Techdirt

Smartphones have been one of the most world-changing innovations of our time — and for a long time, smartphone design was a hotbed of innovation. But more recently that innovation seems to have stagnated. So where does this technology go next? That's the subject of this weeks episode, in which we try to figure out whether smartphone innovation is still happening.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.

It's no secret that there are a bunch of folks in the Senate who really, really, really dislike the fact that the site Backpage has been abused by some users for sex trafficking. They should be happy that through a lot of public pressure, Backpage has shut down its adult section.For reasons that are not entirely clear, many people seem to blame Section 230 of the CDA for the fact that sex traffickers have used Backpage.com. This is... weird and doesn't make much sense. After all, Section 230 doesn't apply to federal crimes around sex trafficking. So, if the platform itself is violating the law, the DOJ has the power and every right to go after the platform. Furthermore, as we've noted time and time again, these platforms have actually been tremendously helpful in allowing law enforcement to track down those responsible for trafficking and to help victims of trafficking. Still, because of this misplaced focus on CDA 230, earlier today, a bunch of Senators released a counterproductive and dangerous bill that would blow a massive hole through CDA 230, and it's clearly written 100% to focus on Backpage. Nearly all of the quotes about the bill from the Senate co-sponsors mention Backpage.And that's... odd. Because just two years ago, Congress passed, and President Obama signed, another anti-trafficking bill that had provisions that were similarly designed solely to target Backpage. So why aren't those actually being used if Backpage is such a problem (and, again, the DOJ could easily go after Backpage for violating trafficking laws if it actually did so). It's especially odd that none of the supporters of this new bill even mention the fact that they passed a similar "kill Backpage" bill just two years ago and no one's tried to use it.And even worse, the approach in this new bill, dubbed the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, will be massively counterproductive to the goal of stopping sex trafficking. While the bill's supporters claim it is "narrowly focused," it is anything but that. It opens up a giant hole in CDA 230 -- the law that protects internet platforms from being blamed for the actions of their users -- saying that if federal sex trafficking violations (which, again, are already NOT covered by CDA 230) are involved, state Attorneys General and private individuals can now sue platforms -- especially if the platforms have "knowledge" of how they're being used for trafficking.Law professor Eric Goldman has a thorough description of the problems with the bill.

Last week, I (like probably many of you) saw the news that the famous (or infamous, depending on your viewpoint) fact checking website "Snopes" was crowdfunding on GoFundMe, saying that it needed to raise money as soon as possible, because "a vendor" refused to recognize that Snopes had terminated a contract and was holding the site "hostage."

The Premium PC Power Bundle contains 10 apps designed to make your Windows systems safer and more productive. The $29 bundle includes NetSpot Pro to help help you optimize your WiFi connections, Glasswire Pro to let you monitor your network and protect up to 3 computers with its firewall, 7 Speed Reading EX 2017 to up your reading efficiency and comprehension, PaintShop Pro X9 to make it easier than ever to complete creative photo and design projects, and much more.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Techdirt has been covering the story of Sci-Hub, which provides unrestricted access to a massive (unauthorized) database of academic papers, for a while now. As several posts have emphasized, the decision by the publishing giant Elsevier to pursue the site through the courts is a classic example of the Streisand Effect: it has simply served to spread the word about a hitherto obscure service. There's a new paper exploring this and other aspects of Sci-Hub, currently available as a PeerJ preprint. Here's what one of the authors says in a related Science interview about the impact of lawsuits on Sci-Hub:

UPDATE: Not until after the post went live did I finally hear back from Chaturbate about its bogus DMCA notices. Chaturbate's support claims these notices were performed by an imposter. I'm not ready to take the company at its word, as there are hundreds of DMCA notices to be dug through before anything can be determined further. It does appear some DMCA notices were more finely-targeted (claims sites "stilled content" [?!]) but all of these were issued in a five-day span, suggested a concerted effort by Chaturbate that appears to have misfired, at least initially.Portmanteau words are great. It's a highly-efficient way to forcibly join two (possibly unrelated) actions and create a brand new activity. Add to this a decently-fast internet connection and you have Chaturbate, a service that puts people together to do things to themselves separately.Granted, much of this could be done with other services, including the portmaneau'ed ChatRoulette, but targeted markets are more profitable than floating from chat to chat hoping to escape the "turbate" part of this internet concoction. Chatting is fun. So is masturbation. But not many people enjoy being masturbated at, especially when they're looking to just chat a little. Chaturbate, however, gives people what they want, in as many varieties as they want it.Good for Chaturbate and its users. Like any other webcam service, Chaturbate wants to keep people from finding the same stuff for free. So it performs its own free, in-house DMCA takedown service. Good news for its clientele, especially those providing the entertainment… or it would be, if it were done with any competence.Unfortunately for Chaturbate and its users, this is being done as badly as inhumanly possible. Over the course of two days in July, Chaturbate carpet-bombed Google with DMCA notices -- many of them likely duplicates. Almost nothing has been removed. It may be there are a few illicit streams/recordings somewhere in the stack of webpages, but it's going to take some time to sort them out because of all the garbage added by Chaturbate's takedown efforts.In addition to targeting its own site in its takedown requests...Chaturbate has also targeted:

Portmanteau words are great. It's a highly-efficient way to forcibly join two (possibly unrelated) actions and create a brand new activity. Add to this a decently-fast internet connection and you have Chaturbate, a service that puts people together to do things to themselves separately.Granted, much of this could be done with other services, including the portmaneau'ed ChatRoulette, but targeted markets are more profitable than floating from chat to chat hoping to escape the "turbate" part of this internet concoction. Chatting is fun. So is masturbation. But not many people enjoy being masturbated at, especially when they're looking to just chat a little. Chaturbate, however, gives people what they want, in as many varieties as they want it.Good for Chaturbate and its users. Like any other webcam service, Chaturbate wants to keep people from finding the same stuff for free. So it performs its own free, in-house DMCA takedown service. Good news for its clientele, especially those providing the entertainment… or it would be, if it were done with any competence.Unfortunately for Chaturbate and its users, this is being done as badly as inhumanly possible. Over the course of two days in July, Chaturbate carpet-bombed Google with DMCA notices -- many of them likely duplicates. Almost nothing has been removed. It may be there are a few illicit streams/recordings somewhere in the stack of webpages, but it's going to take some time to sort them out because of all the garbage added by Chaturbate's takedown efforts.In addition to targeting its own site in its takedown requests...Chaturbate has also targeted:

So we've talked for years about how overlong terms of service contracts that nobody reads are used to eliminate your rights in numerous ways. That includes stripping away your legal rights and forcing you to engage in binding arbitration, which results in the company-employed arbitrator ruling in their employer's favor a vast majority of the time. In fact Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, recently cited these overlong and misleading contracts as one of the biggest threats to the health and utility of his invention.Every so often we'll see a company conduct an experiment to demonstrate the stupidity of long-normalized behavior, like the company in 2010 that got users to sign off on selling their soul. Taking a cue out of that playbook, UK WiFi hotspot operator Purple recently did something similar, burying a provision in their terms of service requiring that customers engage in 1,000 hours of menial labor if they wanted to access the internet.Purple currently provides hotspot connectivity to Legoland, Outback Steakhouse and Pizza Express, and stated in a blog post that they provided patrons with a wonderful array of possibilities in terms of how to pay down their community service time, including: Cleansing local parks of animal waste Providing hugs to stray cats and dogs Manually relieving sewer blockages Cleaning portable lavatories at local festivals and events Painting snail shells to brighten up their existence Scraping chewing gum off the streetsThe company says it ultimately found that over 22,000 users blindly signed off on the requirement during the two week period during which the experiment was conducted. It should go without saying that they won't be enforcing the rules, but wanted to simply get a little free press while highlighting the stupidity of overlong TOS. Impressively, they note that during the two-week trial, just one user actually noticed what he was signing off on:

We recently discussed how Major League Baseball had asked for an extension with the USPTO so its legal staff could decide whether it wanted to oppose a trademark application for eSport organization Overwatch League's new logo. The request was more than a little head-scratching for a variety of reasons. As we pointed out in that post, the two logos aren't particularly similar and certainty don't appear to give ground to any confusion among the public about any affiliation between the leagues.Different color schemes, different fonts, and clearly identified names of the league on each logo didn't give MLB much ammo for a trademark opposition. Add to that the plethora of sporting league logos done in a similar style that actually do use the same color scheme, yet don't face aggression from MLB, and it raises the eyebrow as to why MLB's lawyers wanted to even go so far as to ask for an extension over any of this.Well, it seems that either MLB's lawyers are Techdirt readers or they simply came to their senses (I choose to believe it's the former), because the time to file an opposition has come and gone with no action taken on MLB's side.

The last few years have seen a boon in consumer and small-business-friendly policies coming out of Canada's telecom regulator the CRTC. Under outgoing agency head Jean-Pierre Blais, the agency bumped the definition of broadband to 50 Mbps, required that phones must now be sold unlocked in Canada, shored up the country's net neutrality rules, and took aim at the anti-competitive use of usage caps and overage fees. Not everything Blais did was a success (like their attempt to force cable TV providers to offer cheaper plans, then failing to follow through) but by and large the CRTC has been an improvement over years past.But Canadian consumers are worried that's coming to an end with Justin Trudeau's decision to appoint telecom executive and lobbyist Ian Scott to head the agency. Scott has spent years working at and lobbying for several Canadian telecom incumbents, his velocity through the regulatory revolving door at several times leading to complaints over conflicts of interest.Scott's appointment have many Canadian consumer advocates worried that after several years of aiding consumers, Canada is eager to follow their neighbors to the south down the regulatory capture rabbit hole:

The Supreme Court has yet to examine the issue of historical cell site location info(CSLI). It finally picked a case from the Sixth Circuit to review, years after the warrantless gathering of historic CSLI became a thing. So far, there's not a single court in the nation that's found historic CSLI to have an expectation of privacy. The Fourth Circuit Appeals Court briefly did, before reversing its own decision. The original decision had problems with the amount of CSLI gathered: 221 days worth. Upon further review, the court sided with the government and its Third Party Doctrine arguments.This federal court decision from the Southern District of New York name-checks the pending SCOTUS review, but falls in line with every other decision in the federal court system. The defendant sought to suppress historic CSLI obtained without a warrant, arguing the collection of location data by cell companies is not the same thing as "voluntarily" turning these records over to a third party. (via Courthouse News Service)From the decision [PDF]:

The question is still unsettled here in the United States: is refusing to turn over your password protected by the Fifth Amendment? The argument hasn't found many judicial supporters but at least there's a Constitutional basis for claiming the relinquishment of passwords is possibly self-incriminating. Over in Australia, the rights aren't so clearly defined. But the picture is getting clearer, thanks to legislators seeking to make it a criminal offense to withhold passwords. (h/t Asher Wolf)

When asset forfeiture is pitched to Americans, law enforcement agencies roll up to press conferences with shiny, new seized vehicles and large stacks of cash. This public preening is meant to assure everyone that forfeiture kills drug cartels and cripples large criminal organizations. But the day-to-day reality is much different. Pathetic, even. Here's Eric Boehm of Reason on Utah's yearly forfeiture roundup:

The $29 Interactive Web Developer Bootcamp covers full-stack web development using modern tools like HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and Ruby on Rails. This training is as robust as it gets, combining HD training videos with a curated list of online resources for perfecting your craft and becoming an advanced developer. You'll start by building a blogging platform, learn common syntax for web languages like HTML5 and CSS3, and ultimately build a complete end-to-end project using everything you've learned.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.

A federal judge has ruled public officials can't ban the public from interacting with official social media accounts, something that obviously has implications for the recently-filed suit by Twitter users blocked by the president's account.Brian Davison filed a pro se lawsuit against Phyllis Randall, the Chair of the Loudon County Board of Supervisors, after she banned him from her Facebook page and deleted his critical comments. The decision wasn't an easy one for the court, as Venkat Balasubramani points out. The court had to take into account several determining factors before arriving at its First Amendment violation conclusion.

We've noted for some time that Russia has been engaged in a slow but steady assault on privacy tools like VPNs. As with most countries that have an adversarial relationship with the truth, the entire effort has been couched as necessary to protect national security and cultural morality, though the real agenda is to help prop up the country's domestic surveillance efforts and Putin's ham-fisted internet filters. This push accelerated with a new surveillance bill last year that not only mandated new encryption backdoors, but also imposed harsh new data-retention requirements on ISPs and VPN providers.But that was only the opening salvo in Russia's assault on citizen privacy. The country has since accelerated efforts to ban anonymity on messaging apps, while simultaneously pushing new legislation that would make operating as a VPN provider in Russia all but impossible. The legislation, which would require that ISPs ban the use of VPNs sailed through the Russian Parliament:

The ACLU is headed to the Second Circuit Appeals Court, hoping to force the DOJ to be more... realistic about the government's drone strike operations in Pakistan. It's an FOIA lawsuit, with the ACLU seeking drone documents and being told -- in so many black bars -- that this publicly-acknowledged program is too secret to disclose.The ACLU goes into this battle fighting blind:

This week, we wrote about the Albuquerque prosecutor who was extremely unhappy about respecting the accused's right to a speedy trial, leading one anonymous commenter (going by Yes, I know I'm commenting anonymously) to win most insightful comment of the week by cringing at the way he used a key phrase:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2012, we started out by reporting on something that happened late on the previous Friday: the feds admitted that they violated the fourth amendment with their surveillance programs. We noted how Congress had lost all perspective with its moves to prosecute journalists as if they were spies, and that it was worrying how the Senate Intelligence Committee seemed more interested in stopping whistleblowers than figuring out why they blew the whistle. Meanwhile, the ACLU lost a fight to get the courts to recognize common sense and agree that widely published leaked documents should no longer be treated as classified.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2007, the RIAA was continuing its push to get radio stations to pay up for playing music by finding people to claim that radio play makes people buy less music. Meanwhile, a disturbingly RIAA-friendly change snuck into the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, potentially cutting funding from schools that don't filter P2P traffic (but was thankfully pulled soon after). The UK government, amidst various forms of copyright insanity, at least realized that extending copyright durations on 50-year-old songs was pointless. And the EFF kicked off a now-famous legal battle when it sued Universal Music for issuing a YouTube takedown over a clip of a little kid dancing to music.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2002, we saw one of the most insane attempts to prop up Hollywood of them all: a bill that would exempt them from hacking laws in their expeditions to find pirates was introduced in Congress. Meanwhile, the huge uncertainty caused by recent changes to royalty rates was threatening the future of webcasters, leading to a bill being introduced to save them. And a silly Texas company that had turned itself into a JPEG patent troll got some serious pushback from the ISO standards body.

For months now, the NYPD has been arguing in court it can't possibly hand over records related to its forfeitures. The problem appears to be the NYPD itself. The department spent millions on new software specifically to track the disposition of seized items. But when faced with a public records suit by the Bronx Defenders, the NYPD claimed the software can't do the one thing it's supposed to do: track the disposition of seized items.The NYPD provides limited reporting on forfeitures, but the numbers produced have almost zero relation to reality. According to the NYPD, it only forfeited $12,000 in cash in 2015. According to numbers obtained by the Bronx Defenders, the NYPD's forfeiture office had nearly $69 million in cash on hand when queried in 2013 -- something that would take 5,750 years to amass at the rate cited by the NYPD. Not only that, but other documents showed NYPD property clerks were processing thousands of dollars every month, totaling $6 million in forfeiture transactions in 2013 alone. It seems unlikely the NYPD's forfeitures dropped to this impossibly-low level between 2013 and 2015.But still the NYPD insists it can't make its cradle-to-grave forfeiture-tracking system produce the stats Bronx Defenders are looking for. It needs to figure out its issues soon. The city council is calling the NYPD's bluff.

I'm generally not much for the summer season, but one sensation I do love is getting home from work on a painfully hot day, having just purchased a six-pack of beer, and cracking open a cold one in the evening. The only thing that occasionally gets in the way of that is when I lift the bottle to my mouth and then immediately realize that instead of beer, I bought salsa.Wait, that doesn't ever happen. And, yet, according to a lawsuit brought by Cigar City Brewing against Cigar City Smoked Salsa, customer confusion appears to be a chief concern.

Early last year, a federal court granted immunity to a sheriff's office that raided someone's house based on nothing more than faulty field drug tests and an officer witnessing a resident buying gardening supplies seven months earlier. This is the short version of what went down that day, via the Washington Post.

The first FBI Playpen investigation warrant challenge to reach the appellate level has been denied. Andrew Workman moved to suppress evidence obtained by the FBI's Network Investigative Technique (NIT) because warrant was deployed far outside its Eastern District of Virginia jurisdiction. Workman lives in Colorado.The Tenth Circuit Appeals Court decision [PDF] starts with a light treatise on how technology is outpacing the law and the difficulties this poses for law enforcement agencies used to obtaining identifying information with nothing more than a subpoena.

Going back to the earliest days of Techdirt, we wrote numerous times about what a jurisdictional mess the internet was for various laws and legal regimes. But, even so, decades later, it's still pretty shocking just how messy Google's dispute over global censorship with Canadian courts has become. Last month, we wrote about a positively terrible decision in the Canadian Supreme Court, which upheld an appeals court and a district court, ruling that a Canadian court could order a site to block access to content on a global basis. The lawsuit itself, brought by a company called Equustek against another company apparently selling knockoff/counterfeit equipment, pulled Google into its orbit when the court ordered Google, as a non-party in the case -- to block access worldwide to sites managed by the defendant in the lawsuit (who never showed up in court).Google pointed out (quite reasonably) that Canadian courts don't have jurisdiction over the global internet any more than a Chinese or Iranian or Russian court would have jurisdiction across the globe. Over and over again, the Canadian courts more or less ignored the issue, saying, "doesn't matter, block it, this is bad stuff." We've discussed at great length the dangers of such a decision, so we won't rehash it now -- go read the previous posts, if you want to review that argument.But here's where things get... odd. Most people assumed that this was the end of the road on this case. The Supreme Court in Canada is the top of the chain. There was no appeal. Google could (and probably will, if it hasn't already) petition the Canadian government to clarify the law on this. And it may push for clauses in trade agreements that block this sort of thing as well. Some even argued that Google might be able to make an "ISDS" claim out of this (though, that would be messy...). But, apparently, Google felt it had one more way to crack this nut: it has filed for declaratory relief in the US.In short, Google is going to a US court and saying, "this ruling in Canada is offensive to our laws and Constitution, and you should block the Canadian courts from enforcing it." This is... fascinating from a legal geek standpoint. We do have the SPEECH Act, which bars foreign judgments being enforced in the US when it would go against the First Amendment, but this is slightly different. Google is arguing that a US court should, at the very least, stop Canada from being able to enforce the blockade in the US, because that violates both the First Amendment and Section 230 of the CDA.

Enter The Samsung Galaxy S8 Giveaway for your chance to win one of the hottest phones on the market today. The S8 features an Infinity Display that boasts a complete end-to-end screen that flows seamlessly into the shell, a 12MP Dual Pixel Sensor camera, and performance that's driven by the world's first 10nm processor. Sign up or log in with your email to StackCommerce's Techdirt Deals Store and you'll be entered to win. Share this contest with friends and family and you'll earn more entries. Stack does not sell your information and it's easy to unsubscribe at any time (check out their privacy policy). The full rules are available on the sweepstake's page.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 TSA is still in the business of making sure none of your stuff is inside other stuff. Liquids. Laptops. Other things that confuse/frighten failed mall cops. After engaging in a "successful" trial program in ten airports, the TSA is expanding its theater troupe's infliction of misery to airports around the nation.

There are many ways to handle being trolled on Twitter if you're a company or a famous person. You can track down the trolls, investing hundreds of hours all for a payoff that amounts to showing up at their house physically and making them uncomfortable. You can figure out who the trolls are and call their parents, because that's apparently a thing that actually happened. Or you can be James Woods, completely the worst, and whip out the lawsuits to unmask the troll and then gloat gleefully like a three year old that stole his favorite popsicle when the guy happens to die.Now, all of those methods for dealing with internet trolls range from mildly annoying to evil (James Woods), but they are obviously not the only options. You could go the Arby's route and simply be awesome and human and have fun with the whole thing. The fast food chain recently decided to have a little fun with its most famous Twitter troll: Nihilist Arby's. Now, if you're not familiar with Nihilist Arby's, it's a Twitter account with 300k followers and daily affirmations that include such advice as:

Always lawful and subject to strict oversight. Those are the NSA's defenses any time someone leaks something about its surveillance programs or obtains documents indicating abuse of snooping powers. It gets a little old when it's document after document showing the astonishing breadth of the NSA's surveillance programs or the continual abuse and misuse of these powers.The Hill has dug through some recently-released documents and memos from the NSA which show long-term abuse of surveillance programs. The NSA recently ditched part of its Section 702 collection because it just couldn't stop hoovering up Americans' communications. This was "incidental," according to the NSA, and supposedly impossible to stop. But the incidents detailed in these documents suggest a lot of over-collection happened because no one noticed and, if anyone did, no one cared.

It's been a refreshing bit of time since we've last written about a silly trademark dispute in the beer and alcohol space, so perhaps you, the dear Techdirt reader, had thought that the complete fuster-cluck that is trademark and alcohol had somehow begun to calm the hell down. Sadly, not so much, it seems. To serve as one reminder, E & J Gallo, maker of wines and spirits and a company that has previously demonstrated its inability to tell different kinds of drinks apart, has sent a cease and desist notice to E & B Beer, a company that makes, you know, beer.

So by now you've probably noticed that the broadband industry is somewhat, well, broken. Unaccountable giant telecom incumbents, with a stranglehold on both federal and state lawmakers, work tirelessly alongside well-compensated lawmakers and covertly paid policy vessels to protect the status quo (read: limited competition, high prices, poor customer service). Often that involves quite literally writing and buying state laws that make it impossible for anybody to do much of anything about this dance of dysfunction.And when it comes to highlighting the end result of this corruption, there's no better state than West Virginia. Whereas bigger incumbents in more populated states can often hide their stranglehold over a broken market under layers upon layers of exquisitely crafted bullshit, many West Virginia lawmakers and regional incumbent Frontier Communications lack the savvy and competence to mask what they're truly up to.As a result, the state has been awash in controversy over its telecom policies for years now. Local Charleston Gazette reporter Eric Eyre has done yeoman's work chronicling West Virginia's immense broadband dysfunction, from the State's use of broadband stimulus subsidies on unused, overpowered routers and overpaid, redundant consultants, to state leaders' attempts to bury reports highlighting how a cozy relationship with Frontier has led to what can only be explained as systemic, statewide fraud on the taxpayer dime.Obviously letting Frontier dictate state telecom policy has resulted in the state being one of the least-connected states in the nation. Facing growing calls to actually do something about it, West Virginia finally recently buckled to pressure and passed House Bill 3093, recently signed into law by West Virginia Governor Jim Justice. The bill makes a number of changes to try and improve regional competition, including streamlining pole attachment reform, and encouraging local broadband community co-ops to shore up coverage in low ROI areas.We already discussed how Frontier recently fired a long-standing employee for supporting the bill. Said employee's other job was as West Virginia Senate President, an absurd conflict of interest nobody in the state appears to have given much thought to. But Frontier has subsequently decided that it makes sense to sue the state of West Virginia for the new law, taking specific aim at the segment reforming utility pole fiber attachment rules:

You will recall that earlier this year we discussed a lawsuit brought by the makers of a mobile augmented reality game entitled Texas Rope 'Em against the city of Milwaukee over an ordinance it had put in place requiring game developers to obtain a permit to function within the city. Aside from the $1,000 permit fee the ordinance put in place, the requirements to obtain the permit were both odious and laughably non-applicable to the makers of mobile games such as Texas Rope 'Em. Examples of these requirements include plans for garbage collection left by players, plans for on-site security to protect players, and estimates of "crowd sizes." For makers of augmented reality apps, none of these requirements make any sense. When the developer of the game, Candy Lab, cried foul over First Amendment concerns, Milwaukee County replied that the game maker is not entitled to First Amendment rights, arguing that the game wasn't expressive enough to warrant them.Well, in the opening round of the legal action, Candy Lab is a heavy winner. The court has enjoined the city from enforcing the law until the outcome of the trial, while also including language in the order that makes it fairly clear where the court is going to rule on the First Amendment question.

You will hopefully recall the recent story we did on Darden, parent company of the Olive Garden restaurant chain, sending a legal threat letter to the man behind allofgarden.com, a site that reviews Olive Garden dishes, because the internet is a strange, strange place. At issues, according to the threat letter, was that allofgarden.com named Olive Garden in metatags in its reviews of the dishes, which you should already know is nothing remotely resembling trademark infringement or infringement upon any other types of intellectual property, either. With that in mind, Vincent Malone replied to the threat letter in a manner both well-informed of his own rights and one which demonstrated just how funny Malone is. After refusing to comply with the requests in the letter, he demanded a reply within nine days in limerick form.His demands were not met exactly, but Darden has now responded to Malone, apologizing for the letter, promising no further action would be taken against him, blaming an IP enforcement bot for the letter, and sending him a $50 gift card. Sadly, none of this was delivered in the limerick form Malone had requested.

We've written plenty of times about the chilling effects of abusing the legal system to silence critics. Most commonly, we highlight bogus defamation cases -- as that seems to be the favored choice of those trying to shut someone up. Sometimes we've talked about abusing copyright law to silence people as well. But there are other mechanisms to use, and today we'll be highlighting a local political fight in California that resulted in someone getting a "temporary restraining order" on a critic which was clearly little more than an attempt to silence that critic from calling attention to factual information in the past.The story involves two individuals who were engaged in local politics in Santa Clarita, California. One is a guy named Sean Weber, who sought an open City Council seat earlier this year. The other is a guy named Brett Haddock, who also initially sought the same open City Council seat... and also happens to run a very amusing satirical Twitter account, @NSA_PR in which (you guessed it), he channels the satiric id of the NSA's public relations team. (Full disclosure: I've interacted with that Twitter account a bunch online, and I believe that Haddock has purchased some of our t-shirts and backed some of our crowdfunding campaigns, though I haven't gone back to check -- so feel free to read this story with all of that in mind). Neither Weber nor Haddock obtained the open seat.Either way, Haddock and Weber did not see eye to eye on things. The full nature of the dispute isn't all that important, but for one key aspect. In running for City Council, during a radio interview, Weber made two key claims that Haddock felt were misleading. The first was that he volunteered at a local homeless shelter and the second was that he had been working with a local school district on an "active shooter" response system. Haddock, in response, posted a blog post detailing why both of these points were misleading.There are lots of details in Haddock's post, but the very quick summary is that the "volunteering" at a local homeless shelter was actually 192 hours of mandatory community service as part of his probation after being arrested for "dissuading a witness by force or threat." So, yeah. He worked at a homeless shelter, but it's a bit rich to hold that upt as "volunteering."As for the "active shooter" stuff, Haddock points out that it appears that Weber, as part of his job running a "managed service provider," approached the school about selling them on some communications services that might be useful in emergencies. In an email that Haddock obtained from school district officials, it was noted that Weber "cold called" them in trying to sell them some services and the school met with him a few times, and were told that Weber would submit a proposal, which the official does not believe ever came. Whether or not you consider Weber's claims in a radio interview to have met with the school to discuss such a system or to "provide guidance" on such a system to be accurate or not is a matter of your opinion. It certainly does seem that the fact that this was as a sales cold call provides some useful additional context that Weber was less than clear on.All in all this doesn't seem like a big deal. This is Haddock using his Constitutional right of expression to add potentially valuable context to statements made by an individual seeking public office. As you might guess, however, Weber did not appreciate Haddock's blog post, or similar questions that Haddock had raised elsewhere. Haddock and Weber both appear to have participated, sometimes vehemently, in online discussions in a Facebook group, where Haddock felt that Weber was rude and threatening to other members of the group. At one point, the two engaged in a Facebook messaging conversation that appears -- at least -- to initiate with Haddock and Weber totally misunderstanding each other over the use of the common phrase "have you stopped beating your wife?", and rather than resolving the misunderstanding things escalate (as they often do in online conversations). And, boy, do they escalate, with each one promising to leave the conversation multiple times only to see it continue. A few times Weber makes insinuations about Haddock's girlfriend, while Haddock refers to Weber as a "con man." Neither is pleased with what the other is saying. Weber continues to escalate, though, and threatens to inform Haddock's employer about this... and, eventually, reacts the way lots of online bullies act when they get annoyed: with veiled threats of potential legal action (he talks about "tortious interference" and "punitive damages" but also says "not going to sue you as you don't have any assets and it's not my style.")If you've engaged in internet fights, it's not all that different than probably tons you've seen before. That all came a few weeks before Haddock's blog post described above. Immediately after that blog post, Weber filed for a restraining order. That... doesn't make much sense. All there had been was some heated online discussions and a blog post that was clearly protected speech. Yet, in the paperwork for the restraining order, Weber's lawyer said that Haddock had engaged in "a persistent pattern of online 'cyber' harassment that has been increasing in volume and a harassing course of action, including but not limited to posting of the private home address and telephone numbers." It also claims that "the tone and volume of the messages have increased to the point where Petitioner is fearful for his safety and that of his family."As you look through the details most of this is not at all true. It does appear that they had that conversation on Facebook a few weeks earlier, but after that all conversation ceased. The issue of posting "home address and telephone numbers" was apparently a missed redaction in some of the court documents that Haddock posted as evidence. A family member of Weber's asked Haddock to fix and Haddock noted that he had redacted the info and asked politely if any information that should have been redacted had been missed... and never heard back. Weber's restraining order request claims that Haddock ignored the requests which does not appear to be true.Even more ridiculous, Weber and his lawyer present a worker's comp situation that Haddock is engaged with concerning his current employer as evidence that Haddock has psychological problems. That's based on part of the worker's comp claim where Haddock's claim noted he has been having difficulty sleeping due to a back injury after his office chair broke.Finally, after Haddock and his lawyer responded, pointing all this out, rather than prove the supposed increasing cyber harassment, Weber's lawyer filed a truly bizarre response, that is the legal equivalent of "look, squirrel!" Rather than showing the supposed cyber harassment, the brief completely pivots and mostly focuses on combing through Haddock's social media feeds and taking random tweets (usually joke tweets) completely out of context to suggest that Haddock is somehow mentally unstable and therefore dangerous. When put back into context it's quite clear that nothing of the sort is true.The use of the tweets is particularly ridiculous. Some are obvious jokes. Some are devoid of context, such as this one:Beyond the fact that this is from two years ago (well before this dispute happened) and beyond the fact that it's just a general exasperated statement using a Futurama meme, Weber's lawyer ignores that YouTube link. What is it? It's a twerking stuffed dog. Haddock isn't suggesting that he's going to kill himself or do damage. He's mocking the fact that a twerking stuffed dog is the end of civilization. How that could possibly be evidence of either mental instability or "harassment" requiring a restraining order is beyond me. Over and over again, the tweets being used as evidence against Haddock are merely jokes or wry commentary on totally unrelated issues (bizarrely, a few of the tweets actually involve a wholly unrelated issue loosely involving Techdirt and someone who was very angry at one of our own stories).Here's another example, where Weber's filing takes things totally out of context. Weber's filing shows the following two tweets as supposed evidence of Haddock being "disposed to erratic (and possibly violent) behavior":

Deep Learning is a set of powerful algorithms that are the force behind self-driving cars, image searching, voice recognition, and many, many more applications. Learn more about it all with the $39 Deep Learning and Artificial Intelligence Introductory Bundle. Over four courses, you will learn about building machines that, in effect, act like neurons in a neural network as they learn while they're fed more information. The first course covers the basics of building a linear regression module in Python, and progresses into practical machine learning issues that will provide the foundations for an exploration of Deep Learning. Next, you'll learn about logistic regression for making data-driven decisions. The third course focuses on artificial neural networks, which are the architecture that make Apple's Siri recognize your voice, Tesla's self-driving cars know where to turn, Google Translate learn new languages, and so much more. Finally, you'll learn about TensorFlow and Theano and how to use these tools to build your own artificial neural networks.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.

Nearly six years after Brett Kimberlin first threatened to sue blogger/prosecutor Patrick Frey (a.k.a. "Patterico") over a factual post about Kimberlin's criminal past, the courtroom battle has finally come to an end.

There's now 11 million comments on the FCC's plan to kill net neutrality, a record for the agency and a significantly higher output than the 4 million comments the FCC received when crafting the current rules. And while many of these comments are fraudulent bot-crafted support for the FCC's plan, the limited analysis we've seen so far suggests the vast majority of those organizations, companies and individuals prefer keeping the existing rules intact. And most people generally understand that removing regulatory oversight in the absence of organic market competition doesn't end well for anybody not-named Comcast.One of the more notable recent filings (pdf) from this tidal wave of opposition comes from a collection of engineers, technologists, professors, current and former IETF and ICANN staffers, and numerous network architects and system engineers. Collectively, these experts argue that the FCC is not only making a mistake in killing net neutrality protections, it doesn't appear to understand how the internet actually works:

As the UK's porn filter move from "voluntold" to mandatory, questions are being raised (again) about the potential for overblocking. As is the case with any filtering system, things that should be allowed to go through sometimes end up caught in the netting.In addition to the opt-out porn filtering system in place at UK internet service providers, the government is also demanding any site that meets its vague definition of pornographic verify users' ages before allowing them access. This will apparently be tied to credit cards and/or mobile phones, so the government can strip porn viewers of anonymity it will be slightly more difficult for the under-18 crowd to avail themselves of over-18 web goodies. (But not really.)Because the blockaded content is so vaguely defined, education sites -- like the Whores of Yore site -- are likely to end up on the government's ID-please naughty list.

Back in the more innocent era of the early 2010s, you may recall that we discussed a series of delightful trademark disputes between clothier North Face and a couple of guys who started a business first called South Butt (later changed to Butt Face). In those series of posts, we discussed two conflicting facts: trademark lawsuits against parody operators such as this are extremely hard to win in court... except that those same lawsuits are crazy expensive to fight, so the parody operators typically just cave and settle. It's one of those corners of the law in which the very framework of the legal system virtually ensures that the proper legal conclusion is never reached. Yay.It seems that North Face's peers in the clothing industry share its disdain for these parody companies. Titleist, for instance, recently filed a trademark and dilution lawsuit against a company called I Made Bogey, suggesting that the following example of its product both will confuse the public as to its origins and will tarnish Titleist's reputation.

The National Archives obviously can't be expected to store every piece of paper generated by the federal government. But it does have an obligation to preserve copies of historically-significant documents. Unfortunately, it's allowing agencies to make these decisions. While it's true some agencies may have a better grasp on a document's significance, other agencies aren't as interested in archiving historically significant documents -- especially ones that might make them look bad.Enter the CIA, which already has a significant history of burying documents it would rather not reveal.

Another batch of FBI National Security Letters has been released, thanks to the expedited review process instituted by the USA Freedom Act. Automattic, the company behind Wordpress, has released five NSLs dating back to 2010, as the result of successful nondisclosure challenges.

So we've noted for years now how incumbent ISPs love to breathlessly insist that net neutrality protections "stifled broadband industry investment," despite the fact that publicly-available SEC filings, earnings reports, and the ISPs' own public statements on this subject have repeatedly proven this claim false. Traditionally, large ISPs like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter have employed industry-friendly economists to massage and cherry pick the data until it looks like a slowdown occurred. But every few months or so a journalist will painstakingly document how this slowdown claim is complete and total bullshit.But this being the broadband industry, and lobbyists being lobbyists, the repeated debunking of their claims never seems to matter. In large part because they know that if they repeat this claim often enough, repetition will forge reality in the minds of people who don't know any better. That's why, several times a week for years, you'll see either editorials like this one by Montana State Senator Doug Kary or claims from organizations that pretend not to take money from the telecom industry, insisting that net neutrality rained all over their investment parade.Ajit Pai once again trotted out this bogus claim during a hearing last week before the Senate Commerce Committee, a move that appeared to annoy Senator Ed Markey:

The Government Accountability Office has taken a run at the TSA's Behavioral Detection program in the past. Its findings were far from complimentary. Specially-trained "Behavior Detection Officers" (BDOs) were basically human coin flips. Deciding whether or not someone was a threat came down to a lot of subjective readings of human behavior, rather than proven principles.In response to this report, the TSA started trimming back the number of BDOs it deployed, converting about 500 of them back into regular TSA officers. But the TSA still believed there was something to its pseudoscience patchwork, so it's still sending out 2,600 BDOs to covertly stare at travelers' throats and eyes (no, really) until terrorism reveals itself.The GAO's second report focuses on the TSA's stubborn insistence that the Behavior Detection program is worth what we're paying for it. It has made claims to oversight that this program is scientifically-backed and scientifically-based. The GAO's investigation [PDF] finds almost nothing that backs these assertions.

The Complete iOS 11 & Swift Developer Course will teach you how to develop your perfect app. Apple has referred to iOS 11 as setting a new standard for iOS, and for aspiring developers that means more power and more possibilities than ever. Regardless of experience, this colossal course will teach you how to use the newest releases and program for the most innovative Apple product yet. You'll get a complete toolkit to start designing your own apps with iOS 11, Swift 4, ARKit, MLKit, MusicKit, and the new Depth Photo API. Explore XCode and Interface Builder and receive $100 of AWS credit and $200 worth of unlimited web hosting for a year. This course is on sale for only $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.

For some reason, this keeps happening and I will never understand why. For years, we have covered incidents where security researchers benignly report security flaws in the technology used by companies and governments, doing what can be characterized as a service to both the public and those entities providing the flawed tools, only to find themselves threatened, bullied, detained, or otherwise dicked with as a result. It's an incredibly frustrating trend to witness, with law enforcement groups and companies that should want to know about these flaws instead shooting the messenger in what tends to look like a fit of embarrassment.And so the trend continues, with a teenager in Hungary being arrested after pointing out a flaw in the ticketing website for the group that acts as the Budapest public transportation authority, the BKK.

So we've noted repeatedly how major ISPs aren't just pushing to have the FCC kill its existing, popular net neutrality rules. They've also been spending a lot of time and money pushing loyal politicians to support the crafting of a new net neutrality law as a replacement. Why? They know that if Congress is even capable of shrugging off its dysfunction and corruption to craft one, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter lawyers and lobbyists will be the ones writing it.On the surface, having Congress craft a new law sounds like a good idea. It finally cements rules into law, and prevents the FCC rules from being created and killed repeatedly by the whims of appointed partisans. And while I've seen a lot of journalists support this route, most of them don't quite understand just how strong of a stranglehold these corporations have over state and federal lawmakers and regulators.There's one reason ISPs support this route: they want to "put the debate to rest" with a flimsy net neutrality law that doesn't actually address any of the current net neutrality areas of contention (usage caps, interconnection, zero rating), only really outlawing things ISPs never intended to do anyway (block websites entirely). As with the FCC's flimsy 2010 rules (that were co-written by AT&T, Verizon and Google), there will be massive, tractor-trailer sized loopholes allowing them to do pretty much whatever they want, provided they at least pretend it's for the security and safety of the network.And while this ISP push for a new net neutrality law has been smoldering under the radar for a while, it's about to be amped up dramatically. House Republicans are asking the CEOs of Facebook, Google, AT&T and Comcast to attend a public hearing in September, purportedly to "help settle the debate over net neutrality once and for all." But if you look at the language used in the invite by Rep. Greg Walden, the objective becomes more clear:

There's general prosecutorial dissatisfaction with the founders' decision to implement due process rights for accused criminals. Flowing from the "limits" of the Fourth Amendment into the Fifth and Sixth, it seems the system is set up for prosecutorial failure. At least, that's the impression you get when you hear prosecutors actively arguing against enshrined rights.Albuquerque, New Mexico is in the middle of a two-year experiment in case management. Far too often, accused were allowed to languish behind bars until the state decided to begin prosecuting their cases. The right to a speedy trial doesn't seem to be so much a right as an easily-ignored guideline. People lose parts of their lives and, often, their employment for having done nothing more than be accused of committing a crime.The order [PDF] says prosecutors have 10 days to work from arrest to arraignment and the rest of the schedule is sped up for both prosecutors and defendants. Most productions of evidence (from either side) must be handled in five days and preparing for trial (including providing lists of witnesses expected to testify) is limited to 25 days.There have been few complaints from public defenders as defendants are being cut loose more frequently thanks to the state's inability to meet this order's definition of a speedy trial. All the complaints are coming from the prosecution's side, which is the side with a greater amount of resources at its disposal.

Here in North America, because 2016 just had to become the most infuriatingly stupid and polarizing year in the history of the multiverse, far too much oxygen was spent on debates over both how much racism was okay on one side and exactly what qualified as racist on the other. It's one of those frustrating contests with nobody to root for, as half of the population proclaimed that racism was dead and everyone was too stuck up about it while the other side managed to find racism everywhere, introducing into the popular lexicon terms like "privilege" that mostly make me want to put my head in a vice and get to rotating that lever.Still, this isn't a debate that should be totally ignored. After all, at its heart is the matter of free speech, not just as a legal framework but also as an ideal that the West tends to claim to hold in high regard. Strangely, one of the beacons of this debate shall now be on the subject of vanity license plates, with a heavy dash of nerd culture thrown in just to make it extra fun. For this story, we go to Winnipeg, where a Star Trek fan received the following vanity plate for his car.

So while the internet-connected age has delivered untold innovation, it has also been a total shitshow for privacy and security. The internet-of-broken-things can't seem to go a week without reports of another major privacy screw up, and even your kid's Barbie is now collecting snippets of data that can be sold to the highest bidder. And while throwing a WiFi chipset into something isn't such a bad idea, companies are so eager to boost revenues that actually securing these products -- or respecting customers' privacy -- has repeatedly been shown to be a distant afterthought.The latest hot topic of conversation on this front is iRobot, makers of robot-vacuum Roomba. iRobot CEO Colin Angle turned a few heads this week after he told Reuters that the company is considering selling all of the data the company's robot collects about the size and layout of your home, to companies like Apple and Google:

The economy is important — very important. But is that because it matters in and of itself, or because it's the engine for achieving the things we really do care about? Here at Techdirt we've always been strong advocates of the free market, but we've never been absolutists about things like regulation, and we believe it's very important to explore these issues in detail. This week on the podcast we're joined by James Allworth, co-host of the Exponent podcast and author of a recent post entitled Prioritizing Economics is Crippling the U.S. Economy, to discuss entrepreneurship, democracy, the economy and more.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.

Let's jump back in the wayback machine for a moment and discuss Untied, your primary source for customer and employee complaints about United Airlines. When we last wrote about the site in 2012, we first mentioned that Untied.com has been a thing since 1997 before detailing the lawsuit United Airlines filed in Canada after it found that Untied.com had redesigned its parody site to look more like United.com.Untied, if you are not aware, is a site that started with a single person's complaint about United Airlines customer service before morphing into an aggregator of such complaints from both customers and internal airline staff and former staff. If you want a bible to be written on what United has done wrong in the realm of customer service, you need not worry because Untied.com is that bible. Had this suit been filed in America, it would face a mountain of caselaw suggesting that so-called "sucks sites" are well within the boundaries of protected nominative fair use. It's worth mentioning that Untied doesn't actively attempt to mislead visitors to the site into thinking it's affiliated with the airline. In fact, visitors are shown a popup upon visiting that alerts them to Untied's status as a parody site. Even a cursory glance at the site's contents would confirm that status, as the entire site is dedicated to taking a metaphorical dump on United Airlines' reputation.Despite the site having existed for so long, and despite the fact that the Streisand Effect exists, United Airlines filed its lawsuit, bringing all manner of attention to Untied that it otherwise would not have had, even as the airline is and has been maligned in nearly every corner of the internet for its laughable attempts at customer service. In its filing, United Airlines insisted that Untied had infringed its trademark rights and copyright rights with the site. It requested an injunction against the site before suggesting that just to make sure the injunction was clear, maybe the court ought to just hand the site over to United Airlines to boot.