Security isn't the only thing being ignored as hardware vendors rush to connect televisions, toasters, and tea kettles to the internet. Consumer privacy and data-collection transparency has also become a distant afterthought as companies rush to cash in on the ocean of data these connected-devices collect. The "smart" television sector has been notably problematic, with Samsung busted a few years back for not only recording customer living room conversations, but transmitting that data unencrypted back to the company mothership.These are lessons that hardware vendors appear incapable or unwilling to learn. Case in point: this week the FTC announced that it had struck a $1.2 million settlement with discount TV vendor Vizio. According to the full FTC complaint (pdf), Vizio began using the company's smart televisions to track user behavior in 2014, without informing customers that this was happening. The FTC notes that Vizio for years heavily advertised a "Smart Interactivity" feature that "enables program offers and suggestions." But the complaint notes this feature never provided customers with a single suggestion.But it did provide Vizio with a wonderful new way to collect and store a huge variety of consumer data under the pretense of adding consumer functionality. MAC addresses, IP addresses, nearby WiFi network names, metadata were all hoovered up and stored. And when the FTC says viewing data, it means that Vizio used pixel analysis to compile personal data on every program and device connected to the Vizio set:

I recognize that many (especially regular Techdirt readers) will assume from the title above that the question is a rhetorical one in response to the latest craziness around a stupid trademark or awful patent. But, no, we mean that literally. You see, right before the Trump inauguration, it was widely reported that Michelle Lee would stay on as the Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office. That was undeniably good news. For all the complaints we have about the USPTO, Lee has done a fairly amazing job running that office, and seems to be one of the first Patent Office directors who actually understands how patents can do serious harm to innovation. Keeping her on would be a really good sign. After seeing the stories claiming that she was staying, we'd mostly moved on. However, Politico reporter Nancy Scola sent me down something of a rabbit hole after tweeting that it's basically impossible to know who's in charge of the Patent Office right now.The USPTO's site still says it's Lee:That seems like that should be that. However, there are conspiracy theories afoot -- mainly being discussed by Gene Quinn over at IP Watchdog. Gene and I disagree about basically everything as it relates to patents, and he's got a history of insulting me, so I have every reason to basically ignore him. But, on this, he may have a point. And the questions about whether or not Lee is actually in charge are also being asked by a much more respectable patent website, Patently-O.The issue started when Quinn noticed that, despite the claims that Lee was staying on, the Commerce Department (which the USPTO is a part of) leadership page says the role is "vacant." Here's the latest screenshot I took:As for the PTO's own website, Quinn rightly points out that its leadership page still lists out a number of other individuals who have announced resignations and are no longer there, but whose profiles are still on the website. The Commerce Department seems to be refusing to comment to anyone who asks (I've sent in my own question) and it's quite unclear if Michelle Lee really is the director.If you look through the fairly long list of articles by Quinn on the subject, it's quite clear that he (as someone who is not a fan of Lee) is hoping that she's been pushed out, and is trying to drum up controversy over the possibility that she might remain. But the lack of any clarity from anyone... is bizarre. Quinn's most recent post on the subject notes that while no one seems willing to say who's running things, Lee "continues to be seen" in the building. That would certainly support the theory that she's staying. But... she's also cancelled a bunch of speaking engagements, and no one at the USPTO or Commerce Dept. seems willing to say anything. Also, in an earlier report, Quinn noted that he'd been told, unofficially, that Drew Hirshfeld is "Acting Director," implying Lee had left. But the whole thing seems to be... unclear:

We have a great sale going on in the store this week! You can get an extra 70% off any online course by using the promo code LEARN70 at checkout. One of the courses currently available is the $15 Complete Web Developer Course. You'll master important tools and languages, including use of HTML, CSS, MySQL, WordPress, and more. Don't forget to use the LEARN70 code at checkout for an additional 70% off.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.

In case you were wondering what other misery DRM could contribute to, Hacker House security researchers have an answer for you:

Just last week, new FCC boss Ajit Pai made a speech in front of FCC staffers breathlessly professing his dedication (pdf) to consumers, innovation, and closing the digital divide. In a post over at Medium, the former Verizon lawyer again insisted that closing the digital divide would be the defining theme of his tenure as FCC Boss:

It's unclear how many Americans are under surveillance by the FBI. Not only would the agency be extremely unwilling to even provide a broad estimate, but the underlying basis for a preliminary investigation is so thin it could conceivably cover a majority of US residents.A previously-classified document [pdf] obtained by The Intercept gives more insight into the FBI's use of "assessments" -- an investigation the agency doesn't consider an investigation.

We've made the point before. In the pantheon of trademark disputes, the most commonly trotted out excuse for overt protectionism is nothing but a headfake. While companies often proclaim their bullying actions are a requirement under trademark law's provision for active policing of infringement, the fact is that this requirement does not mandate that companies roadblock any and all similar uses to their marks. Instead, the idea is that trademark holders cannot allow actual infringements to go unchallenged.For an example of the difference, we can point to the current dispute between two companies in the food mart business, Dawa Food Mart and Wawa Inc. The former is a single store in New Jersey that has operated for two years now. The latter is a mid-sized chain that only recently decided that Dawa infringed on its trademarks.

A ballot measure introduced by a bipartisan group of Michigan legislators is sure to encounter some heavy resistance on its trip through the lawmaking machinery. The proposal amends the state's constitution to add a warrant requirement to data that law enforcement is used to obtaining without one.

Once exclusively the domain of hospitals with comically-bad IT support, crippling ransomware attacks are increasingly beginning to impact essential infrastructure. Just ask the San Francisco MTA, whose systems were shut down entirely for a spell last fall after a hacker (with a long history of similar attacks) managed to infiltrate their network, forcing the MTA to dole out free rides until the threat was resolved. Or you could ask the St. Louis public library network, which saw 16 city branches crippled last month by a bitcoin-demanding intruder.We've also seen a spike in ransomware attacks on our ever-expanding surveillance and security apparatus, DC Police acknowledging this week that 70% of the city's surveillance camera DVRs were infected with malware. The infection was so thorough, DC Police were forced to acknowledge that city police cameras were unable to record much of anything during a three day stretch last month:

In the wake of President Trump's travel ban, the San Francisco Police Department has offered up an unprecedented response: it's breaking up with the FBI.

Surprising nobody, new FCC boss Ajit Pai used a flurry of late-Friday announcements to roll back a number of consumer-friendly FCC initiatives the former Verizon lawyer (and the large ISPs that already love him) didn't like. Among them was the Wheeler-led FCC's attempt to crack down on zero rating, the practice of an ISP exempting its own content from its own arbitrary usage caps, while still penalizing competitors. The former FCC had just belatedly ruled that both AT&T and Verizon's zero rating efforts were anti-consumer, anti-competitive, and dramatically damaged the open streaming video market.That was then, and this is now.This new, Pai-led FCC wasted no time sending AT&T, Verizon and Comcast letters (pdf) proclaiming that all FCC inquiries into the anti-competitive impact of zero rating have been dropped. In a brief statement (pdf) issued to the media, Pai went so far as to imply he was doing this not because it's what giant ISPs wanted -- but because of a selfless dedication to the poor:

The $40 LimeLens Universal Smartphone Camera Lens Set will give your smartphone or tablet camera a boost. These two outstanding mini lenses and all three versions of the genius Limeclip attachment are designed to perfectly secure both lenses to over 70 smartphones and tablets. Take macro/wide lens photos with the dual-purpose lens, and capture creative photo and video with the fisheye lens.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.

Just south of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's district, a Pennsylvania (3rd Circuit) federal judge has come to (nearly) the opposite conclusion on law enforcement's access to emails stored overseas. This case deals with two FBI SCA (Stored Communications Act) warrants seeking emails that Google says aren't stored in the United States. Google, however, also says the sought emails could be at any of its data storage sites -- which would include those in the US. It all depends on when it's asked to retrieve the communications.And there's where this decision parts ways with the Second Circuit, which found that emails stored in an Irish data center weren't subject to US-issued warrants. The court explains [PDF] Google's process for handling user data, which is built for efficiency, rather than what's central to the FBI's demands: efficiency of retrieval in response to law enforcement requests.

As we've been noting, broadband providers have wasted no time pressuring Congress to kill the FCC's new broadband privacy rules. These rules, passed last year, simply require that ISPs are transparent about what data they're collecting and who they're selling it to, while requiring they provide working opt-out tools. But the rules went further in requiring that broadband customers opt in to more sensitive data collection, including financial data. Given an informed, empowered consumer means less advertising revenue, ISPs quickly went to work throwing a monumental hissy fit.This week, a coalition of broadband providers including Comcast, AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon issued a breathless letter professing their absolute dedication to consumer privacy, apparently hoping that consumers haven't noticed they're simultaneously trying to kill the first meaningful broadband-specific privacy protections users have enjoyed in the history of the technology. As you might expect, the least-liked industry in America spends a notable part of the missive patting itself on the back for its selfless dedication to user privacy:

I've been quite clear how I feel about Donald Trump's awful executive order that places a blanket ban on people entering the US (even if they had valid visas) from 7 countries, including a permanent block on Syrian refugees. Tons of people have been protesting this decision, and multiple courts have ruled against it. There has been some discussion over whether or not the tech industry was really going to stand up against this move, and some of the early statements about the executive order were a bit weak. However, late Sunday night, basically the entire technology industry (plus some companies from other industries as well) signed onto an amicus brief calling the order illegal and unconstitutional (technically, it's a motion asking for permission to file the amicus brief, with that brief attached).The brief was filed in the Ninth Circuit appeals court, which is one of the first appeals courts considering the executive order, after a federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on enforcing the exec order. On Sunday, the appeals court refused to reverse the lower court, keeping the TRO in place. However, it also gave both parties (the lawsuit itself was filed by the state of Washington) a very quick turnaround time to file written arguments to be considered.Given that incredibly short time frame, the fact that 97 companies -- including some of the world's largest -- but also some tiny ones, like the Copia Institute (the think tank arm of Techdirt), were able to come together and not only get a detailed amicus brief together, but also get sign on from all of those companies (on Super Bowl Sunday, no less), is impressive. Having been through the process in which amicus briefs with multiple signers has been done before, normally there's lots of hemming and hawing from different companies and nitpicking over certain choices. It takes a lot of effort. Update: Another 30 companies have signed on as well.But this issue was so important and so core and fundamental to our basic values, that basically the entire industry came together and signed onto this. You name the company, and it's probably signed on. There are the big guys: Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple (despite a false Washington Post article that claimed none of them had signed on). There are lots of other huge names as well, including Twitter, Snap, Uber, Airbnb, Lyft, Dropbox, Cloudflare, Box, eBay, GitHub, Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Medium, Mozilla, Patreon, Paypal, Pinterest, Reddit, Salesforce, Spotfy, Stripe, Wikimedia, Yelp, Y Combinator and many, many more. Update: Among the notable companies in the "late" sign on, were SpaceX, Tesla, Slack, Pandora, Adobe, HP, Evernote, Udacity and more...I highly recommend reading the full amicus brief -- which makes an economic argument, a moral argument and a legal argument all wrapped up in one.

Normally, on the rare occasions that Mike's or my own comments win the top spots, I skip over them unless they are really important — since this post is all about highlighting reader comments. This week, however, our participation in the comments on our response to Trump's immigration ban dominated the leaderboards to such a degree (with one double-winner) that skipping them would mean going pretty far down the list, so this particular comment post will have to be more boastful than usual. And indeed, all of our top-voted comments this week come in response to that post.That said, a reader still beat Mike and me out for first place on the insightful side. Roger Strong provided the very first comment on the immigration post, and racked up the points with a simple and appropriate quote:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2012, we watched as the reaction to ACTA continued to heat up. Though the opposition was in some danger of straying off course, there were some big developments: the Slovenian Ambassador apologized for signing the deal, the Polish Prime Minister suspended all efforts to ratify it, Bulgarian MPs followed in the footsteps of Polish MPs the week before and protested with Guy Fawkes masks, and widespread protests began to break out across Europe.Meanwhile, the TPP was also on the docket for the week, with a stark example of crony capitalism presented by the USTR getting civil society groups kicked out of the Hollywood hotel where it was hobnobbing with entertainment industry elites. We pointed out that SOPA/PIPA should be a pretty good lesson on why these negotiations need to be way, way more transparent.Also, this was the week we released the first Sky Is Rising report.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2007, the world was still reacting to the newly Google-owned YouTube. The plans for revenue sharing with video creators were brewing, and while NBC was embracing the promotional value of YouTube clips, Viacom made its big move of telling Google to yank 100,000 videos off the service, setting the stage for the big legal feud to follow.Also this week in 2007: Sony BNG reached a deal with the FTC for violating federal law with its horrible rootkit DRM, the RIAA had a SWAT team raid an Atlanta mix-tape producer on questionable legal grounds, Google was offering half-apologies for aiding Chinese censorship, and Adult Swim's now-infamous marketing stunt shut down the city of Boston.Fifteen Years AgoFive years earlier in 2002, Google made a much more popular decision when it announced it would not use pop-up ads. Of course, that seems obvious now, as did other things that were fresh at the time, like the convergence of wireless devices and the possibility of having a laptop as your only computer. In the world of secondary effects from the dot-com bubble bursting, we saw Cisco grappling with a huge gray market for used IT products and folks to dropped out to work in tech going back to school to finish their degrees.Also, because nothing is truly new: folks were commenting on how news was getting less factual and more opinionated.One-Hundred And Seventy Years AgoThough not in fact headquartered in the city itself, Techdirt does a whole lot of its business in and around San Francisco — so this week we're marking a milestone in that city's history. It was on January 30th, 1847 that its name was changed from Yerba Buena to San Francisco by Lt. Washington Allon Bartlett.

It's common knowledge at this point why advertisers start to go wonky after the new year. We've long talked about how all kinds of groups and companies suddenly begin playing the euphemism game when it comes to the Super Bowl, America's annual celebration of brain trauma. Everyone, from comedians to beer makers to tech companies, goes to great lengths to wink at everyone as they all refer to the Super Bowl by any name other than its own. Why? Well, because the NFL has a trademark on the term, which allows it to restrict the user of the phrase only to its sponsorship partners... except that that's not remotely true and isn't how trademark law works at all. Instead, the only real prohibition is on the implication that a company is an official sponsor of the NFL when it isn't. Beyond that, simply calling the game what it's called isn't trademark infringement.But this is confusing enough that this year the website HowStuffWorks has done an entire piece to explain to an almost certainly confused public why companies are pretending that nobody knows what they're talking about when they say "the big game" instead of "the Super Bowl." It's a post that deserves a rebuttal, which I will helpfully provide.

For many, many years we've talked about the importance of strong anti-SLAPP laws. In case you're new to the subject, SLAPP stands for a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. In short, SLAPP suits are lawsuits where it is fairly obvious that the intent of the lawsuits is to stifle free speech, rather than for a legitimate purpose under the law. The intention of anti-SLAPP laws are to allow for such lawsuits to be tossed out of court quickly -- and, frequently, to force those who bring those suits to pay legal fees. While actually getting a federal anti-SLAPP law is really important, for now, we're left with a patchwork of state laws. While many (though not all) states have anti-SLAPP laws, they vary widely in terms of what they cover and just how strong or effective they are.As we've pointed out in the past, a few years ago, Nevada passed a really great anti-SLAPP law, though it's been under attack the past few years. Thankfully, Marc Randazza informs us that Nevada's anti-SLAPP law has been found to be Constitutional, meaning that it will survive largely intact (a few changes had been made a few years ago to bolster the law's likelihood of surviving).Perhaps even more important was that the ruling basically recognized that Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute was similar to California's (much older and much more broadly litigated anti-SLAPP) law, and that Nevada courts can use California case law for its own anti-SLAPP cases. That's also a good thing:

Another day, another wacky legal complaint. This one, first spotted by Eric Goldman was filed by a recent law school grad, Tiffany Dehen. She's fairly upset that someone set up a parody Twitter account pretending to be her that portrayed her in an unflattering light. So she has sued. For $100 million. And she's not just suing the "John Doe" behind the account... but also Twitter. Oh, and also the University of San Diego, because she's pretty sure that someone there is responsible for this account (she just graduated from USD's law school). Oh, and according to the exhibits that Dehen put in her own lawsuit, the account is labeled as a parody account.The lawsuit... well... it doesn't reflect well on the University of San Diego law school and its ability to prepare lawyers. I don't know if the law school didn't teach Ms. Dehen about California's anti-SLAPP law, but she's likely about to get a quick post-graduate lesson about it. I won't even get into the reasons why this is unlikely to be defamation (parody, people, parody...), but the fact that Twitter and USD are included... is pretty nutty. Twitter will get out of the case pretty damn easily under Section 230 (does the University of San Diego law school not teach Section 230?!?). And, of course, there's this, which kind of speaks for itself:If you can't read that, it says:

We've already made our views clear on the horrible nature of the Trump administration's ban on travelers who were born in seven predominantly Muslim countries. The administration has been trying to defend the program, but its talking points are (once again) falling apart. For example, the idea that this only "inconvenienced" a tiny percentage of people and was only temporary — government lawyers have now revealed that over 100,000 visas were permanently revoked. Permanently.But the story that's gotten a lot more attention is how Trump aide Kellyanne Conway went on TV last night and tried to back up another talking point: that this is no different than what President Obama did with Iraqi visas. That's not true, but we'll get to that. Even if it were true, Conway seemed to literally make up a terrorist attack that didn't happen, calling it the "Bowling Green Massacre."Of course, there was no such massacre. This has resulted in lots and lots of social media mocking about the "massacre" that didn't exist. Some of the mocking is actually quite funny. And, of course, you might want to go donate to the Bowling Green Massacre Fund to support the victims.Conway, of course, has said that she merely misspoke and had meant to say "Bowling Green terrorists" and then further pointed to a 2013 article about the two arrested Iraqis, claiming that it was a sign that "dozens" of terrorists could live in the US as refugees.Even ignoring the ridiculous massacre claim, and accepting the idea that she just meant to say "terrorists", absolutely everything about this story fails to make her point unless you actively distort it. Let's dig in:

For many years, we've written about Carl Malamud and his non-profit organization Public.Resource.org, which goes to great lengths to make sure that the law and other government documents are widely available to the public. While he's gotten lots of attention for battling states over their claims to hold a copyright in the law, perhaps his biggest fight has been over the question of whether or not private standards that are "incorporated by reference" into the law, are still covered by copyright. And, unfortunately, the federal district court in Washington DC has just ruled against him, and effectively said it's okay to lock up some important elements of the law with copyright. This is bad news.Some background: as you probably know, there are tons of standards bodies out there who create various standards. Most techies are quite familiar with various technology standards, developed by various groups. But standards obviously go way beyond just the tech industry. Think: building codes for plumbers and electricians. These are often developed by independent, private bodies. Of course, you may also realize that some of these standards are in the law as well. These are generally known as "incorporated by reference." That's just a fancy way of saying that a private group created a standard and then lawmakers put into the law "this thing we're regulating needs to meet those standards." So, for example, fire codes may be developed by a private body, but then governments say that any building has to meet those standards. Voila: those standards are "incorporated (into the law) by reference."The question, though, is how accessible are these standards? Many of the standards bodies that create those standards like to sell them. That's often how they make their money. But that seems to be in fairly dire conflict with the idea that the law should be publicly accessible. It's fairly difficult to argue that the rule of law is paramount when you can't even see the law without having to buy a bunch of expensive standards. To deal with this, many regulators and standards bodies have come up with awful hedges -- which basically say that any such standard incorporated by reference must be "available to the public," but they allow that availability to be insanely limited. So, for example, the EPA basically says, sure, you can see all of the standards, if you trek to DC and go to a special reading room (or a few other limited places):

Give your IT career a big boost with the $59 Cisco Complete Network Certification Training. Through instructor-led videos, hands-on exercises and self-assessment tools, you'll learn everything you need to know about how to build and scale wireless networks, troubleshoot, and improve network resilience. The courses will help prepare you to take the Cisco CCNA, CCNP, and CCENT certification exams.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, when ZeniMax first claimed that Oculus and its CTO John Carmack had copied the company's VR technology, we pointed out the obvious: since ZeniMax hadn't made a peep until the announcement that Facebook was buying Oculus for a cool $2-billion, it was a pretty blatant cash-grab. Now ZeniMax has scored a partial win in its lawsuit against Oculus and its executives, with the jury rejecting claims of trade secret misappropriation but awarding $500 million for copyright and trademark infringement and violation of non-disclosure agreements.The trade secrets were the most important claim, but Oculus has already vowed to appeal the rest — so the case isn't over. But the most interesting thing to come out of this verdict is a statement from John Carmack about the expert testimony on "non-literal copying" that was central to some of the copyright claims:

Comcast's earnings report this week indicated that the company managed to add 80,000 basic video subscribers during the fourth quarter, and 161,000 net video customers for the full year. And while news outlets were quick to proclaim that Comcast had magically bucked the cord cutting trend, you'd be hard pressed to find a single outlet that could be bothered to actually explain how. When an explanation is given, it's usually just regurgitation of Comcast's claim that the cable giant's fending off cord cutting thanks to the company's incredible innovation in the set top box market:

Comcast's earnings report this week indicated that the company managed to add 80,000 basic video subscribers during the fourth quarter, and 161,000 net video customers for the full year. And while news outlets were quick to proclaim that Comcast had magically bucked the cord cutting trend, you'd be hard pressed to find a single outlet that could be bothered to actually explain how. When an explanation is given, it's usually just regurgitation of Comcast's claim that the cable giant's fending off cord cutting thanks to the company's incredible innovation in the set top box market:

As you may have noticed, here on Techdirt we write quite a lot about companies like Apple, Google and Facebook. That's partly because they are very rich and very powerful, and therefore tend to be driving many of the key developments in the tech field. Some think they are too powerful. Here, for example, is Robert Reich, writing for The New York Times, in a 2015 piece entitled "Big Tech Has Become Way Too Powerful":

As face-scanning technology has progressed, its use in video games has become more and more realistic. While several games make use of this to transport the gamer directly into the game they play, one of the best to do this is 2K Sports' NBA2K series. By using a web camera or your smartphone, you can take a scan of your face and import it into the game to create your own avatar to ball out on the court with NBA stars. I've done this, and it's awesome.It's that face-scanning feature that was the subject of an attempted lawsuit by a brother and sister in Illinois, however, who argued that Take-Two was violating the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act, which seeks to ensure that businesses that store biometric data for their customers are protecting that data and not using it in ways the customer had never intended. The idea is that if your bank requires a fingerprint to access your account, and either loses that data to theft or uses that data for some other purpose, the public can get monetary and injunctive relief from the court. To do so, however, the plaintiff must suffer actual harm from a violation of BIPA.Ricardo and Vanessa Vigil used the face scan feature in a copy of NBA2K they purchased, and agreed to the terms of service for the feature, but then sought monetary damages against Take-Two, claiming that the "actual harm" they suffered was the failure to follow every rule in BIPA itself. They claimed that the risk that their faces could be pilfered after they decided to play the online portions of the game with the characters they created using their face scans qualified as actual harm. The judge, after a motion to dismiss by Take-Two, was not buying it.

Nine years ago we had a post about some of the ridiculousness surrounding trademarks and the Super Bowl (a popular topic this time of year). In particular, we mocked the fact that the New England Patriots had filed for some trademarks in the week before the Super Bowl. Then, as now, the Patriots made it to the Super Bowl, but that year they had done it with a perfect record, winning all 16 games in the regular season and the first two playoff games to go 18-0. They were heavily favored to win the Super Bowl, and had filed for trademarks on both "Perfect Season" and "19-0." Of course, the NY Giants came away with quite the upset and sent the Patriots home as losers. Given that, we were kind of surprised a few months later to discover that the Patriots were still seeking the trademark on "19-0," despite the fact that its actual record for the season was a demoralizing 18-1.I pretty much stopped following it after that and assumed that the Patriots probably gave up as well. But, no. ESPN now tells us that nine years later, the US Patent and Trademark Office has approved the trademarks. No. Really:

The ongoing fight at the W3C over Encrypted Media Extensions -- the HTML5 DRM scheme that several companies want ensconced in web standards -- took two worrying turns recently. Firstly, Google slipped an important change into the latest Chrome update that removed the ability to disable its implementation of EME, further neutering the weak argument of supporters that the DRM is optional. But the other development is even more interesting -- and concerning:

Over the last few months, we've talked about the weird obsession some people upset by the results of the election have had with the concept of "fake news." We warned that focusing on "fake news" as a problem was not just silly and pointless, but that it would quickly morph into calls for censorship. And, even worse, that censorship power would be in the hands of whoever got to define what "fake news" was. Thus, it was little surprise to see China and Iran quickly start using "fake news" as an excuse to crack down on dissent online.And, of course, just recently a pretty thorough study pointed out that "fake news" didn't impact the election. It turns out that -- just as we said -- fake news didn't really change anyone's mind. It just served as confirmation bias.Either way, there are still a bunch of people who are really focused on this idea of "fake news" and how it must be stopped. The latest to step in with a suggestion is MSNBC's chief legal correspondent Ari Melber, who is suggesting that "fake news" can be regulated by the FTC in the same way that it goes after fraudulent advertisers who put up "fake" websites pretending to be impartial news sites talking up the wonders of acai berries or whatever. To be fair to Melber, his suggestion is carefully framed and includes many of the important caveats. This isn't a piece that's filled with the "you can't yell fire" kind of tropes, but it's still problematic.You can read Melber's whole piece, where he admits that the 1st Amendment is an issue, and that courts are very careful about it, but seems to think it's no problem to stretch cases where the FTC goes after companies who are directly making stuff up to sell a product to cover situations where sites are making stuff up to get clicks or to sell a political candidate:

Learn how to master Arduino with the 2017 Arduino Starter Kit and Course Bundle. You get the ARDX Arduino Starter Kit, which pairs a detailed, illustrated guide with all the parts you need to build your own circuits. Perfect for beginners, this kit requires no experience and teaches you to use Arduino to control lights, buzzers, and more. The $75 bundle also includes access to 9 ebooks and 15+ hours of instruction designed to help you master working with Ardunio.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.

What's up, FBI? Back in early 2015, when the FBI and (specifically) Director James Comey ramped up their silly "going dark" moral panic about how strong encryption was making us less safe, I sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FBI for all of the FBI's internal talking points about "going dark" or other views on encryption. My main reason for this was really to see if I might uncover some of the reasoning for why the FBI had quietly deleted a page on its website that encouraged people to encrypt their phones. It took until May of last year, but the FBI finally delivered me a stack of talking points, mostly focused on talking point lists and speeches given by Comey. I never wrote about it because the talking points alone weren't even that interesting.In fact, I'd almost totally forgotten about that entire request. But then, a few weeks ago, right here on this site, Tim Cushing wrote about the latest escapades of Jason Leopold, the reporter whose use of FOIA requests is so prolific that he's been dubbed a "FOIA terrorist" by the DOJ. It turns out that Leopold had made a similar request to the FBI... and was told that while they had found 487 responsive records, they were giving him a grand total of 0 of them, because they were all subject to restrictions on release. In that article, Cushing, rightly explains why this is ridiculous. The whole point of "talking points" is to share them with the public. There is simply no FOIA exemption that allows for blocking them.But this was even more bizarre to me for the simple fact that the FBI had already sent me many of those documents. I didn't add up all the pages sent to me, but I can tell it's probably closer to about 100 pages than 487, so clearly the FBI is likely lying to me as well in terms of how many "responsive" documents there really were, but I'm confused as to why the FBI couldn't release these kinds of documents to Leopold.

AT&T is pretty damn excited about former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai, Trump's new industry-cozy pick to head the FCC. That's in large part because Pai has made it clear his goal isn't just to gut net neutrality, new broadband privacy rules and most of the other consumer protections pushed by former FCC boss and and former dingo Tom Wheeler -- but to help dismantle the agency's role as consumer watchdog entirely. Of course, AT&T put things a little differently in a blog post applauding the selection:

Ransomware is everywhere. And it's affecting everything, including critical systems. Sure, it's kind of humiliating to be locked out of your smart TV, but hospitals are being locked out of patient records and --in a new twist -- hotel guests are being locked out of their rooms.Then there's something like this, where the chain of evidence is disrupted by ransomware purveyors.

I'm not sure there is a more annoying group of stories about trademark protectionism than that of the "12th Man." What most likely assume is a common term at football games, popularly denoting the impact a raucous crowd can have on the opposing team, is actually a closely guarded trademarked term of Texas A&M. So closely guarded, in fact, that the school has not only policed use of the term by other football organizations, but it has also seen fit to threaten breweries and double-amputees over their use of the term. So concerned is Texas A&M by the moral position on intellectual property, in other words, that there are no limits on how it will act to protect its trademark.That includes violating someone else's intellectual property, it seems. It appears the university is being sued for copyright infringement after having posted on its website a large swath of an unpublished book by an author on the history of Texas A&M, all in order to bolster its own claims on the trademark for the "12th Man."

It certainly looks for all the world like Denuvo is unraveling as a valid option for DRM in video games. The software, once described as the final solution to piracy, has had its defenses cracked in time intervals following an exponentially shorter curve. For how long it would take to crack a Denuvo-protected video game, reality went from "never", to "months", to "less months" in the case of the latest Doom game. After Doom was cracked, and after the developer removed Denuvo from the software via a patch, the makers of Denuvo spun it as a victory, stating that developers were protecting their games during the early release window and then removing it later.But then Resident Evil 7, protected by Denuvo, was cracked in under a week's time. With its spin halted by this new reality, Denuvo's response has changed slightly to: hey, it could be worse!

For some time now, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has been taking broadband companies to task for advertising broadband speeds they consistently fail to deliver. Last year, Schneiderman's office brought in Tim Wu, Columbia professor and the man who coined the term net neutrality, to help dig into the data. With Wu as the AG's "senior lawyer and special adviser," Schneiderman sent letters to NYC area broadband incumbents Verizon, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable -- questioning whether they actually deliver the speeds they advertise.This morning, Schneiderman made his findings clear via a lawsuit against Charter Communications, which accuses the cable giant of "defrauding" millions of customers by advertising broadband speeds it's incapable of delivering. According to the AG's compiled data and full complaint (pdf), Charter routinely and consistently advertised "fast, reliable connections" that were anything but:

I realize that there are much bigger issues at hand right now, but those of us who follow copyright, patent and trademark policy have been somewhat perplexed about what a Trump administration might do on that front. The issue was basically entirely ignored by Trump and his campaign during election season. And because of that, you now have lots of organizations on all sides of the debate pressing Trump to simply buy into their views of intellectual property, no matter how inane.However, I recently came across a piece at Business Insider, entitled "Why intellectual property theft is one of the biggest crimes threatening the US economy," that was so clueless of the actual issues related to intellectual property, that I went to see who wrote it -- only to discover that the author, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, was on Trump's transition team (something that is not disclosed by Business Insider for unknown reasons). This does not bode well. The whole article is problematic and confused, so let's dive in.

Record your car trips day or night with the $31 Gypsy Wireless Night Vision Dash Cam. This little camera records in 1080p and has night-vision to help you record what happens in the dark. The dash cam comes with a built-in screen so passengers can see what's being recorded in real time.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

The Intercept has obtained another secret document -- this one pertaining to the FBI's confidential informant program. The sprawling web of so-called Confidential Human Sources (CHS) is examined in multiple posts at the site. (The document, unfortunately, consists of multiple photos of the source pages, so it won't be embedded below.)In addition to things already known about the FBI's aggressive pursuit of informants -- including using the CBP to push incoming foreigners to act as informants by threatening to withhold travel privileges or approval of visa applications -- there's much, much more contained in the FBI's guidelines.One of the interesting aspects is the government's payment of informants. Considering the FBI has more than 15,000 informants in its network, there's always the possibility evidence produced by CHSs could be challenged if it appears the FBI is using private individuals to bypass warrant requirements (with "private" searches) or otherwise routing around legal restrictions pertaining to its investigations.From the information obtained, it appears the FBI's inelegant workaround is to obscure the money flow in order to head off questions of propriety.

As we've noted a few times, the Trump administration and new FCC boss Ajit Pai have made it abundantly clear net neutrality protections will be going the way of the dodo under their watch. Given the threat of activist backlash and the logistical complications of rolling back the rules via the FCC, neutrality opponents' (like Pai) first step toward eliminating net neutrality will likely be to simply refuse to enforce them. From there, ISPs have been lobbying Congress to pass new laws that either hamstring regulatory authority, or pretend to protect net neutrality while actually doing the exact opposite.For example, the House last week quickly passed a trio of new bills that would not only allow Congress to roll back Obama-era regulations (including net neutrality) en masse, but would give Congress effective veto power over future regulations from a number of regulatory agencies (including the FDA, EPA, and FCC). But there's also indications the GOP is cooking up a Communications Act rewrite with an eye toward weakening the FCC's authority over industry giants like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T even further.Over at Vox, readers were recently informed that "A Republican bill could be our best chance to save net neutrality." According to author Timothy Lee, we need Congress to write a quality set of net neutrality protections to establish permanent protections, avoiding the partisan patty cake that occurs each time FCC oversight shifts:

Last May, Techdirt wrote about a draft version of a study of how China deploys its vast "50 Cent Party" propagandists -- named for the amount of money they are supposedly paid for every post -- to control discourse online. The final version of the paper, entitled "How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, not Engaged Argument," has now appeared, and it includes a fascinating appendix:

The Denuvo saga has been impressive on a couple of levels. The DRM software's public cycle was notable first in that game-cracking groups, notorious for their confidence in their own abilities, initially sounded the alarm over Denuvo's status as an anti-piracy unicorn that would never be broken and would lead to the end of software piracy. That happened in January of 2016. By August, Denuvo was being broken by other cracking groups. By the time winter rolled around, game developers, including developers of AAA titles, were pushing out quiet updates to games to remove Denuvo from their software entirely. Denuvo's makers, meanwhile, spun this as a success story, suggesting that developers were chiefly using Denuvo to protect games during the initial release cycle and then removing it afterwards.But that thin thread of relevancy appears to have snapped, relegating Denuvo to the same scrap pile as every other form of DRM ever tried, now that a cracking group has successfully cracked a Denuvo-protected game in five days' time.

Law enforcement keeps bumping into Tor, as Techdirt has reported many times over the years. So it's understandable that the authorities are always looking for ways to subvert and circumvent the extra protection that Tor can offer its users when used properly. For obvious reasons, we don't often get to hear exactly how they are doing that, but a fascinating post on the Dutch site Buro Jansen & Janssen purports to give some details of what happened when the country's secret service tried to recruit a Tor admin. First, a caveat. The site says:

For obvious reasons, politics and government are on just about everyone's mind at the moment, prompting a vast range of reactions and opinions. A lot of people who share a desire for change are divided not only by what form they think that change should take, but by what methods they think should be employed to achieve it. Former Senate staffer and long-time Techdirt friend Jennifer Hoelzer recently wrote a column entitled Your Government Won't Change... Unless You Do and this week she joins us on the podcast to delve further into this idea and what it means for optimists, cynics, pragmatists and everyone else.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.

The new boss is not the same as the old boss. While Obama was routinely terrible at keeping his promise to run the Most Transparent Administration, positive changes still resulted in the aftermath of the Snowden leaks. The intelligence community is more open than ever -- but then we're comparing a barely-cracked door to one that has been shut, locked, and bricked over for years.Now that Trump's in charge, it looks as though transparency and accountability aren't ideals closely held by his administration. While Trump has portrayed himself as a populist, there's very little being done currently that suggests the public -- including members employed by the government -- is welcome to participate in the process. The public has outlived its usefulness. Post-election, it just doesn't have much to offer someone who appears to believe he was elected "Boss," rather than "Top Public Servant."Executive orders and presidential directives are being issued without legal guidance or consultation with the agencies affected. And the national security framework is being heavily altered by a man best known for running a highly-partisan website. Steve Bannon, Trump's chief advisor and former head of Breitbart, is being given a seat at the "Adults" table for National Security Council meetings.This isn't totally unusual. Obama often invited his advisors to these meetings. What Obama didn't do was guarantee them a spot at the head table, much less do so at the expense of actual national security officials. This is what National Security Council meetings look like now, under the new president.Bannon's spot is guaranteed. (This, despite reports that Bannon must be approved by Congress. Nothing in the law says Council members need to be confirmed.) But the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are only invited if Trump feels they should be there. This is an incredibly odd -- and possibly dangerous -- situation. Two officials considered essential to national security decisions aren't guaranteed a chance to offer their insight in national security meetings.Worse, Bannon's apparently permanent position in the NSC has resulted in him obtaining far more power than presidential advisors normally have. His efforts are further burying national security efforts under thick, black layers of opacity. The council meetings will continue. But it appears any record-keeping will not.

No one likes it when a new boss takes over the office and starts acting like the entire operation can be turned around in a matter of days, if not hours. A "can do" spirit is overrated, especially when it's possessed by someone who knows almost nothing about the day-to-day business or, indeed, anything about this sort of business in general.But that's what we have going on here. Within days of taking over the job, the new President has unleashed multiple orders and directives to FIX EVERYTHING… with details to follow sometime between "shortly" and "never." The plan to "make America great again" involves:

Enter to win an NES Classic in this giveaway. Plus you'll get an 8Bitdo NES30 Bluetooth controller and Retro Receiver to play anywhere. All you need to do is sign up for a Deals store account either with your email or Facebook login. Enjoy games like Super Mario Bros., Donkey Kong, Metroid, and The Legend of Zelda.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.

Mike covered Twitter's release of two FBI NSLs it had received in the last few years -- more evidence that the USA Freedom Act, if nothing else, has made review of NSL gag orders more timely and the orders themselves more easily challenged.Not that there hasn't been significant pushback from Twitter along the way. The social media platform sued the government in 2014, claiming that the de facto government-imposed secrecy was a violation of the company's First Amendment rights.It can discuss two of the NSLs it received now, and it's revealing that the FBI is still asking for far more than it should when issuing these.