Techdirt

The Boston Police Department advanced a rather novel legal theory in court recently: because criminals are known to use [common item X], [common item X] can be seized without a warrant. Insert any item into that equation and see what it gets you.The specifics of the case don't make the theory any less dubious. In this case, the item was a phone owned by a high school student. An investigation of a robbery that resulted in the death of a store clerk resulted in BPD investigators believing the student might be a suspect. From the opinion [PDF] (h/t Brad Heath):

Well, this is somewhat unexpected. Earlier this year, we noted that Congress was working on a plan to undermine the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). But apparently, the Intelligence Community, in the form of Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, is against this idea.

Earlier this year, as you recall, there were two big cases in which the DOJ and FBI sought to force Apple to make significant technological changes to iPhone software in order to allow the DOJ to brute force the passcode on some iPhones used by some criminals. Eventually, after Apple (and others) pushed back, and public opinion was turning against the FBI, the DOJ miraculously announced that it found its way into both iPhones and the cases were dropped. But the issue of forcing companies (and Apple especially) to backdoor their way into encrypted iPhones certainly has not been dropped. And it appears that the FBI may be testing the waters to see if it can try again.

Head back to school and brush up your skills with the $49 eduCBA Tech Training Bundle and gain unlimited access to over 500 courses. Learn coding, software development, CAD, design and much more. All you need is internet access to stream the courses so you can learn almost anywhere, anytime and at your own pace.

For years, we've noted how there's absolutely zero financial or technical justification for usage caps on fixed-line networks. They don't really help manage congestion, and as any incumbent ISP earnings report indicates, flat-rate broadband has proven incredibly profitable. But thanks to limited competition, caps are a great way to raise rates, hamstring streaming video competitors, and give incumbents a distinct advantage for their own services (aka zero rating). Ultimately, caps disadvantage startups and small businesses, while making broadband more expensive and confusing for everyone.

Backpage.com has been the target of lots of moralizing, grandstanding law enforcement types, who absolutely hate the fact that there's a classified site out there where some users use it for prostitution (I know that some of the comments will discuss the question of whether or not prostitution should even be a crime, but right now it is, and so this article won't focus on that other discussion). As we've noted time and time again, it's bizarre that law enforcement folks keep blaming the platforms, when those platforms are actually really useful for law enforcement to track down, arrest, prosecute and convict people actually breaking the law. Still, the grandstanding forced Craigslist to completely shut down its adult section, and most of that traffic moved over to Backpage.

Earlier this year, we wrote about Australia's refusal to allow researchers to check e-voting software being used in that country. The situation in Argentina seems to be even worse. Access Now provides the background (original in Spanish):

We talk a great deal on Techdirt about the importance of free speech alongside the importance of not damning technological tools for the way third parties choose to use them. These matters can delve into minutiae in the American and Western forms of this conversation, with discussions about Section 230 protections and the like. But in other parts of the world, the conversation is much different.Back in 2008 in Iran, for instance, the government there elected to imprison a Canadian resident of Iranian lineage, initially under a death sentence, but later commuting that sentence to mere life imprisonment. His crime? Saeed Malekpour created some open source code for sharing photos on the internet that others within Iran used for pornography.

While we'll try to keep the grave-dancing at a minimum, it wasn't difficult to see this coming. Game publisher Digital Homicide has something of a history of lashing out against any negative reviews it might receive, of which there are many. Whether it is more high profile targets like well-followed YouTube game reviewers, or merely lowly Steam customers that offered reviews of Digital Homicide games, the company has taken to simply suing everyone for all the things as its reaction. It seemed easy to recognize that this was not a winning business strategy in general, but when Steam reacted to the latest attempts at litigation by simply dropping all Digital Homicide games from its store, things clearly became dire for the company.And now the story comes to a close with a conclusion pretty much everyone saw coming: Digital Homicide has filed a motion to dismiss its lawsuit against those Steam customers, declaring the company to be financially ruined and unable to move forward with the litigation.

The Snowden Effect continues. In addition to actual oversight finally being applied to surveillance programs, the breadth and scope of some programs continues to be narrowed. Some of this narrowing has been forced on the NSA by legislation. But some of it also appears to be shame-related. It's no longer as acceptable to harvest vast amounts of data domestically, apparently.Shane Harris at The Daily Beast notes that the latest Inspector General's report [PDF] details a sharp decline in Section 215 requests since Snowden's debut leak in June 2013.

After the US/EU "safe harbor" on data protection was tossed out thanks to NSA spying being incompatible with EU rights, everyone had tried to patch things up with the so-called "Privacy Shield." As we noted at the time, as long as the NSA's mass surveillance remained in place, the Privacy Shield agreement would fail as well. This wasn't that difficult to predict.

For quite some time now the FTC has been making lots of noises about the problems of the patent system and patent trolls in particular. While the US Patent Office itself has done little to address the problem, the FTC has recognized the harm patent trolling is doing to innovation and consumers. More than five years ago, the FTC released a big report on patent trolling and the problems it causes -- suggesting that the Patent Office should start getting rid of vague patents with "indefinite" claims. That has happened a little bit, but much more because of the Supreme Court forcing the issue, rather than the USPTO listening to the FTC.

If the Drug War is US law enforcement's wildly-swinging fist, the DEA is its middle finger. Once the pointless brutality stops, the finger is extended to everyone -- especially taxpayers.Even the agency's name inadvertently belies its twisted motivations: "Drug Enforcement Administration." Without further information, the name, on its own, seems to suggest a shoring up of the drug trade, rather than an adversarial force.The DEA has a lot of skin in the drug game. Without the steady flow of drugs, it ceases to exist. It operates with a great deal of autonomy and is often excused its worst excesses because most people agree (without much thought) that drugs are bad.The DEA controls a vast network of confidential informants. Actually, to state it more accurately, the DEA oversees… Never mind. The DEA pays a great deal of money to confidential informants. Beyond handing out cash, the DEA apparently does little else to keep its informants in line.A just-released Inspector General's report [PDF] on the DEA's use of confidential informants finds the agency has no problem paying out vast sums of money to lying informants and that it maintains a small army of otherwise-employed citizens who moonlight as cash/drug-sniffing humans for the nation's top drug warriors.This year's report builds on the lowlights of last year's examination of the DEA's informant program, in which the OIG basically stated the entire program runs without sufficient oversight. Nothing has changed in the interim. This report includes even more details of excess, abuse, and stupidity.Fun fact: lying to prosecutors, judges, and the DEA itself isn't enough to prevent the agency from giving an informant even more chances to lie -- all the while being paid handsomely for making stuff up.

Donald Trump keeps insisting that he's a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, but he appears to have skipped right past the 1st Amendment. We've discussed his stated plans to "open up" libel laws and his regular threats to sue newspapers for reporting on him in ways he dislikes. Trevor Timm, of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, recently tried to count how many times Trump had threatened to sue the media since his campaign began (ignoring all the threats from before the campaign). Turns out it's difficult to count them all:

The $59 Computer Hacker Professional Certification Package will give you the material and training you need to help you prepare to pass any of five professional hacker certifications. You will learn how to breach wireless network security, how to implement an Info Risk Assessment Process and integrate enterprise business objectives with info security policies, how to handle digital evidence within legal standards, and much more. Over 60 hours of content will introduce you to what you need to know for the Certified Ethical Hacker, Computer Hacking Forensics Investigator, Certified Information Security Manager, Certified Information Systems Auditor, and Certified Information Systems Security Professional exams.

Back in 2008, then Senator Joe Lieberman went on a ridiculous pro-censorship campaign, demanding that YouTube take down any "terrorist" videos. For reasons I still don't understand, YouTube complied. As a result, watchdogs documenting Syrian atrocities had them censored from YouTube, because YouTube determined them to be in "violation" of its guidelines in publishing "shocking and offensive videos."

For decades, incumbent broadband ISPs have all but owned state legislatures, often to the point where they're quite literally allowed to write awful state law that actively harms state consumers. That's why it has proven amusing to see these same ISPs cry like petulant children at Google Fiber's disruption of the uncompetitive broadband market. AT&T, for example, has sued Louisville and Nashville for passing pole attachment reform that would speed up broadband deployment, all while claiming that doing so gives Google Fiber an unfair advantage.

Confession time: I think memes generally suck. Yes, yes, I know you love them, but when I think of memes, I tend to think of political memes on Facebook that I then have to drop Snopes.com links into the comments on, stupid copyright trolling over them, and that time Axl Rose tried to DMCA a meme so that nobody would see that he dipped into the chocolate fudge too much recently.Which is why I'm going to move to Indonesia, where the government has decided it's time to put a strict control policy on any memes it finds offensive, embarrassing or that incite fear.

Readers of this site should know by now that, as a general rule, DRM is equal parts dumb and ineffective. What in theory is a way for game publishers to stave off piracy typically instead amounts to a grand digital method for making sure legitimate customers can't play the games they buy. Now, not all DRM is created equally shitty, of course -- one of the more benign forms of DRM is Valve's Steam platform. Because games purchased on the platform check in with Steam servers for product keys and otherwise encrypts the individual files for the game each user downloads, it's a form of DRM.And because DRM is almost always annoying even at its best, there are some gamers who will only buy DRM-free games. Many Kickstarter campaigns for video games, in fact, explicitly state that backers and non-backers will have a DRM-free option for the game available, either through platforms like GOG and HumbleBundle, or directly from the developer. Duke Grabowski, Mighty Swashbuckler! was one such game, with developer Venture Moon Industries promising both a Steam release and a DRM-free release when it collected funds from backers. Then, suddenly, once the company got a publisher on board for the project, it announced that the game would only be available on Steam.

On Wednesday afternoon the NY Times released a report that appeared to clarify some of the questions around Tuesday's Reuters report about Yahoo scanning all emails. According to the NY Times, unlike the original Reuters report that talked about a "directive" (which would imply an NSA surveillance program such as the one under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act), the scanning was actually the result of a more traditional FISA Court order.

After years of civil asset forfeiture abuse, legislators are finally fighting back. Reform bills have been offered up all over the country. Unfortunately, very few of them have made it to state governors' desks intact. The DOJ itself has played an integral part in thwarting true forfeiture reform, but legislators are also battling powerful police unions and a law enforcement lobby that needs to do little more than say the words "drug dealer" to convince fence-straddlers to come down on their side.New Mexico's legislature passed one of the most stringent forfeiture reform bills in the nation, only to see it ignored by local police departments who viewed it as applicable only to state law enforcement agencies. We'll see if the same thing happens in California, where another significant reform bill has just become law. Nick Wing of the Huffington Post reports:

The "Magistrate's Revolt" was fun while it lasted. Post-Snowden, a few magistrate judges began viewing law enforcement's electronic search warrant applications with a bit more skepticism. These judges also rolled back a bit of the deference extended to the federal government, forcing the DOJ to narrow search requests or drop gag orders.The first flames of the revolt to be snuffed out occurred in a DC district court -- the same district where "In re Sealed Case" is the most common docket entry -- when Judge Richard Roberts overrode two decisions by magistrate judge John Facciola. The deference to "government knows best" was reinstated and the feds got their gag order and broad search requests approved.The same thing is happening in the center of the country. Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy reports that a Kansas district court judge has reversed magistrate judge David Waxse's denial of an email search warrant.

The Justice Department announced this morning that it had arrested Harold Martin, an NSA contractor (working for Booz Allen), for apparently copying "highly classified" material. The arrest actually happened at the end of August, but the details were only unsealed today.

After basically all the big tech companies have come out with strong and clear denials, Yahoo this morning released a silly mealy mouthed non-denial denial, written by a PR firm, that took almost 24 hours to craft:

Get a jump start on your path to an MBA with the Back to School MBA Bootcamp Bundle. Pay what you want and get two courses covering business analytics and effective team communication. If you beat the average price, you unlock 5 more courses. These courses cover project management, business writing, leadership skills, basic finance and building business models. With over 100 hours of training, you'll be well versed in the basics of business and ready to learn more.

We've noted a few times in the past our serious concerns about Hillary Clinton's hawkish and tone deaf views on cybersecurity, in which she wants the US to go on the offensive on cyberattacking, even being willing to respond to attacks with real world military responses. She seems to ignore the fact that the US has a history of being some of the most aggressive players on offense on such things (Stuxnet, anyone?), and doesn't seem to recognize how escalating such situations may not end well at all.

The EFF is publishing a series looking at the multitude of ways gatekeepers and governments can make content disappear from the web -- using everything from legislation they helped craft to applying pressure to multiple points between the content they want removed and the person who put it there.But not every tool used to remove content comes in a form that can be contested by the general public. Some of these tools are the result of private agreements with private entities -- agreements in which users have no say. The EFF calls it "Shadow Regulation."

Initially the lack of security on "smart" Internet of Things devices was kind of funny as companies rushed to make a buck and put device security on the back burner. And while hackable tea kettles and refrigerators that leak your Gmail credentials just seem kind of stupid on the surface, people are slowly realizing that at scale -- we're introducing millions of new attack vectors into homes and businesses annually. Worse, compromised devices are now being used as part of massive new DDoS attacks like the one we recently saw launched against Brian Krebs.

So, the big story yesterday was clearly the report that Yahoo had secretly agreed to scan all email accounts for a certain character string as sent to them by the NSA (or possibly the FBI). There has been lots of parsing of the Reuters report (and every little word can make a difference), but there are still lots of really big questions about what is actually going on. One big one, of course, is whether or not other tech companies received and/or complied with similar demands. So it seems worth nothing that they've basically all issued pretty direct and strenuous denials to doing anything like what Yahoo has been accused of doing.

The US Supreme Court issued law enforcement fishing licenses with the Heien decision. Vehicle stops no longer needed to be predicated on legal violations. (If they ever were...) Law enforcement officers were no longer required to know the laws they were enforcing. The Supreme Court's decision combined reasonable suspicion with an officer's "reasonable" grasp of moving violations, further deteriorating the thin Fourth Amendment insulation protecting drivers from suspicionless, warrantless searches.With the standards lowered, officers can now stop anyone for almost any reason, provided they can make the justification stated in their report sound like a reasonable approximation of what they thought the law was, or what they wanted the law to be. (The Supreme Court's Rodriguez decision still allows for bogus traffic stops. It just puts a highly-subjective time limit on the fishing expedition.)The Supreme Court's case originated in North Carolina. Oddly enough, further down the judicial food chain, a North Carolina state appeals court has just suppressed evidence based on a traffic stop with no legal basis. (h/t The Newspaper)Antwon Eldridge was pulled over because his vehicle was missing the driver's side mirror. This led to a search of his vehicle and the discovery of crack and marijuana. But the reason for the stop failed to hold up in court, even with the Heien decision in place.The opinion [PDF] details the officers' version of the events and the reason for the stop.

There must be something in the air to do with tacos these days. On the heels of our post about the silly efforts chain Taco John's is undertaking to retain sole trademark ownership of the ubiquitous "Taco Tuesdays" phrase, we have another trademark dispute involving everyone's favorite hispanic delicacy. In this instance, however, the focus of this post won't be on the dispute between the two restaurants, but we can start there anyway.A Vermont business that is only a few months old is changing its name following a cease and desist notice from another restaurant group clear across the country.

We've been talking at length about how the lack of security in the Internet of Things space is seen as a sort of adorable joke, but isn't always a laughing matter. While the hillarious stupidity of some of the "smart" products flooding the market is undeniable, the reality is that the abysmal state of security in "IoT" devices (read: little to none) is creating millions of new attack vectors every year. And as Bruce Schneier recently warned, it's only a matter of time before the check comes due, and these vulnerabilities contribute to hacking attacks on core infrastructure resulting in notable fatalities.

Edward Snowden deserves a pardon. We all know it — even if you believe he deserves to stand trial, the only option right now is an unfair trial on Espionage Act charges in which he'd be blocked from presenting a meaningful defense. A pardon from those charges is the only just choice. This week, we're joined by Trevor Timm, co-founder of the Freedom Of The Press Foundation, and returning guest Parker Higgins to discuss why Edward Snowden deserves a pardon, and the campaign to get him one deserves your support.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

So Reuters had a big exclusive report this morning about Yahoo creating "custom software to search all of its customers' incoming emails for specific information" at the behest of the NSA or FBI. This was built last year -- which came well after the Snowden disclosures, and after Yahoo had been revealed to have legally challenged earlier NSA dragnet attempts -- and after it had rolled out end-to-end encryption on email.

A few weeks ago we noted how HP had effectively delivered a DRM time bomb in the form of a software update that, once detonated, crippled customers' ability to use competing third-party print cartridges in HP printers. While such ham-fisted behavior certainly isn't new, in this case HP had actually first deployed the "security update" to its printers back in March -- but didn't activate its stealthy payload until last month. Once activated, the software update prevented HP printers from even detecting alternative ink cartridges, resulting in owners getting a rotating crop of error messages about faulty cartridges.

Listen to your music and take calls without the hassle of cords. The $39.95 FRESHeBUDS Pro Magnetic Bluetooth Earbuds connect automatically to your device via Bluetooth as soon as you pull apart the magnetic earbuds. They are sweat and water resistant, feature a battery that lasts for up to 10 hours of playtime, fully charge in 90 minutes, and are designed to be comfortably lightweight and secure in your ears.

This morning the ACLU announced that it had convinced the government to remove a ridiculous gag order on a subpoena that had been sent to Open Whisper Systems, the makers of the popular Signal encrypted messaging app, and whose encrypted communication protocol is used by many others, including WhatsApp, Facebook and Google for their encrypted messaging offerings. It's not that surprising that a grand jury would issue a subpoena to Open Whisper Systems demanding "subscriber name, address, telephone numbers, email addresses, method of payment, IP registration, IP history logs and addresses, account history, toll records, upstream and downstream providers, any associated accounts acquired through cookie data, and any other contact information from inception to the present" for certain accounts being investigated. But, of course, Open Whisper Systems has basically none of that data. It "complied" with the subpoena to the extent that it could, which is basically that the only information it has is when the account was created and the last time it was accessed:As Marcy Wheeler rightly points out, the request itself is way too broad, covering information that the government is not allowed to ask for under ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act). But, it's not like the government feels it needs to follow its own laws anyway...

Over and over again we keep hearing politicians and others going on and on about the need for social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google to kick ISIS users off their platforms. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have called for this. And some people at these companies are supportive of this idea. Twitter regularly feels compelled to talk about how many ISIS accounts it removes.

A few years ago, AT&T came up with an "ingenious" idea: charge broadband consumers more money if they want to protect their privacy. Under this plan, users ordering AT&T's U-Verse broadband service could get broadband for, say, $70 a month. But if you want to opt out of AT&T's Internet Preferences program (which uses deep packet inspection to study your movement around the Internet down to the second) you'll pay $30 to $50 more, per month. AT&T also made opting out as cumbersome as possible, knowing full well that few people would dare take the option.

The more journalists and other FOIA enthusiasts gain access to public records, the more we discover that a combination of access and power tends to result in abuse. Even as this abuse goes unaddressed, law enforcement agencies are striving to add more personal information to their databases, extending far past the usual "name/last known location" to encompass a vast array of biometric data.Privacy watchdogs have been fighting against these for good reason: very little is known about the contents of these databases or the controls put in place to protect the info from inappropriate access. What is known is that these databases are misused by law enforcement officers routinely. What's also been discovered is that this routine misuse is rarely ever punished to the extent the law allows. Warnings about possible jail time are meaningless when the usual punishment usually ranges from nothing at all to short suspensions.The Associated Press has obtained another pile of documents from public records request that show little has changed. Abuse of access is still a common occurrence, as is the lack of meaningful consequences. There's no almost no oversight and no federal law enforcement body holding agencies accountable for misuse of databases under their control.

Way back in 2010, Mike wrote about how the Taco John's restaurant chain had threatened a small restaurant in Oklahoma for daring to use the phrase "Taco Tuesday" in a promotion for cheap tacos on...you know...Tuesdays. Taco John's did indeed have a trademark on the term in 49 of our 50 states, with the exception being New Jersey, because life is strange. The question at the time, as tends to be the question in most trademark disputes, was whether or not there was any potential customer confusion to worry about. Given the somewhat descriptive nature of the phrase, not to mention its widespread use both commercially and in common parlance, the whole thing seemed rather silly.Six years does little to change things, it seems. Taco John's recently fired off a cease and desist notice to the Old Fashioned Tavern and Restaurant in Wisconsin for using the phrase.

On October 11, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the long-running Apple-Samsung litigation. The issue is whether Apple, by virtue of having its designed patents infringed by Samsung, is entitled to allof Samsung's profits made from the infringing phones (regardless of how much that design contributed to the value of the phone).This case -- in which EFF submitted an amicus brief arguing the award of Samsung's total profit is improper -- is important for many reasons. But one reason stands out: it is trivially easy to get a design patent on trivial designs and, unless the Supreme Court changes the law, that can lead to anything-but-trivial awards in court.This month's stupid patent, a design patent, shows just how broken the current system of design patents is. Design patents, unlike the utility patents we usually feature, consist only of a single claim followed by pictures. It is generally the pictures that inform the public as to what is claimed. Importantly, in a design patent only the features drawn in solid lines are claimed. Anything in dotted lines is generally not part of the claim.U.S. Patent D767,583, issued on September 27, 2016, is a patent on a design for a "display screen portion with graphical user interface." Here, the claim is to "the ornamental design for a display screen portion with graphical user interface, as shown and described." As most design patent owners do, the patent also makes clear that "the broken line showing of the display screen in the figure forms no part of the claimed design." Below is the sole picture from the patent showing the patented design:The onlything claimed in this design patent are the three rectangles at the top and the square beneath them. This patent is both remarkably trivial and remarkably easy to be accused of infringing. Someone who arranges three rectangles in a row with a square underneath in the way shown in the image is potentially infringing this patent. (The test for whether a design patent is infringed is described in a case called Egyptian Goddess, and is based on what an "ordinary observer" thinks and often involves a comparison to the prior art.) For example, here is an excerpt from the USPTO's home page, showing three rectangles and something that looks close to a square beneath it:To be clear, this patent would likely not be infringed if someone arranged three rectangles and a square in a different way (say, if the rectangles were arranged vertically instead of horizontally), and the USPTO itself may not infringe as the prior art would likely narrow this patent significantly.But even the possibilityof a finding of infringement may be enough to cause concern for many people who may be accused of infringing a design patent. That's because under current law, if someone is found to infringe a design patent, the patent owner can argue that it is entitled to all of the profits from that website.The Supreme Court has a chance to fix this last issue in the upcoming Apple-Samsung decision. But that won't change the fact that the Patent Office still issues patents on trivial designs at an alarming rate. This latest patent is just another in a long line of questionable patents.Reposted from the EFF's Stupid Design Patent of the Month series.

Aaron Graham -- the defendant at the center of a Fourth Amendment dispute over the warrantless acquisition of cell site location info -- is hoping to get one more court to take a look at his case.Last summer, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals became the first appeals court to institute a warrant requirement for historical CSLI. As was noted then, the court found that the records generated by cell phones (and held by phone companies) had an expectation of privacy -- at least when obtained for a significant period of time. In Graham's case, the government obtained 221 days of historical cell site location data -- the sort of extended period the Appeals Court found troubling… originally.The government appealed and attempted to differentiate its long-term, post-facto tracking of Graham's movements with eight months of CSLI from the Supreme Court's Jones decision -- which (sort of) found that deploying a surreptitious GPS tracker required the use of a warrant. It claimed this form of location tracking was completely different than the other form of location tracking, mainly because in Graham's case the tracking was done by the phone company. The government simply benefitted from the warrantless collection of records the phone company was already compiling.The court bought the government's arguments the second time around. The short-lived warrant requirement was removed and the 1979 definition of the Third Party Doctrine (Smith v. Maryland) was reinstated. The dissent correctly pointed out that no cell phone user voluntarily turns over location data to service providers. It's just something that has to happen for phones to make calls or access data. It also pointed out that, unlike other third-party records, customers aren't allowed to access their own cell site location data. Only the phone company and the government can do that, even though it's the customer generating the records and paying for their collection and storage.Graham is now petitioning [PDF] the Supreme Court to review the case. (h/t Gitmo Watch) If it does, things could get interesting. Unfortunately, there's no telling which version of "interesting" we'll get.As it stands now, there's no cohesive stance on CSLI in the nation's courts. If there are precedential findings, most side with the government's Third Party Doctrine theory. A few lower courts have recognized an expectation of privacy in these auto-generated records, but at the Appeals Court level, nothing else has come down in favor of this finding. There are some open pending appeals, but no rulings have been handed down yet.The cert petition notes that courts should not be so quick to extend a benefit of a doubt to law enforcement agencies who do everything they can to avoid filling out a search warrant application.

John Oliver has now taken on police accountability -- the second word of which should always be enclosed in scare quotes.The whole thing is worth watching (of course) but the key bit is his skewering of the constant, incoherent twisting of an old adage by police officials and supporters when attempting to portray police misconduct as an outlier, rather than the everyday output of an insular, overly-powerful culture.

A few more wrinkles have appeared in the EFF's attempted legal destruction of the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. Back in July, the EFF -- along with researchers Bunny Huang and Matthew Green -- sued the government, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1201 of the DMCA. As it stands now, researchers are restricted by the limitations built into the anti-circumvention clause. The Library of Congress can grant exceptions, but these are only temporary, lasting three years and generally vanishing at the end of that term.Projects and research efforts continue to be thwarted by this provision, opening up those who circumvent DRM and other protective measures to the possibility of prosecution. And their options when facing charges are severely limited. There is no "fair use" exception to Section 1201 of the DMCA -- something the EFF would like to see changed.The threat of prosecution may be mostly existential, but it's still far from nonexistent. This is why the EFF has requested a preliminary injunction that would prevent the DOJ from trying to put its client in jail.

Last week we noted how the FCC had to scrap its plan to bring competition to the cable box after an unprecedented PR and disinformation campaign by the cable and entertainment industries. In short, using consultants, think tanks, payrolled politicians, a soundwall of misleading editorials and even the US Copyright Office, the cable industry was able to convince many in the press, public and even at the FCC that the plan would have ripped the planet off its very orbital access, violated copyright, eroded consumer privacy, and even harmed diversity programming.

Does your wardrobe need some updating? Give Five Four Club a 3-month try for only $99 and receive curated custom clothing options once per month. Membership begins with a quiz to understand your style preference and fit, ensuring the delivery of seasonal styles that will build your wardrobe with key pieces every month. You'll also receive up to 80% off and early access to designer collections in the online store, and special discounts on exclusive collections and merchandise.

There simply aren't enough derogatives in the dictionary to apply to Pam Geller's lawsuit against the DOJ for its "enforcement" of Section 230. Geller doesn't appear to know what she's doing, much less who she's suing. Her blog posts portray her lawsuit against the DOJ as being against Facebook. Facebook has earned the ire of Geller by enforcing its terms of use -- rules Geller clearly disagrees with.Somehow, Geller has managed to construe the actions of a private platform as government infringement on her First Amendment rights. The connective tissue in her litigious conspiracy theory is Section 230 -- the statute that protects service providers from being sued for the actions of their users.Considering Geller's fondness for posting inflammatory content, you'd think the last thing she'd want to attack is Section 230. A successful dismantling of this important protection would mean Geller would be even less welcome on any social media platform.But the burning stupidity propelling Geller's white-hot hazardous waste dump of a lawsuit knows no bounds. Somehow, actual lawyers -- working in concert with Geller -- came up with this breathtakingly wrong interpretation of Section 230.

Yes, yes, we know that resorting to copyright to take down speech from a politician you don't like is pretty common. Most of the time it involves musicians not liking politicians playing songs, but lately we've seen some other ones as well. Last week, for example, we wrote about a photographer successfully using the DMCA to remove the now infamous image of a bowl of Skittles that Donald Trump Jr. tweeted.

Yes, yes, we know that resorting to copyright to take down speech from a politician you don't like is pretty common. Most of the time it involves musicians not liking politicians playing songs, but lately we've seen some other ones as well. Last week, for example, we wrote about a photographer successfully using the DMCA to remove the now infamous image of a bowl of Skittles that Donald Trump Jr. tweeted.