downloading the app directly from Gab itself.Much is made of the danger of sideloading apps. And it's true sideloading poses greater risks to Android users, especially if they're careless with their sources. While this behavior is somewhat discouraged by the Android system during phone setup, the option to sideload can be turned on and off as needed to allow the installation of apps not included in Google's Play store.The lawsuit makes better points about removal from the Play store having deleterious financial effects on Gab, including the loss of ad placements in Google store and targeted ad campaigns utilizing Google's tools to find new app users.Included in the filing are several reasons why Gab's removal is inconsistent with Google's own app policies. But that doesn't turn this into an anticompetitive act on Google's part. The end result may be indistinguishable but there are plenty of innocuous reasons for the app's removal that have nothing to do with Google killing Gab to protect its partnership with Twitter.But that's pretty much what the filing hopes the judge will find. Google's history of anticompetitive behavior is detailed in the lawsuit, as well as its forays into patent enforcement. Twitter's inconsistent application of its policies to shut down alt-right accounts is also detailed, providing evidence of nothing, considering Twitter isn't party to this lawsuit.Hidden in all of this are two paragraphs on Section 230 which misconstrue protections afforded to entities like Gab.

Express your style while maximizing your multitasking ability with the CASA 6-port hub. This versatile and aesthetically pleasing USB Type-C hub is designed to meet your every need. You can charge any device you need using two USB 3.1 Type-A ports or a USB 3.1 Type-C port. It can connect with HDMI projectors to display a 4K presentation or act as an external ethernet link, and includes an SD card reader. The 6-port hub is available in multiple colors for only $79.99.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.

You may have noticed that the shift to solar is happening whether traditional utilities like it or not, and attempting to stop solar's forward momentum is akin to believing you can thwart the Mississippi with a fork and a few copies of Mad Magazine. Said futility clearly hasn't discouraged Florida utilities, who have gone to numerous, highly-creative lengths to try and hinder or curtail solar use. When last we checked in with legacy Florida utilities, they were busy using entirely fake consumer groups to push a law that professed to help the solar industry while actually undermining it.Fortunately Florida consumers ultimately saw through this effort, though this was just one of a steady stream of similar bills aimed at stalling progress. Many Florida Power and Light customers obviously lost power in the wake of the devastation caused by Hurricane Irma, despite promises by the company that endless rate hikes would help harden the utilities' lines. But customers thinking they could use the solar panels on their roofs to help keep themselves afloat until traditional power was restored were in for a rude awakening.Thanks to the fact that Florida utility lobbyists are being allowed to quite literally write the state's energy laws, many locals discovered they weren't able to use their solar panels in the wake of the storm lest they violate state law:

Another large Snowden document dump from The Intercept uncovers many more off-brand uses of NSA surveillance tools. The pile of documents come from the NSA's "SID (Signals Intelligence Directorate) Today" files, of which there are apparently thousands of available pages. The documents released late last week show that if it happened online, the NSA was looking at it.

Free Software Foundation Europe has a new campaign -- "Public money, public code" -- which poses the following question:

A few months ago, we alerted our readers that a trademark dispute between the San Diego Comic-Con and a company producing a Salt Lake City Comic Con, originally filed in 2014, was still going on. In fact, the district court hearing the case just recently ruled on several motions from both parties, including motions for judicial notice (essentially having the court affirm basic facts about the case), motions to exclude expert testimony, and motions for summary judgement. On the face of it, the news is mostly bad for the Salt Lake City convention, with nearly every ruling coming down against it. However, digging into the ruling itself, there is a light at the end of the tunnel.As for the bad news, it seems to be mostly of the Salt Lake City Comic Con's own making, or the making of its legal team. The court points out that the defendant's lawyers motion and defenses are all over the place, in some places arguing for generecide -- or that "comic con" has become a generic term -- while in others arguing that "comic con" is generic ab initio -- or that the term was generic even prior to San Diego Comic-Con's initial use of it. It's an important distinction for a couple of reasons, including that the defenses SLC has stated it will make revolve around genericide, yet much of the evidence in the motions in this ruling revolve around generic ab initio and, more importantly, the 9th Circuit doesn't have any precedent or acknowledgement of generic ad initio as a matter of law, and this district court is governed by 9th Circuit precedent.

Around a year ago, HP was roundly and justly ridiculed for launching a DRM time bomb -- or a software update designed specifically to disable competing printer cartridges starting on a set date. As a result, HP Printer owners using third-party cartridges woke up one day to warnings about a "cartridge problem," or errors stating, "one or more cartridges are missing or damaged," or that the user was using an "older generation cartridge." The EFF was quick to lambast the practice in a letter to HP, noting that HP abused its security update mechanism to trick its customers and actively erode product functionality.HP only made matters worse for itself by claiming at the time that it was only looking out for the safety and security of its customers, while patting itself on the back for being pro-active about addressing a problem it caused -- only after a massive consumer backlash occurred.Fast forward almost exactly one year, and it looks like HP hasn't learned much from the Keurig-esque experience. The company this week released a new software update for the company's OfficeJet 6800 series, OfficeJet Pro 6200 series, OfficeJet Pro X 450 series, and OfficeJet Pro 8600 series printers. One of the major "benefits" of the update? Printer cartridges from competing manufacturers no longer work. Again:

On Friday, we posted video from last week's World Hosting Days, in which Mike Masnick sat down for a talk with Mike Godwin — a.k.a. the originator of "the Streisand Effect" meeting the creator of "Godwin's Law". As promised, we've got the audio from the event for this week's podcast, so if you haven't watched the video (or you just want to revisit it) tune in for a fun discussion about the history and changing meaning of these now-famous terms.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.

So, earlier today the Senate Commerce Committee held a two and a half hour hearing about SESTA -- the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017. The panelists were evenly split, with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Yiota Souras from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children being in support of the bill, and Professor Eric Goldman and Abigail Slater from the Internet Association worrying about the impacts of SESTA (notably, both highlighted that they're not against all changes to CDA 230, they just want to be quite careful and are worried about the language in this bill). I was actually somewhat surprised that the hearing wasn't as bad as it could have been. There certainly was some grandstanding, and some insistence that because SESTA says it will go after sex trafficking, it obviously will -- but many Senators did seem willing to listen to concerns about the bill and how it's written. Much attention was paid to the sketchy "knowledge" standard in the bill, which we wrote about this morning. And that's good -- but there was a fair bit of nonsense spewed as well.Perhaps the most problematic comments were from the bill's co-author, Senator Richard Blumenthal, who has been attacking CDA 230 since his time as Connecticut's Attorney General. While you can watch the entire hearing, I created a short clip of Blumenthal's questions (which, oddly, C-SPAN won't let me embed here) so I'll transcribe it:

It's fairly stunning just how often the NY Times Opinion pages are just... wrong. Nick Kristof, one of the most well known of the NYT's columnists, has spent years, talking about stopping sex trafficking -- but with a history of being fast and loose with facts, and showing either little regard for verifying what he's saying, or a poor understanding of the consequences of what he says. I would hope that everyone reading this supports stopping illegal and coerced sex trafficking. But doing so shouldn't allow making up facts and ignoring how certain superficial actions might make the problems worse. Kristof, in particular, has been targeting Backpage.com for at least five years -- but has been caught vastly exaggerating claims about the site to the point of potentially misstating facts entirely (such as claiming Backpage existed before it actually did, and that it operated in cities where it did not). Kristof also has a history of being laughably credulous when someone comes along with a good story about sex trafficking, even when it's mostly made up. He's been accused of having a bit of a savior complex.And that's on display with his recent, extraordinarily confused piece attacking Google for not supporting SESTA -- the "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act." As we've explained in great detail, SESTA (despite its name) is unlikely to stop any sex trafficking and likely would make the problem worse. That's because the whole point of SESTA is to undermine CDA 230, the part of the law that creates incentives for tech companies to work with authorities and to help them track down sex trafficking on their sites. What the bill would do is make websites owners now both civilly and criminally liable for knowledge of any sex trafficking activity on their sites -- meaning that any proactive efforts by them to monitor their websites may be seen as "knowledge," thus making them liable. The new incentives will be not to help out at all -- not to monitor and not to search.Meanwhile, by putting such a massive target on websites, it will inevitably be abused. We see how people abuse the DMCA to take down content all the time -- now add in the possibility of sites getting hit with criminal penalties, and you can see how quickly this "tool" will be abused to silence content online.But, never mind all of that. To Kristof, because the bill says it's against sex trafficking, and he's against sex trafficking, it must be good. And, he's quite sure that the only people against the bill are Google, and that there's ill-intent there.

The Ultimate Windows File Management Suite will help you manage, backup, and safely delete your information. O&O DiskImage 11 lets you back up an entire computer or individual files any time you want — even while the computer is being used. O&O DiskRecovery searches for files that were accidentally deleted or lost through a crash or software error. It then reconstructs and recovers the files quickly and easily. O&O AutoBackup 6 will backup your files and keep them in sync — all without you needing to get your hands dirty. O&O SafeErase permanently deletes your confidential files using recognized methods so that a recovery is never possible. Get this bundle for only $20 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.

Earlier today, I wrote up a list of the many problems with SESTA and how it will be abused. Over and over again, we've seen defenders of the bill -- almost none of whom have much, if any, experience in managing services on the internet -- insist that the bill is "narrowly targeted" and wouldn't create any problems at all for smaller internet services. However, with the way the bill is worded, that seems unlikely. As stated in the last post, by opening up sites to facing both lawsuits from state Attorneys General and civil lawsuits, SESTA puts almost any site that offers services to the public at risk. The problematic language in the bill is that this is the "standard" for liability:

We've been talking quite a bit about SESTA -- the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act -- and why it's so problematic, but with hearings today, I wanted to dig in a bit more closely with the text to explain why it's so problematic. There are a large number of problems with the bill, so let's discuss them one by one.Undermines the incentives to moderate content and to work with law enforcement:This remains the biggest issue for me: the fact that the bill is clearly counterproductive to its own stated goals. When people talk about CDA 230, they often (mistakenly) only talk about CDA 230(c)(1) -- which is the part that says sites are immune from liability. This leads many people to (again, mistakenly) claim that the only thing CDA 230 is good for is absolving platforms from doing any moderation at all. But this actually ignores the equally important part of the same section: CDA 230(c)(2) which explicitly encourages platforms to moderate "objectionable" content, by noting that good faith efforts to moderate and police that content have no impact on your protection from liability in part (1).In other words: as currently stated, CDA 230 says that you're encouraged to moderate your platform and takedown bad content, because there's no increase in legal liability if you do so. Indeed, it's difficult to find a single internet platform that does zero moderation. Most platforms do quite a bit of moderation, because otherwise their platforms would be overrun by spam. And, if they want people to actually use their platforms, nearly every site (even those like 4chan) tend to do significant moderation out of public pressure to keep certain content off. Yet, under SESTA you now face liability if you are shown to have any "knowledge" of violations of federal sex trafficking laws. But what do they mean by "knowledge"? It's not at all clear, as it just says "knowledge." Thus, now if a site, for example, discovers someone using its platform for trafficking and alerts authorities, that's evidence of "knowledge" and can be used against them both in criminal charges and in civil lawsuits.In other words, somewhat incredibly, the incentive here is for platforms to stop looking for any illegal activity on their sites, out of fear of creating knowledge which would make them liable. How does that help? Indeed, platforms will be incentivized not to do any moderation at all, and that will create a mess on many sites.The vague "knowledge" standard will be abused:This is sort of a corollary to the first point. The problematic language in the bill is this:

You'll recall that earlier this year, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast successfully lobbied the GOP and Trump administration to kill consumer broadband privacy protections that were supposed to take effect last March. While big ISPs engaged in breathless hysteria about the "draconian" nature of the rules, the restrictions were quite modest -- simply requiring ISPs be transparent about what user data gets collected and sold. They also made it more difficult for big ISPs to charge users significantly more money just to opt out of private data collection, an idea both AT&T and Comcast have already flirted with.But in quickly axing the rules, big ISPs --- and the regulators and lawmakers paid to love them -- got a bit more than they bargained for. The ham-fisted rush to kill the protections quickly resulted in more than a dozen states passing a patchwork collection of new state laws aimed at protecting broadband consumers. Among the most notable was California Assemblyman Ed Chau's AB 375 (pdf). The proposal largely mirrors the FCC's proposal, though it took an even harder stance against ISPs looking to abuse the lack of competition to effectively make privacy a paid, premium option.The law quickly received praise from the EFF, which argued that the law would be a good template for other states moving forward, lessening the chance for over-reaching, inconsistent, and poorly written state measures. But large ISPs, Facebook and Google lobbyists quickly got to work demonizing Chau's proposal too, falsely claiming it would somehow weaken user security and magically increase pop ups all over the internet. These and other claims were recently picked apart in an EFF blog post:

This is not a huge surprise, but it's still disappointing to find out that the W3C has officially approved putting DRM into HTML 5 in the form of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). Some will insist that EME is not technically DRM, but it is the standardizing of how DRM will work in HTML going forward. As we've covered for years, there was significant concern over this plan, but when it was made clear that the MPAA (a relatively new W3C member) required DRM in HTML, and Netflix backed it up strongly, the W3C made it fairly clear that there was no real debate to be had on the issue. Recognizing that DRM was unavoidable, EFF proposed a fairly straightforward covenant, that those participating agree not to use the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA (DMCA 1201) to go after security researchers, who cracked DRM in EME. The W3C already has similar covenants regarding patents, so this didn't seem like a heavy lift. Unfortunately, this proposal was more or less dismissed by the pro-DRM crowd as being an attempt to relitigate the question of DRM itself (which was not true).Earlier this year, Tim Berners-Lee, who had the final say on things, officially put his stamp of approval on EME without a covenant, leading the EFF to appeal the decision. That appeal has now failed. Unfortunately, the votes on this were kept entirely secret:So much for transparency.In Bryan Lunduke's article about this at Network World, he notes that despite the W3C saying that it had asked members if they wanted their votes to be public, with all declining, Cory Doctorow (representing EFF) says that actually EFF was slapped on the wrist for asking W3C members if they would record their votes publicly:

Protecting children from harm is a laudable goal. But, as we've noted for many years, grandstanding politicians have a fairly long history of doing a lot of really dangerous stuff by insisting it needs to be done "for the children." That doesn't mean that all "for the children" laws are bad, but they do deserve scrutiny, especially when they appear to be reactive to news events, and rushed out with little understanding or discussion. And that's a big part of our concern with SESTA -- the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act -- a "for the children" bill. With a name like that, it's difficult to oppose, because we're all in favor of stopping sex trafficking. But if you actually look at the bill with any understanding of how the internet works, you quickly realize that it will be tremendously counterproductive and would likely do a lot more to harm trafficking victims by making it much more risky for internet services to moderate their own sites, and to cooperate with law enforcement in nabbing sex traffickers using their platforms.There's a hearing tomorrow morning about SESTA, and the bill is quickly moving forward, with very few Senators expressing any real concern about the impact it might have on free speech or the internet -- despite the fact that a ton of tech companies and free speech advocates have spoken out about their concerns. Instead, over and over again, we're hearing false claims about how it's just Google that's concerned. Last month, we'd put up a page on our Copia site about the bill with a letter to Congress signed by a few dozen tech companies. Today we're offiically announcing a standalone site, 230Matters.com, that explains why CDA 230 is so important, highlighting the many different parties concerned with the bill, from the ACLU and EFF to tech companies to think tanks and more. The site also hosts the letter that we sent to Congress with our concerns about the bill, put together with the group Engine Advocacy and signed by over 40 companies including Kickstarter, Reddit, Tucows, NVCA, Github, Automattic, Cloudflare, Rackspace, Medium and more.That's not "just Backpage" or "just Google". The letter was signed by internet companies big and small that know just how damaging SESTA will be -- not just to their ability to operate online, but to their own efforts to proactively moderate their own sites, or even to work with law enforcement to help stop trafficking online. In other words, this bill is a double whammy: (1) it will greatly harm innovation and free speech online and (2) do so in a way that is likely to make trafficking worse. Unfortunately, supporters of the bill are falsely claiming that being against this bill is the equivalent of supporting sex trafficking. That's dangerous and leaves no room for actual discussion about why the bill will be so counterproductive.The letter is still open for more signatures -- so if you represent a company that is concerned about this bill, please consider signing on.With Congress paying attention to SESTA this week, you can expect more posts from us exploring the problems with the bill and with the arguments in its favor. We already had one post earlier today debunking the attacks on EFF and CDT, and more are forthcoming...

You may have noticed lately that there's an increasing (and increasingly coordinated) effort to paint today's biggest and most successful companies as some kind of systemic social threat that needs to be reined in. As veteran tech journalist John Battelle put it, tech companies frequently are assumed these days to be Public Enemy No. 1, and those of us who defend the digital world in which we now find ourselves are presumptively marked as shills for corporate tech interests.But a deeper historical understanding of how we got to today's internet shows that the leading NGOs and nonprofit advocacy organizations that defend today's internet-freedom framework actually predate the very existence of their presumed corporate masters.To get taste a of the current policy debate surrounding Google and other internet companies, consider the movie I Am Jane Doe, which documents the legal battle waged by anti-sex-trafficking groups and trafficking victims against the website Backpage.com. The film, which premiered this February with a congressional screening, also tracks a two-year investigation and report by the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations into the site's symbiotic relationship with traffickers.The documentary is powerful and powerfully effective. It has managed to accomplish what few works of art can – encourage Congress to fast-track legislative action. Last month, a powerful group of 27 bipartisan cosponsors introduced new legislation targeting Backpage.com titled the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, or SESTA. While there were rumors the bill would be attached to the upcoming "must-pass" defense authorization bill, it now appears it will move through regular order, with a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee scheduled for Sept. 19.Some documentarians strive to be perceived asneutral chroniclers, but I Am Jane Doe producer Mary Mazzio has lobbied aggressivelyon behalf of the bill. The film's official website and social media accountshave also jumped into the fight, publishing legislativeguides and lobbying materials, as well as rallying acoalition to go after the bill's opponents.Here's our problem with Mazzio's blunderbuss approach: since the bill's introduction, internet-freedom advocates (including a letter by R Street, the Copia Institute and others) as well as legal academics have raised alarm bells. In particular, the bill's overly broad provisions would gut key protections for free expression and digital commerce by amending a foundational law undergirding today's internet – Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.If you love even parts of what the internet has to offer, you likely owe thanks in some way or other to Section 230. We don't view any statute as immune from any criticism, but we do insist that any effort to chisel away at a law expressly crafted to protect and promote freedom of speech on the internet deserves a great deal of scrutiny. The problems posed by the proposed legislation are both expansive and complex, and internet freedom groups have the expertise to highlight these complexities.Mazzio isn't one for complexity, as her film makes it a point to smear internet-freedom groups rather than address their arguments on the merits. The producers do interview experts from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), but ultimately paint those experts as shills for big tech companies. They allege advocates of online free speech and expression callously oppose commonsense efforts to curb trafficking simply because they would hurt big tech's bottom line.This kind of rhetoric has continued throughout the advocacy campaign to pass SESTA.

The Martian mVoice Smartwatches present a precision appearance through an uncluttered 24-hour analog clock display, and is packed with smartwatch features. You can get push notifications from hundreds of your favorite apps, and place or accept a call. The watch can integrate with Amazon Alexa allowing you to control your home's devices from your wrist. There are 6 different watches to choose from and all are on sale for only $130 in the Techdirt Deals Store.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.

If all goes well, we might have the US border join the rest of the United States in recognizing citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court's Riley decision made it clear law enforcement needed to obtain warrants before searching people's cellphones. Unfortunately, the so-called "border exception" -- upheld by at least one court -- says securing the border is more important than recognizing people's rights.The EFF and ACLU -- along with the 10 US citizens and one permanent resident they're representing -- are suing DHS, CBP, and ICE for violating the Constitutional rights of the plaintiffs by warrantlessly searching their devices. Not only did the government search their devices, but in some cases, held onto the devices for weeks. One plaintiff's phone is still in the hands of the CBP, having originally been taken from the plaintiff in January.The filing [PDF] provides details of the plaintiffs' interaction with government agents at US borders. All plaintiffs were taken to secondary screening where they were coerced into handing over their devices and, in some cases, passwords. This is all being done with zero articulable suspicion or probable cause. Agents imply devices will be returned sooner if those they've detained are compliant. But even complicity can result in citizens having to leave their devices in the hands of the government.