Techdirt

Last week, we noted how the FCC was inundated with a flood of pro-net neutrality comments after HBO's John Oliver ran another segment on the subject. The FCC will vote to begin dismantling the rules on May 18, so Oliver even went so far as to craft a special URL (www.gofccyourself.com) to make commenting on the FCC proceeding easier. Unsurprisingly, the surge in annoyed consumers wound up temporarily crippling the FCC's website. And when you look at some of the early analysis of the data, it's not particularly hard to see why:Now if you're a giant telecom mono/duopoly, or any of the thousands of sockpuppets they pay to misleadingly portray net neutrality as an unyielding assault on "freedom," this flood of pro-net neutrality sentiment is obviously a PR problem.As a result, net neutrality opponents quickly got to work trying to counter the "John Oliver effect" with alternative facts. One, the FCC tried to claim the FCC website didn't choke from a flood of pro-net neutrality supporters, but was the victim of a DDoS attack that just happened to occur at exactly the same time Oliver's segment was airing (a claim security researchers say isn't supported and for which the FCC has yet to offer a shred of evidence).Another, as-yet-unidentified player began using a bot and a (likely) hacked database of names to flood the agency's website with fake comments against net neutrality. One analysis of the comments filed so far found that 40% of the 1.5 million comments made so far were created by this busy little bot.But the FCC itself also began engaging in a rather obvious and ham-fisted attempt to make net neutrality supporters seem racist, unstable and unreasonable. By Wednesday, as the "net neutrality support was so massive it broke the FCC's website (again)" narrative was peaking in the press, FCC staffer Matthew Berry began linking on Twitter to news outlets claiming that net neutrality supporters were filling the FCC coffers with racist attacks:

The Copyright Society of China has just launched a new site, called the 12426 Copyright Monitoring Center, whose job is to scan the entire Chinese Internet for evidence of copyright infringement. As a post on the EFF site explains, its scope is incredibly wide:

The push for a smooth Section 702 renewal continues. The never-not-abused surveillance program has received some vocal support in recent weeks. Former FBI Director James Comey's Senate testimony began with his praise for Section 702, despite there being about a million investigation-related questions Senators were dying to hear answers to.Any opening will do for promoting the NSA's internet-based collections, even with the agency voluntarily shutting down its upstream email collection because it just couldn't stop sweeping up (and searching) domestic communications. Such is the case here, with NSA boss Admiral Mike Rogers aiming to remain the commander of oceans of internet data/communications (some of it gathered under actual oceans!) for the foreseeable future. The selling point here is the popular Jeopardy category CURRENT EVENTS.

This week, both our winning comments on the insightful side came in response to the FBI's new "study" of the so-called Ferguson Effect, in which police become afraid to do their job when faced with supposedly undue criticism and scrutiny. A better definition comes from Uriel-238 in the first place winning comment:

Five Years AgoIt was the previous week in 2012 that we learned the sad news of the death of the Beastie Boys' Adam Yauch (better known as MCA), and it was this week that the EFF called for an end to the war on sampling as a tribute to his legacy. Little did we know that, the very next day, Tuf America would sue the Beastie Boys over an unauthorized sample, which is some stunningly insensitive timing. And that wasn't the only copyright fuckup related to MCA's death — the co-creator of The Chappelle Show uploaded a previously unaired video of the Beastie Boys preforming for the show, only to have it taken down by a Viacom copyright claim.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2007, NBC was getting in on the Viacom/YouTube lawsuit with an amicus brief against the latter, while the government of Thailand was blocking the site entirely and considering its own lawsuit. Newspaper publishers, struggling to adapt to the web, were alternately scraping together data to portray their digital efforts as successful and blaming the internet for all their industry's woes. And "psychic" (read: mediocre magician) Uri Geller was abusing the DMCA and filing lawsuits in an attempt to censor a popular debunking of his little tricks by James Randi.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2002, we took a look at the absolute mess that was MusicNet, the attempt by major labels to offer a competitive digital music platform. The world was still for some reason debating whether video games are free speech, and a judge ruled that the DMCA was constitutional via an odd distinction regarding speech and software. Before mobile phones replaced the landline all but entirely, there was an earlier fear about them replacing people's second phone lines. And long, long before the west would see anything similar, Japan was adding wi-fi to 4000 McDonald's locations.One-Hundred And Seventy-One Years AgoAmerica's oldest weekly newspaper that is still in publication is the Cambridge Chronical, and it was on May 7th, 1846 that the first issue was published, just a few days after Cambridge was incorporated as a city. Of course, like most old community newspapers, its recent history of sales and mergers has left it somewhat disconnected from its roots.

Welp. What was that we were saying about the problems of the NSA creating hacking tools that leak, rather than helping patch security flaws? Oh, right. That it would make everyone less safe.And here we are. With a global ransomware rampage, referred to as "WannaCry" putting tons of people at risk, thanks to leaked NSA malware:

A few months back, I saw some news about a crowdfunding project on IndieGogo, called Titan Note. It was a little a cylindrical device that acted as a microphone, and the guys behind the project insisted that it could transcribe notes with fairly incredible levels of accuracy. The device got some press coverage -- including a quite reasonably skeptical piece at The Verge, entitled "No way this transcription gizmo is as good as it claims to be." There was a lot more skepticism around the project in the comments to the project as well. On top of that, the project's marketing pitch seemed... wrong. That is, it positioned the device as a thing that you could use to "stop taking notes" in classes and meetings in order to pay better attention and learn more. But... that's just wrong. Because the process of taking notes yourself actually helps you commit things to memory. That is, taking notes helps you pay better attention, and thus if you actually used the device the way it was advertised, you might get less out of lectures and meetings.All that said, here's a confession: I still backed it. I was already skeptical -- in part because of the mis-targeted marketing and because the video looked too good to be true, given the state of transcription products in the market, and I had read that Verge article. But, there was an early bird deal that made it pretty cheap, and I figured that even if it was just a so-so product, it could have some use, such as making it easier to transcribe videos and podcasts for posts here on Techdirt. Given the low price of the early bird, I figured maybe it was worth the risk that the product sucked... or didn't exist at all.Eventually, the product raised over $1.1 million -- as it announced in a press release. But, late last night I got an email from IndieGogo saying that the project had been shut down and all funds refunded. IndieGogo told the Verge that the project had violated its terms of service -- which could mean lots of things. If anything, I'm more relieved than anything else. I had kind of regretted backing it in the first place, given the skepticism I had over the product.But, that alone wouldn't make this much of a Techdirt story. Instead, what made this a Techdirt story is this, from the Verge:

Okay, let's be quite clear here: this is not some crazy new thing that the FCC is doing, but it's important for members of the public to understand what's happening. As lots of people have been commenting (some of which are fake) on the FCC's proposed plan to rollback net neutrality, the FCC will be temporarily be shutting down the ability to comment. This is not in response to the fake comments. Nor is it in response to the site being overwhelmed -- whether by John Oliver or [snort!] random DDoS attacks that no one else can see. Rather it's... to give the FCC a moment of peaceful reflection. No really:

While most minds will naturally recoil at the idea of a single company getting a trademark on an entire color for use in a certain marketplace, it's a thing that exists. And it exists widely enough that even smallish entities are getting in on this game. Far from the game T-Mobile likes to play in pretending it owns all uses of the color magenta in every market, it's becoming more common to see lesser known companies trademark base colors such as purple and yellow for their markets. If the idea that these basic colors can be locked up commercially in this way strikes you as laughable, your antennae are tuned correctly.But as this goes is useful in one particular way: it produces some truly hilarious content from the lawyers when it comes to enforcing these broad color trademarks. The most recent example of this would be Tough Mudder Inc., the company that collects money from people who want to run an obstacle course, which sent a threat letter to a local Rotary Club for putting on its own charity obstacle run and daring to use a color you just might recognize as common.

Apparently enough time has passed since the last episode of (attempted) copyright thuggery that someone feels it's time to take their IP wheels out for a disastrous spin.A student-focused political action group is the recipient of a bogus cease-and-desist demand from a local non-profit. BugPAC was formed from the ashes of members' respect for local politicians and school administrators, as detailed in the origin story at its website.

The world seems to be going mobile and more people are choosing to do the majority of their web browsing on smartphones and tablets. With the Mobile Cross Platform Development Bundle, you can learn how to build cross platform mobile apps efficiently. Pay what you want and you get access to a 3.5-hour course about the Ionic Framework, which is an open source library of mobile-optimized components in JavaScript, HTML, and CSS. If you beat the average price, you unlock access to 8 more courses and over 100 hours of learning. The courses cover iOS 10 and Swift 3, React Native, MeteorJS, mobile design basics, how to build in-app purchases, and more. All of these courses will help you build robust apps that work on both Android and iOS.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.

Yes, let's get this out of the way already, so you don't need to make this joke in the comments: as a social network, MySpace is considered pretty damn dead already. It lost its cool many, many years ago. And I do still love to point out this 2007 article suggesting that MySpace's dominant position in the social networking market was almost impossible to crack (that didn't age well). But that's not what this post is about. You see, MySpace, still does exist -- you can even visit it and double their traffic for the day. Even as the punchline in bad jokes, MySpace exists and (believe it or not) Time Inc. actually owns it, having bought the company, Viant, that owned it previously.This story, however, is about how, soon after Time took over MySpace, its lawyers literally tried to hide the company from a plaintiff (and the court) by having the company play dead -- even though it was very much alive. I'm not exaggerating. Time Inc. appeared to play a bunch of legal shenanigans to pretend that MySpace no longer existed, even as the company kept operating -- to the point that Viant's CEO was publicly hyping MySpace. Hell, months after Time Inc. tried to pretend MySpace was dead, Time's CEO was talking up how amazing MySpace was in the press.The background here: years ago, a guy named Stephen Aguiar was arrested and convicted for drug distribution. He's in prison, serving 25 years. Sometime after his conviction he discovered that some of the evidence against him, that was supplied by MySpace (way back when MySpace was still a big thing), quite likely violated the Stored Communications Act.Additional background: We've written about the Stored Communications Act before. It's a part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) that controls what kind of electronic information can be given up without a warrant. As we've also discussed for years, ECPA is woefully out of date for a variety of reasons including the fact that it says that all communications stored on a server for more than 180 days should be considered abandoned and no longer need a warrant to access. But communications less than 180 days do require a warrant.Back to Aguiar. In late 2013 he discovered that back in 2009, the DEA sent an administrative subpoena to MySpace, under the Stored Communications Act, asking for certain content related to his MySpace account. An administrative subpoena is not a warrant. As we've described in the past, it's basically a fishing expedition by law enforcement, in which they send an official looking document asking for information they may not actually have the rights to. MySpace, back in 2009, apparently had lawyers who fell for this and handed over basically all of Aguiar's account info, despite at least some of it being protected under the SCA and requiring an actual warrant (which would require probable cause and a judge's review).Thus, in 2014, he sued MySpace for violating the Stored Communications Act, representing himself (pro se). At this point, MySpace was owned by Viant and it hired some lawyers to defend the case. All well and good. But, within weeks of Time Inc. buying Viant, something sketchy started happening. Without telling anyone, Time claims that it changed the name of its "MySpace LLC" subsidiary to "Legacy Vision LLC." Then, it "transferred" all of MySpace's assets to Viant. Four days later, it registered a brand new company... also called MySpace LLC. While this was happening, Time/MySpace basically told no one about this. The people operating MySpace had no idea and nothing changed. Even the lawyers who were representing MySpace in the case knew nothing about it and continued to represent the company for months -- only to be told about six months later that the company they were representing stopped existing months earlier.Prior to this MySpace had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, and was denied. So the case was supposed to move forward and MySpace was supposed to file an answer to the complaint. Except... it didn't. It didn't do anything at all. The magistrate judge, Patrick Walsh, demanded that the lawyer representing MySpace, Jane Rheinheimer, show up in court leading to a hearing last December with a fairly incredible transcript. Some excerpts:

Can people use a bankruptcy proceeding to create a "right to be forgotten"? We already know that Europe has implemented a form of a right to be forgotten that it's now looking to expand. However, in the US, the First Amendment has protected us against such things -- even if some politicians don't realize it.However, it appears that something has happened, hidden behind the sealed doors of Gawker's bankruptcy that has resulted in a story about ex-Sony Pictures boss Michael Lynton disappearing from the Gawker archive:

Barack Obama promised the "most transparent administration ever," then spent years undermining his own promise. The Trump Administration has made no such promises (other than "if you don't like your Forever Wars, you can keep them...") but it's working overtime to make the faux transparency of the Obama years look like a high water mark in government accountability.Multiple federal agencies are no longer allowed to communicate directly with the public through social media accounts. Anything posted must be approved by administration staff. Open.gov is shut down and Trump has decided against following in his predecessor's footsteps, refusing to release White House visitors' logs.The release of the logs was Obama's idea. Nothing in the law compels release of this information. Trump's refusal aligns him with many former presidents, but not with the public's increasing transparency expectations. There was no exploitation of a loophole by Trump. Just a decision to restrict this administration to what the law says must be done, not what his constituency might expect.The same goes for the latest non-transparency news to come from Washington. Whatever minimal transparency gains might have been achieved in the last several years are being rolled back by the controlling party.

If any single aspect of common trademark disputes has become the thing that annoys me the most about them, it's how often the canard from trademark bullies that they have to be bullies by order of trademark law is trotted out for public consumption. You can almost set your watch to it: trademark bully does trademark bullying, public backlash ensues, trademark bully falsely explains that if it doesn't bully it loses its trademark rights, the public usually backs off. While it would be unreasonable to expect the general public to be up on the nuances of trademark law to the degree of someone who is paid to write about it, it's not unreasonable to smack down attempts by those who know better but who actively attempt to misinform that same general public.Which brings us to Bethesda. We recently discussed an indie studio called No Matter Studios, which had launched a successful Kickstarter campaign for its game Prey for the Gods, being bullied into changing that name to Praey for the Gods by Bethesda. Bethesda recently released a AAA title called simply Prey and is enforcing its laughably broad trademark rights, acquired by Bethesda from 3D Realms, on that name. Faced with a trademark dispute by a much larger company, No Matter Studios caved and made the requested changes which, as we pointed out in the original post, are so absurdly inconsequential as to beg the quesiton of how much real customer confusion was Bethesda actually concerned about in the first place. Right on time, the public backlash began, with much of it directed at Pete Hines, who is in charge of PR and marketing for Bethesda games. And, right on time again, Hines trotted out the shrugging excuse blaming the law rather than his company's actions.

If, somehow, you've avoided all the news about the Fyre Festival from the past few weeks... well... you've been missing out. There's a ton of coverage basically everywhere, but what was promoted as an upscale music festival on a private island in the Bahamas, complete with private flights, luxury lodging, and fine dining... turned out to be... nothing. Despite having lots of rich and famous folks (especially Instagram stars) promoting the festival for months, it eventually appears that promoting and hyping was about all that was done for the festival, rather than actually organizing stuff. The festival was "canceled" but not before a bunch of people made their way to a not-so-private island in the Bahamas (Great Exumas) and discovered... that there was effectively nothing there. There was no music festival. The "lodging" was emergency relief structures. The "fine dining" was slices of bread and cheese with some lettuce. It's been quite a story.As you can imagine there have been lawsuits filed. Oh so many lawsuits. The sixth of these lawsuits, filed by Kenneth and Emily Reel, is getting a bunch of attention, in part because it includes the festival's PR agency, 42West, rather than just the "startup" behind the festival, Fyre Media (it was supposed to offer some sort of app), its founder Billy McFarland, and the musician Ja Rule, who was supposedly also a creator of the festival. But, even more interesting for those of us here at Techdirt is that he latest filing also claims that Fyre Festival has been threatening social media posters with cease-and-desist letters for posting negative things about the festival. That's what puts this squarely into Techdirt/Streisand Effect territory.You can read the full filing here or below. Admittedly, the filing is... kinda weak. There seem to be many claims that are little more than cut-and-pasted from media reports (without citation or credit). For example, the social media cease-and-desist threats are not shown with much detail (and don't appear to be included as an exhibit). Here's what the lawsuit says:

Update: After doing some hunting around, we were able to dig up additional reliable source material that indicates that Sokolovsky's conviction, troubling on its own, carries a suspended sentence that will keep him out of jail. We are updating the title of the post to reflect that, but will keep the original post in full below this update. While Solokovksy is obviously pleased to not be behind bars, it remains troubling that he has been convicted, forced to delete his videos, and spent months between house arrest and a detention center throughout this ordeal.The better part of a year ago we discussed the story of atheist activist Ruslan Sokolovsky. Sokolovsky became something of the sequel story to the now infamous Pussy Riot debacle. Russian police detained Sokolovsky and put him on house arrest for the crime of playing Pokemon Go in a Russian church and uploading a mildly snarky video about it to YouTube. The Russian Orthodox Church was fully on board with his being detained, stating in true Christ-like fashion that the real crime was his not respecting the Church and being an atheist blogger.Now, these stories out of Russia are taking a back seat to some of the grander geopolitical games currently being played, but it's worth your notice that the Russian government isn't dicking around when it comes to suppressing the speech of its own citizens. As evidence of that, we can point out that Sokolovsky has received three and a half years in prison, simply for producing a video the Russian Church didn't like.

The better part of a year ago we discussed the story of atheist activist Ruslan Sokolovsky. Sokolovsky became something of the sequel story to the now infamous Pussy Riot debacle. Russian police detained Sokolovsky and put him on house arrest for the crime of playing Pokemon Go in a Russian church and uploading a mildly snarky video about it to YouTube. The Russian Orthodox Church was fully on board with his being detained, stating in true Christ-like fashion that the real crime was his not respecting the Church and being an atheist blogger.Now, these stories out of Russia are taking a back seat to some of the grander geopolitical games currently being played, but it's worth your notice that the Russian government isn't dicking around when it comes to suppressing the speech of its own citizens. As evidence of that, we can point out that Sokolovsky has received three and a half years in prison, simply for producing a video the Russian Church didn't like.

The European anti-hate speech machinery rolls on, with each successive demand for social media platform responsiveness being greeted by Facebook's "Thank you, may I have another?" Mark Zuckerberg informed the German chancellor in 2015 that Facebook's often-blundering proxy censorship team was all about removing hate speech. In appreciation for Facebook's efforts, German officials spent the following year trying to find a way to hold the company criminally liable for third party postings determined to be hate speech under German law.Right next door, an Austrian court has just declared that Facebook is required to stamp out locally-defined hate speech... all over the globe.

Big data is everywhere these days. Learn how to crunch numbers and visualize data like a pro with 39+ hours of training in some of today's best data analysis tools with the Big Data Power Tools Bundle. Over the 8 courses, you will be introduced to R programming language, Hive, Scala, Apache Storm, Qlikview and more. Hands-on lessons will show you how to use linear and logistic regression in Excel, R and Python. This bundle is on sale for only $45 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.

Earlier this year, we wrote a story about a fairly nutty patent troll, Blackbird Technologies, who had sued a bunch of companies over a patent it claimed covered letting users download content to consume offline (even though the actual patent was for a CD-ROM burning system). Blackbird has been suing a ton of companies over the last few years, and one of its recent targets was CDN provider Cloudflare (note: we're a customer of Cloudflare). The lawsuit is over US Patent 6,453,335 on "providing an internet third party data channel." The patent itself seems questionable. The application of the patent to Cloudflare's technology seems questionable -- but rather than dig into all of that, instead, let's focus on Cloudflare's response to all of this. First, it's pushing back on the lawsuit (of course), but it's going much, much further than that. As detailed in a new blog post, it's directly going after the lawyers behind Blackbird.You see, it's fairly typical for patent trolling operations to be pretty secretive about how they operate. They are often formed by former patent lawyers who then try to lay low while they know they're abusing the system. In this case, Cloudflare is first calling out the patent lawyers behind Blackbird:

Both Oracle and Cisco (not coincidentally major ISP vendors) have come out in full-throated support of the FCC's plan to kill net neutrality. FCC boss Ajit Pai has been making the rounds the last few weeks in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, trying to drum up support of his attack on broadband consumer protections. Pai met with Cisco, Oracle, Facebook and Apple in a number of recent meetings, but so far only Oracle and Cisco have been willing to enthusiastically and publicly throw their corporate fealty behind Pai's extremely-unpopular policies.In its letter, Oracle (which also supported the recent dismantling of consumer broadband privacy protections) is quick to trot out the stale and debunked canard that net neutrality stifled telecom investment:

Another day, another attack on a free press. The latest: a long-time reporter, Daniel Heyman, of the Public News Service in West Virginia was arrested for asking questions of Trump administration officials. Heyman yelled some questions to Health & Human Services Director Tom Price along with White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway:

One of the most infuriating aspects of typical trademark disputes is how often the dire nature of the supposed infringement is ratcheted up in the threat rhetoric, while the eventual settlement reached seems laughably inconsequential. Bethesda, which has built a reputation for itself in terms of trademark bullying over its video game franchises, has been an example of this sort of thing in the past. When it decided that it owned the term "scrolls" generally after trademarking its Elder Scrolls franchise, it launched a dispute with developer Mojang over its game which was titled Scrolls. Much was made about the potential for customer confusion, except the eventual settlement allowed Mojang to keep the name for its game. One wonders why such a settlement would be agreed to by Bethesda were its original assertions remotely accurate.But where Mojang's settlement was at least cut and dry, such is not the case with indie studio No Matter Studios. No Matter held a successful Kickstarter campaign for its game Prey for the Gods, but ran into trouble when it tried to trademark the name for its title.

Earlier this year we wrote about the nonsensical move by the Department of Homeland Security to ban laptops and tablets in the cabin on flights from a bunch of cities in the Middle East. The rumored reason was discoveries that terrorists had learned how to make bombs out of laptops. As we noted, this made almost no sense at all when you challenged any of the assumptions. But, never let logic and reason get in the way of a bit of inane security theater. Because now Homeland Security is about to announce that it's now banning laptops in the cabins on all flights from Europe (it's unclear if this will also apply on flights from the US to Europe, but it seems likely that European airports will reciprocate).While this does answer one of the questions raised by the original ban ("why won't potential terrorists just fly out of other countries?") it still raises a host of other questions. Again: why won't this apply to flights from other countries? Or domestic flights? Or all flights? But, really, that just raises an even larger issue, which is that if you want to protect 100% of all flights 100% of the time from ever having a problem in which people might die, the answer is ground all flights and never let anyone fly anywhere ever. Problem solved. Of course, the cost of such a solution would be horrendous -- which is why we don't do it. But that's the key issue: all of these things involve tradeoffs. All too frequently, it appears that government officials -- especially those on the national security side of things -- don't care at all about the tradeoffs. They just care about blocking any possible attack no matter how unlikely or how remote the chance of such an attack might be, and without any consideration of the costs and inconveniences to everyone else. And, yes, it's reasonable to point out that a single attack would be very, very costly as well. And there's clearly a reason to protect heavily against attacks. But there's still a balance.And there must be a better solution. If laptops are a risk factor, it's difficult to see how putting them in the cargo hold -- where there's no one to stop a fire -- is a better solution. Hell, most current airline rules require passengers to store all lithium ion batteries in carry-on luggage for exactly that reason. Putting them all in the hold would seem to increase the risk of accidental explosions and fires that might cause just as much, if not more, damage. And, of course, forcing people to give up their laptops has a secondary (but very serious) problem: for anyone traveling with sensitive information (lawyers, doctors, reporters, business execs, public officials, etc.) giving up your laptop is a massive security risk.In other words, the "cost" of this solution is ridiculously high for a very large number of people, for whom flying to or from Europe has just become a massive inconvenience and tremendously problematic to justify given the personal risk. And for what? Vague and unclear threats about "possible" exploding laptops? I'm sure that no one wants to be on a flight with a laptop that will explode (whether on purpose or not), but there has to be a better way to tackle the problem than doing a blanket ban on laptops in the cabin. And, yes, perhaps this sounds like saying nerd harder back to Homeland Security, but this is a case where there clearly are more reasonable tradeoffs that can and should be explored, well short of inconveniencing everyone and creating a very different (but very serious) kind of security threat by forcing people to give up their laptops.

No-knock warrants may have served a purpose when they first became a thing. It's not as though law enforcement's fear of evidence disappearing or a violent reaction to warrant service is completely unjustified. But no-knock warrants are being deployed extremely frequently, becoming the preferred method of warrant service any time drug sales are involved. The warrant requests are supposed to be subjected to a higher standard of review, but it's devolved to the point where officers are requesting no-knock warrants simply because the residence they're searching has locking doors and working toilets.Now, cops and citizens are being killed or injured unnecessarily, simply because the SWAT team's armored personnel carrier seems like a waste of money if it's not deployed every six weeks or so. The higher standard is practically nonexistent, replaced by "upon information and belief" statements that work backwards from the desired form of warrant service.Over in Massachusetts, state police pledged to hold themselves to a higher no-knock warrant standard after a botched raid of the wrong residence led to a civil rights lawsuit. The department said it would bring its no-knock requests directly to a judge, rather than whatever court clerk happened to be on hand when the request was made.One year later, the state police appear to have made no changes at all, according to the Worcester Telegram's investigation.

This hasn't worked yet, but that's not going to keep anyone from giving it another try. Excolo Law, representing victims of the San Bernardino attacks (and others in similar lawsuits), is suing Twitter, Facebook, and Google for [sigh] "knowingly and recklessly" supporting terrorism.The lawsuit, like others before it, claims the social media platforms aren't doing enough to prevent terrorists from using them for communication, not taking down reported posts fast enough, and otherwise making the world a more dangerous place simply by offering their services.Section 230 is the bar litigants have to clear before holding social media platforms accountable for the actions of their users. This hasn't happened yet, despite the suits being lobbed in California federal courts where some dubious 230 decisions have been handed down.But try they will. Repeatedly. The lawsuit claims that if these three internet giants hadn't existed, the "most feared terrorist group in the world" would not have experienced as much growth as it has. Maybe so, but if it wasn't these three companies, it would just be other communications platforms being dragged into court -- third parties several steps removed from the underlying tragedies.The lawsuit goes so far as to allege the perpetrators wouldn't have carried out the San Bernardino shooting if Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube hadn't existed. From the lawsuit [PDF]:

As previously noted, the FCC has begun fielding comments on its plan to dismantle net neutrality protections. As of the writing of this post, nearly 556,000 users have left comments on the FCC's plan to roll back the rules, which will begin in earnest with a likely 2-1 partisan vote on May 18. The lion's share of that comment total were driven by John Oliver's recent rant on HBO. Many others are the result of what I affectionately call "outrage-o-matic" e-mail campaigns by either net neutrality activists or think tanks that let people comment without having to expend calories on original thought.Earlier in the week I was looking through the comments and noted how a large number of them all made the exact same (aggressively inaccurate) claim:

Get the $19 Linux Power User Bundle and start on your way to becoming a Linux expert. The bundle features over 22 hours of courses covering core concepts, commands and jargon essential to learning how to make Linux work for you. It also covers Linux alternatives to Windows apps and LAMP stack solutions to ensure your sites and apps run smoothly.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

We just got done noting that the FCC's commenting system crashed after comedian John Oliver's latest bit on net neutrality last weekend. Given that Oliver's first bit on net neutrality did the exact same thing, it didn't take long before the media wires were filled with stories about how a flood of outraged net neutrality supporters had crippled FCC systems. Again.But then something interesting happened. The FCC issued a statement (pdf) claiming that the agency's website didn't crash because of a flood of annoyed net neutrality supporters, but crashed due to "multiple DDoS attacks" that just happened to have been launched at the exact same time Oliver announced a specially crafted URL (GoFCCYourself.com) to make commenting on the FCC's net neutrality-killing NPRM easier:

For several years now, cable giants Comcast and Charter have had their eye on jumping into the wireless business. Both companies gobbled up a large amount of spectrum at the FCC's 2008 700 MHz auction, but a few years later got cold feet after realizing that going solo in wireless would not only be incredibly expensive, but would require something called competition (gross). So in 2011, they struck a deal with Verizon Wireless, which bought the cable sector's spectrum for $3.6 billion, in exchange for a cozy cross-promotional relationship. As an unspoken part of that relationship, Verizon Wireless has been happily driving its unwanted DSL customers to cable, where they're often then sold Verizon Wireless service.That 2011 deal also featured language allowing the cable providers to launch their own MVNO (mobile virtual network operator) that leans heavily on WiFi, but uses the Verizon network for cellular backup. So over the last few years, Charter and Comcast have been cooking up new WiFi-centric wireless services they plan to only bundle with traditional cable and broadband inside their own footprints (again, to avoid having to more seriously compete with national established carriers like their friends at Verizon).Neither service has launched yet, but this week Comcast and Charter struck a new cooperative deal that will let them use their combined leverage to secure better handset rates. A Comcast announcement states that the agreement will provide both companies with "operational efficiencies" down the road:

In what may be an attempt to bolster now ex-FBI director James Comey's oft-derided "Ferguson Effect" claims, the FBI has released a "study" that gathers facts feelings from law enforcement officers around the US and attempts to build a narrative somewhere between "life is unfair" and "there's a War on Cops." It's not a study. It's an opinion poll with the word "study" appended to it.In short, the Ferguson Effect theory is this: cops are afraid to do their jobs because they're undergoing intense scrutiny in the wake of controversial shootings. It's bullshit, but there are plenty of law enforcement officials willing to stake their reputations on assertions that portray their officers as cowards. Faced with heightened public scrutiny, officers are apparently deciding to do less work than before, supposedly to head off any misrepresentation of their tactics.The FBI's study involved interviewing officers and supervisors at agencies where an officer had been killed in the line of duty. It studied the background of the assailants, but that appears to be the end of any factual basis for claims made. What these stats show is most attacks on officers involved a person who didn't want to be arrested. A smaller percentage of attacks were motivated by a desire to hurt cops.Despite these conclusions, the FBI's study pushes forward with an officer-driven narrative that follows the War on Cops/Ferguson Effect: supposedly-increased violence towards cops (not supported by line-of-duty death statistics) and "de-policing." I supposed the FBI's "impartiality" restrained it from challenging contradictory and false assertions provided to it by officers. From the study [PDF]:

With eSports exploding into a legitimate spectator event, both for in-person viewership and televised events, it was only a matter of time before professional sports leagues got in on the act. As it has been on so many things, the NBA became the first American league to announce it was creating its own eSports league, partnering with Take-Two Interactive and its NBA2K series to power its sponsored competition. When commissioner Adam Silver announced all of this in February, however, he was speaking for the league, but not the individual teams that make up that league. Asked at the time what he expected the participation level to be from individual teams, he said he expected about half to jump into this.It turns out that projection was pretty much spot on, as 17 NBA teams ave officially agreed to participate in the league, lending their jerseys and branding to the games. Also released were some details about how the league will operate and how the games will be conducted.

So... not quite sure what to make of this yet, but according to the NY Times, just a little while ago, Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey (of course, just after our podcast came out talking about how Comey seemed to be hopeful the Trump administration would approve his encryption backdoor plans).

The current instalment of the crypto wars hit full stride with the clash between Apple and the FBI, but in truth the tension over encryption has been around for a long time — and it doesn't look like it's going away anytime soon. As our readers know, Tim Cushing has been following these developments closely, and this week he joins the podcast for a discussion about encryption, law enforcement and "going dark".Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

As you hopefully know by now, we're currently facing a major lawsuit, brought against us in Boston, that we consider to be an attack on our First Amendment right to report on matters of public concern. If you support journalism and support the First Amendment, please consider donating to our survival fund, which is helping us to continue reporting on a variety of important matters, including new battles over net neutrality and encryption, not to mention many other battles over freedom of expression.As we've noted, repeatedly, this case has been a huge distraction and has made it difficult for us to do the kind of work we've done for almost twenty years. If you wish to catch up, you can read about our initial filings in the case, including our motion to dismiss and our motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law. We also made additional filings concerning Section 230 problems with some of the claims against us. In addition, in early April we filed a reply to the opposition to our filings.On April 20th, there was a hearing in federal court on our motions. If you're interested, a reporter from Law360, Brian Amaral, was in court and covered the hearing (possible paywall):

Last week comedian and "The Late Show" host Stephen Colbert found himself in a little hot water after he made an oral sex joke about Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the tail end of his opening monologue. If you missed it, here's the relevant bit (the easily-offended can skip down the page).Obviously, the monologue wasn't exactly enjoyed by Trump supporters, who collectively backed a somewhat rudderless and unsuccessful attempt to pressure CBS into firing the comedian (whose ratings have, non-coincidentally, been soaring thanks to his Trump tirades). Colbert ultimately issued a follow up comment in which he stated he probably could have more carefully chosen his words, but quite intentionally fell well short of offering an apology to Donald and Vlad.Normally this is where the story would have ended. But last Friday afternoon The Hill ran a piece stating that the FCC had received an entirely-ambiguous number of complaints about the monologue, and was going through the process of determining whether or not Colbert's comments violated FCC broadcast TV indecency guidelines. Under current FCC rules, the agency keeps an eye out for broadcast TV content deemed "indecent" before 10PM, and attempts to police "obscene" content after that point. This is all pretty standard FCC practice, with the end result most frequently either resulting in a modest fine or no action whatsoever.When asked about Colbert's comments, FCC boss Ajit Pai made a fairly innocuous comment to a talk radio station stating that the FCC would, in essence, manage the Colbert complaints in much the same way they handle every other obscenity complaint:

It is important to have multiple backups of your important files. One option could be the $30 1TB Zoolz Dual Cloud Storage, which uses Amazon AWS infrastructure. With this lifetime of 500 GB of Instant, and 500 GB of Cold Storage, you'll have an extremely affordable place to safely store massive amounts of data. Access your Instant storage quickly and easily, or just deposit data in Cold Storage if you know you won't be needing it for awhile. The license allows you to backup data from 2 machines and to use a third device for recovery.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.

Look, let's just start with the basics: there are some bad people out there. Even if the majority of people are nice and well-meaning, there are always going to be some people who are not. And sometimes, those people are going to use the internet. Given that as a starting point, at the very least, you'd think we could deal with that calmly and rationally, and recognize that maybe we shouldn't blame the tools for the fact that some not very nice people happen to use them. Unfortunately, it appears to be asking a lot these days to expect our politicians to do this. Instead, they (and many others) rush out immediately to point the fingers of blame for the fact that these "not nice" people exist, and rather than point the finger of blame at the not nice people, they point at... the internet services they use.The latest example of this is the UK Parliament that has released a report on "hate crime" that effectively blames internet companies and suggests they should be fined because not nice people use them. Seriously. From the report:

By now it should be clear to most Techdirt readers that new FCC Boss Ajit Pai envisions a future where there's little to no oversight of giant telecom duo/monopolies like Comcast. Pai has wasted no time making that dream a reality since taking office, having killed plans for more cable box competition, undermined FCC attempts to stop prison phone monopolies from ripping off inmate families, and paved the way for killing net neutrality. He's made no mystery of his overarching goal: replacing functional FCC oversight of broadband providers with the policy equivalent of wet tissue paper.If you spend twenty seconds with Pai's voting record (like that time he voted down holding AT&T accountable for actively helping crammers rip off its own customers by making scams harder to detect on customer bills), you'll discover his positions have one consistent beneficiary (tip: it's not you).You'll also note his arguments are often comically disconnected from the actual facts. Like that time the FCC boss declared that Netflix was the real enemy of net neutrality -- simply because it operates a content delivery network. Or the time he insisted meaningful consumer protections would inspire Iran and North Korea to censor the internet. Or the countless times he's insisted net neutrality killed network investment -- despite that claim not being supported by objective data, SEC filings, quarterly earnings or ISP executive statements.And while it's one thing to actively disagree on policy, Pai has consistently engaged in countless, easily-debunked falsehoods to justify his positions. Which is ironic, since pretty much every speech Pai makes involves him promising to bring more "sound economic analysis" to FCC policy making. Take this recent speech (pdf) given to the American Enterprise Institute (which takes substantive funding from the large ISPs that benefit directly from Pai's policies):

A little less than two years ago, we covered Prison Legal News' FOIA lawsuit against the Bureau of Prisons. While we're aware litigation is seldom a swift process, PLN's ongoing lawsuit was particularly epic: twelve years after filing its initial requests for records covering a period from 1996-2003, the DC Appeals Court reversed the lower court's decision in favor of the US BOP and instructed it to order the government to hand over the requested records to PLN.Two years after that ruling -- fourteen years after PLN sued -- the government is finally settling the case. The government Taxpayers will be paying out nearly a half-million dollars for more than a decade of government stonewalling and obfuscatory litigation.From the decision [PDF]:

China has a long history of producing encyclopedias that goes back thousands of years. One of the most famous works is the fifteenth-century Yongle encyclopedia, which had over 15,000 volumes, and is still the largest paper-based general encyclopedia ever created. More recently, the main publication in this field was the Encyclopedia of China, whose first edition had 74 volumes. Later, CD-ROM and online versions were added. The third edition has just been announced, and although it is not quite on the scale of the Yongle encyclopedia, it is ambitious in its scope:

There's no shortage of existing laws protecting law enforcement officers. So, of course, there's no shortage of new legislation being introduced to further protect a well-protected subset of government employees. Using a nonexistent "War on Cops" as impetus, legislators all over the nation are submitting bills designed to make harming a cop more of a crime than harming anyone else.This isn't just happening at the state level. Last year, Colorado representative Ken Buck introduced a federal "Blue Lives Matter" law, which would have turned attacks on cops into "hate crimes." The bill is a ridiculous extension of protection to officers who aren't in any more danger than they were a decade ago, histrionic statements by various federal officials notwithstanding.Buck's bill has gone nowhere in the last year. It's been sitting in a House subcommittee since April of last year. But one bill's failure doesn't predict the future performance of similar legislation. As Reason's C.J. Ciaramella reports, a similar bill -- Florida rep Vern Buchanan's "Thin Blue Line Act" -- has cleared the House Judiciary Committee.

Taser Inc.'s quiet takeover of evidence generation and storage -- through extensive body camera offerings -- was put on public display when the company rebranded as Axon. The company was willing to give away cameras in exchange for something far more lucrative: software licensing and footage access fees in perpetuity.Axon even nailed down a choice URL: Evidence.com. This is the portal to law enforcement body camera footage stored in Axon's cloud -- the real moneymaker for Axon. The cameras are just the gateway drug.But much of what's stored at Evidence.com could be considered public records. Much of what's stored there could also be subject to discovery by defense attorneys during criminal proceedings. But no one asked defense attorneys if this arrangement worked for them. It was enough that it worked for cops.Defense attorney Rick Horowitz has a problem with contractual agreements he's being asked to sign when attempting to gain access to records regarding his client. Instead of handing out files, prosecutors are handing out URLs. To obtain the records he needs, Horowitz is forced to use Axon's portal… and sign agreements with Axon before he's allowed to access anything. (via Simple Justice)

Back in March, Mike wrote about how Eli Lilly's demand for $500 million "compensation" from Canada for rejecting two of its patents was finally thrown out. This was a long-running story, and was widely-regarded as a crucial test. Had Eli Lilly won, people suggested, it would have opened the floodgates for many such corporate sovereignty claims. Some also claimed that Eli Lilly's defeat showed what is officially known as the "investor-state dispute settlement" (ISDS) system was actually working well, and needed neither abolishing nor tweaking. But an interesting analysis by Cynthia Ho, who is a professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, suggests that things might not be so clear cut. Here are the key points she makes in a column published by Intellectual Property Watch:

Want to know how much of a threat terrorism poses to the United States? Just ask an agency whose relevance and budget depends on projecting the appearance of a constant threat. Here's John Kelly, the new head of the DHS:

The cloud is used to store massive amounts of information and data used by individuals and major corporations alike, and it needs to be kept secure, which is what you'll train to do over this comprehensive CCSK Certification Prep course. Beginning with a detailed description of cloud computing, this course expands to give you a thorough coverage of cloud security fundamentals and to prepare you to take the Cloud Security Alliance CCSK certification exam. This 9.5-hour course is available for $27.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.

Back in 2014, you might recall that John Oliver's HBO show "Last Week tonight" aired an outstanding piece on net neutrality. In it, Oliver compared then FCC boss Tom Wheeler to a dingo, explained why a neutral internet was important, and trashed much of the flimsy logic giant ISPs like Comcast use to consistently justify anti-competitive behavior. The piece was so immensely successful at explaining an incredibly complicated and relatively wonky subject, it drove a record number of annoyed consumers to the FCC commenting website -- where they demanded the FCC step up and defend the open internet.That public outcry was a major reason Wheeler decided to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act -- and pass real net neutrality rules in 2015.Fast forward to 2017. New FCC boss Ajit Pai has made it abundantly clear he plans to gut those same rules, resulting in Oliver running a second piece on net neutrality on Sunday night:In this new video, Oliver notes that he registered the gofccyourself.com domain, making it simpler for annoyed net neutrality supporters to find the relevant FCC proceeding comment section on the agency's website. And, once again, it appears that the FCC's website was crippled by the massive influx of viewers. Shortly after the program aired, the FCC website collapsed under heavy load, and continued to suffer from issues throughout Monday (though there's an alternative way to file your comments to the FCC via this link).In his piece, Oliver once again urged those that care about an open internet to step up to the plate. And given net neutrality's massive, bipartisan appeal, he suggested that "Donald Trump's internet fans" should lend a hand:

About a year and a half ago, we wrote about how the new European "General Data Protection Regulation" (GDPR) was potentially very problematic for free speech. That is, well-meaning "data protection" folks wrote up the GDPR, but it appears they did so with little thought towards what the impact might be on free speech. So, specifcally, when they include something like a right to "erasure" for certain information, you can understand, from a privacy standpoint why people may want certain data and information to be deleted from certain databases. But bring that over to the open web, rather than private databases, and you're talking about a censorship tool around a "right to be forgotten" system.To deal with this kind of potential problem, rather than doing the smart thing and fixing and clarifying the GDPR, Europe has left things up to each member country to try to sort things out on their own, and to explore how to set their own data protection rules in a manner that will obey the GDPR but also avoid stomping out free expression. Unfortunately, it's unclear that many of the states are taking that balancing act very seriously. The UK quietly put up a comments request with all answers due by this Wednesday (and, of course, by the time this all gets sorted out, who's to say if the UK will even still be in the EU... but...).Daphne Keller, who studies these things over at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society has both a larger paper and a shorter blog post discussing this, specifically in the context of serious concerns about how the Right To Be Forgotten (RTBF) under the GDPR will be implemented, and how it may stifle freedom of expression across Europe. Right now, of course, the RTBF applies to search results, but under the GDPR it may expand to much more, including things like Twitter and Facebook:

In California, the future of criminal case management is now. But the future appears to be broken, and "now" is looking much worse than the recent past. Odyssey is the state's buggy new case management software -- one that's been keeping people from being released, putting people with dismissed charges in jail, and otherwise making the criminal justice system even more horrible than usual. Tyler Technologies, the creator of the software, has called this transition "challenging." (It's also called this rolling cockup a "transition," so…)Public defenders -- already overworked when things are normal -- are the ones being tasked with sorting out a long stream of erroneous computations and attempting to make things right for the human beings on the receiving end. This is an additional workload public defenders didn't need.