posted 16 days ago on techdirt
Because I was once just a lowly Techdirt reader before Mike had the brilliant idea of giving my brand of insanity a share of his platform, I know what most of you think it's like to write for the site. But, despite what you surely think, it isn't all high-priced call-girls and expensive narcotics broken up by occasionally typing up a four hundred word rant about copyright. There's actual research involved, gathering story ideas, discussing them with the other writers, and then putting thoughts to virtual paper. Occasionally, the actions of others make our jobs a little bit tougher than they should be. For instance, I recently informed you all about Dov Siedman, a guy who essentially does the corporate speaking circuit, who also is battling Chobani, a maker of Greek yogurt, over the word "how", which Siedman insists is his and his alone. I linked to a New York Daily News post for that article and pulled several block quotes from it to round out the post. What you may not realize is that I had originaly found the story on a site called Food Navigator USA, a site dedicated to news about the food and beverage industry. It was actually, in my opinion, a superior article and I had wanted to use it for the post. The problem arose when I attempted to copy/paste a small section for the first block quote of the article and received this popup. THIS CONTENT IS COPYRIGHT PROTECTED However, if you would like to share the information in this article, you may use the headline, summary and link below: How Matters: Chobani ‘disappointed’ by ‘baseless’ trademark infringement lawsuit from Dov Seidman By Elaine Watson+, 05-Jun-2014 A lawsuit filed by bestselling author and corporate ethics consultant Dov Seidman accusing Chobani of infringing his trademarks with its 'How Matters' campaign is "baseless and without merit", says the Greek yogurt maker. http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Manufacturers/Dov-Seidman-sues-Chobani-for-trademark-infringement-over-How-Matters Are you, the educated Techdirt reader, done vomiting yet? Good, because now we can all have a discussion about how both misleading and self-destructive this kind fo notification is. Let's deal with the headline of the popup first: THIS CONTENT IS COPYRIGHT PROTECTED. When produced for attempting to simply copy and paste a tiny section of an article, with zero attempt made to discern what the intention of the copying is, the message being sent is that such an attempt to copy the text is a violation of copyright on the article. This, of course, is absolute nonsense. It ignores entirely the concept of Fair Use and I damn well could have pulled the quotes I wanted, posted the article I'd originally intended to write, and gone on the rest of my life feeling secure knowing that there is nothing the assuredly esteemed plethora of lawyers on the Food Navigator USA dole could do about it. I'm protected. Now, the insistence that only the entire article could be shared with the headline intact is an obvious attempt to get more people to the site in order to generate more readership, ad revenue, etc. Which completely backfired because I'll be damned if I'm going to include a site that uses this kind of heavy-handed, nuance-less mind-boning in one of my posts, unless it's to discuss how completely stupid and backward it is. The funny part of all this is that, after being confronted with this popup, I found roughly a trillion other sites that had this same story and which didn't bash me over the head for pulling block quotes. We at Techdirt, of course, always link back to the original posts when we discuss a story, and our block quotes don't encompass the entire articles. The idea is that the sources we pull from get traffic via our links and, wouldn't you know it, that happens even though we aren't simply reposting all of their content with their headline and bylines intact. Am I saying this is a problem that is insurmountable? No, of course not, since I found another post from which to pull quotes. Am I saying this is a heavy hardship on me, the Techdirt writer? No, for the same reason stated previously. But in the end, it creates a little extra work for us writers and generates nothing positive for the site with the silly popups. So how about not doing that crap any longer? Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 17 days ago on techdirt
Science fiction has popularized a few clothing ideas that haven't quite become a reality. (For instance, fabrics made of a spider-silk-like fiber that are super tough but light.) Sometimes the laws of physics doesn't quite allow for magical fabrics that can make things invisible/impenetrable/etc. Real advanced fabric technologies are improving all the time, though, and making some pretty cool clothes -- even if they're not economically practical. Here are just a few examples. Body armor tough enough to withstand a knife could be 3D printed from a single strand of yarn. The yarn is bound together with a silicone material that gives the 3D structure some impact-resistant crumple volume. The prototypes don't look too comfy to wear, but presumably, more refined materials and designs could produce some useful and wearable body armor. [url] Lab-grown leather from bioengineered tissues (3D printed on demand, no less) could make "animal-friendly" clothing in the future. Lab-made skin (properly engineered) won't need to be processed to remove hair follicles and could be more environmentally green in some ways, but it might still be ethically questionable to grow certain kinds of skin. (eg. it puts the lotion in the basket..) [url] Many fire-resistant textiles have typically contained some nasty chemicals, but some specialty materials like CarbonX don't... (because it's made of partially-charred acrylic fibers). There's also Nomex, but neither of these specialty textiles is really suited for toddler pajamas (yet?). [url] If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 17 days ago on techdirt
For years, people have wondered if one of the best tools to prevent ISPs from behaving too badly in breaking net neutrality would just be public shaming. Netflix has long released data on ISP performance, and then got into some hot water last month when it started directly blaming ISPs for network congestion, leading Verizon to send a cease-and-desist letter. Quartz is reporting that YouTube has been doing something similar, though it's not quite as in-your-face as the Netflix example. If the connection is weak, YouTube displays a blue bar beneath the video, with the words "Experiencing Interruptions?" in white: Click on the "Find out why" link and you get taken to Google's "Video Quality Report" which tells you some information about your ISP and how congested the network is (or, at least sometimes -- in my case, it tells me it doesn't have enough information about my provider, which happens to be Sonic.net, to determine any results). Of course, all the public shaming in the world isn't going to matter much if ISPs are free to clog up interconnection points and you have no real competition to go to.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 17 days ago on techdirt
The US Courts system has just released its annual report on wiretap warrants. As you'll recall, warrants are those quaint permission slips that law enforcement officers occasionally seek before performing searches. (Although it looks as though they'll be doing it more frequently from now on…) Not included in this report are outlying actions by agencies whose rogueness has been codified. The US Courts FAQ on the report points out that data from the FISA court is not included. Presumably, the previously illegal warrantless wiretaps deployed by the federal government aren't being tracked either, because if there's no warrant, there's no court. And if there's no court, there's no oversight. Also not included are pen register/trap and trace orders, which are basically given the same amount of scrutiny that subpoenas and NSLs are given: very little, if any. No report to the AO is required for the use of a pen register (a device attached to a telephone line that records or decodes impulses identifying the numbers dialed from that line) unless the pen register is used in conjunction with any wiretap devices whose use must be recorded. No statistics are collected on the number of devices used in conjunction with each order. The US Courts system has handily provided ten years of data on wiretap warrants and everything in it points to one thing -- US law enforcement is almost exclusively focused on fighting the War on Drugs. Of the 22,741 warrants issued since 2003, 21,838 (96%) were issued under the heading of "Narcotics." And the warrants themselves are ridiculously easy to obtain (giving lie to law enforcement's complaints about the complexity of securing a search warrant). To obtain these 22,741 warrants, 22,748 applications were submitted. Only 7 applications have been rejected since 2003, giving law enforcement a batting average of .99969. So, we know drugs are big business for law enforcement. At an average of $41,119 per intercept deployed, expenses for just the drug-related wiretaps in 2013 easily tops the $100,000,000 mark, and that's assuming all of those adhered to that average (the average was taken from 2,069 wiretaps where costs were reported.) The cost per intercept seems to be coming down (it was over $62,000 in 2003) but the number of intercepts has doubled over the same time period. The US Courts' information page also notes that further expenses are often reported after the reporting period has ended. (It points to an additional $62 million in expenses reported in 2013 for wiretaps issued in previous years.) Drugs are not just a multi-billion dollar business for distributors. With this intense focus on one particular form of crime, law enforcement has become just as big a "customer" of the drug business as drug users. That data may not be particularly surprising, but it does reveal just how much attention is being paid to a narrow range of criminals. Nowhere does the report indicate anything has been deployed to combat terrorism, which is often the stated reason for obtaining bigger and better ex-military weapons and vehicles. It could be that wiretaps issued for counterterrorism are hidden under other designations or done without court approval. Or it could be that there's simply not nearly as much domestic terrorism activity as law enforcement officials claim. The more surprising data, especially when coupled with the fact that US courts have only rejected .00031 of the wiretap applications that cross their desks, is the sheer number of people and communications being swept up by single warrants. San Mateo County, California had only one wiretap warrant issued (probably related to the investigation of Sen. Leland Yee), but it was able to put a whole lot of people under surveillance with that single document. Its single intercept gathered communications from 588 people, with a total of 19,477 interceptions… of which only 513 proved to be incriminating. (It should be noted that intercepted communications can also include text messages, a form of communication that can easily cause these numbers to swell to ridiculous proportions.) Likewise, Franklin County, Ohio also sought only one wiretap order, but it, too, had a huge payoff -- 551 people, 9,654 communications with 454 deemed incriminating (most likely related to this drug bust). But with all these large numbers and expenses come massive amounts of arrests and indictments, right? Well, not really. Even accounting for the fact that it can take years before the results of an investigation result in jail time, the percentage of convictions resulting from wiretap-related arrests seems to be hovering right around 45%. And the number of arrests is far smaller than number of people whose communications were intercepted during the course of the investigation. In 2003, 167,272 people had their communications tapped (with 4.3 million communications intercepted) but this has only resulted in (to date) 5,705 arrests and 2,523 convictions. 2004 was even worse, with 215,460 people surveilled (5.1 million communications intercepted). The end result, a decade on? 6,717 arrests and 2,815 convictions. If these patterns hold (and there's no evidence they won't), the hit rate of wiretap deployments will continue to fall, at least in terms of arrests and convictions. The average number of people tapped by an order last year was "only" 97 (the number has hovered between 100-110 over the course of the last decade) but the average number of communications harvested from each wiretap has been increasing over the past several years. Last year, it was 4,558 communications per wiretap (2003/2004 were 3,004/3,017 per) and the number of wiretaps issued has more than doubled in that same period. 2013's numbers are astounding: 346,872 people surveilled with 16,299,408 communications intercepted, with less than 3 million declared "incriminating." Within those numbers is another interesting fact: encryption is rarely used and even when it is, it's rarely effective. The number of state wiretaps in which encryption was encountered increased from 15 in 2012 to 41 in 2013. In nine of these wiretaps, officials were unable to decipher the plain text of the messages. Encryption was also reported for 52 state wiretaps that were conducted during previous years, but reported to the AO for the first time in 2013. Officials were able to decipher the plain text of the communications in all 52 intercepts. Contrast this minimal number with the thousands of devices tapped with the claim made by the US government (in the US v. Wurie warrantless cell phone search case) that requiring warrants would put law enforcement at the mercy of tech-savvy criminals. [S]earching an arrestee's cell phone immediately upon arrest is often critical to protecting evidence against concealment in a locked or encrypted phone or remote destruction.The numerous party and amicus briefs in these cases have not seriously undermined that fundamental practical point. Although the briefs identify various techniques to prevent the remote-wiping problem (none of which is close to perfect), they barely address the principal problem that the government identified: automatic passcode-locking and encryption. There is no tech arms race. Encryption was encountered 41 times durings the states' surveillance of over 200,000 people. The encryption "held" only nine times. All fifty-two times the federal government encountered it during its surveillance of millions of people over the last several years, it was able to defeat it. The US Court system has proven indistinguishable from the FISA Court with its approval rate that's only .03% away from 100%. Likewise, the surveillance it approves sweeps up tons of "incidental" communications from completely innocent parties. The end result, however, is possibly more futile than the War on Terror. The Drug War isn't headed for a win, nor will it ever be. It will never even be a tie. This has gone on for 40 years and the only "benefit" has been increased budget lines for law enforcement agencies and the steady militarization of local police forces. Billions of dollars in taxes are being poured into a battle many Americans don't feel is worth fighting, while the system itself remains largely insulated against public opinion. Judges are granting nearly anything as long as the word "drugs" appears on the request and law enforcement agencies know this. If nothing else, this reports shows that law enforcement should never have a problem with seeking a warrant. Even large-scale surveillance efforts (like the sweeping up the communications of 500+ people with a single wiretap request) are flying through the court system without a hitch. Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 17 days ago on techdirt
It would appear that the government's attempts to convince the public that giving up their privacy for the good of national security isn't going so well. The latest numbers from the Pew Research Center show pretty broad consensus that it's not right to diminish privacy rights in order to fight terrorism, and this was true across the political spectrum. Meanwhile, when it comes directly to the question of NSA surveillance, the research shows many on both sides of the traditional political aisle are against the NSA's practices: The various groupings seem a bit suspect to me (and I generally find "left/right" political spectrum analyzing to be a distraction), but it's still interesting. Given the details of how the groups are made up, it seems likely that many steadfast conservatives and the next generation left might flip the positions above if there were a Republican President, but it does seem notable and important that the solid liberals are now against NSA surveillance as well. The partisan nature of views on surveillance has been a bit depressing -- because you see the very same people who hated the NSA's warrantless wiretapping under George W. Bush suddenly change their tune under Barack Obama -- and vice versa (I even had a bizarre Twitter debate with someone who dismissed all facts by saying "Well, I trust Eric Holder," which seemed like the ultimate in pure partisan faith). But it's good to see that plenty of people are ignoring the partisan pull (and whatever attempts there are by the NSA's defenders to "educate" the public) and are flat out recognizing how problematic these programs are.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 17 days ago on techdirt
TL;DR: Support our net neutrality coverage and double your impact right now! » As I'm sure you remember, a few years ago, the biggest story in the technology world was the fight to protect the internet from dangerous copyright legislation in Congress called SOPA/PIPA. Here at Techdirt, we covered that story top to bottom -- even walking the halls of Congress on January 18th, 2012, the day of the big internet blackout. A study done by Harvard following that fight, found that Techdirt became "the single most important professional media site over the entire period, overshadowing the more established media." We've already highlighted how the ongoing fight over net neutrality has some similarities, in that the threat to the future of the internet may be made by folks in Washington DC who don't fully understand what they're doing. And we'd like to do the same level of blanket coverage we gave to the SOPA/PIPA fight. But we need your help to do it. And we need it now. Today we've teamed up with BeaconReader, a startup that is leading the way in crowdfunding journalism, to launch a crowdfunding campaign for Techdirt to cover "The Net Neutrality Battle." You can help by supporting our coverage right now » Here's the exciting part that is different from most crowdfunding campaigns. Beacon has helped bring together additional donors who have promised to match the first $30,000 in funds (with potentially more on the way -- so stay tuned), so if you support our coverage now you'll double your impact. Net neutrality is obviously a big story -- but it's one that simply isn't getting that much coverage. A recent Pew study found that earlier this year, even as the debate heated up, it was all but absent from national television news and most major newspapers. While there was a brief breakthrough moment when John Oliver discussed net neutrality, even that was somewhat limited (HBO), and not the most nuanced of reports. As Oliver himself noted, the reason that this debate is so dangerous is because often it's been designed to seem boring to the average person so that they have no idea what it means and how it will impact them. We aim to change that as much as possible. We want to be able to take the time and break down every angle of this story: including cutting through much of the rhetoric being spewed about what's happening and what it means. Things like Title II, Section 706 and "forbearance" are confusing and very deep in the weeds, but actually understanding these things and how they'll impact you are important. There are many vested interests who know that keeping you bored and confused works to their advantage -- and we're hoping to better educate you, so that you can take part in this debate in an informed manner, calling out bogus claims when you see them, and being able to help others understand the issues as well. Back that Harvard study, which highlighted just how central Techdirt was to that story, noting that there were more in-links to Techdirt than any other source concerning SOPA and PIPA: But here's the part that hasn't been discussed before: covering truly important issues like this, which mostly focus on incumbents trying to stifle upstarts and innovation, is really bad for paying the bills. Our coverage of SOPA/PIPA cost us dearly. While we had some critics insist the only reason we were covering the story was because of the revenue it brought in, the truth is that we lost a very big advertising deal in large part because of our coverage. In the midst of the fight, we actually had an ad partner contact us to ask if we would "tone down" such "political stuff" on the site. That's not how we work, obviously. We cover what we think is important because we think it's important, and not based on what will attract the most advertising dollars. But, there's a big cost to that. In our case, advertising, which almost always comes from large incumbents, dried up significantly, despite the fact that our traffic basically doubled. Thankfully, we have the research and consulting side of our business, which helps fund this site, but the site increasingly runs at a loss if you just view it in terms of advertising and sponsorship. We took another hit on that front last month, when we (basically alone among media sites) agreed to go 100% SSL, to protect your privacy -- which forced us to cut loose a number of ad partners who simply don't want to bother supporting SSL. For years, though, we've reported on crowdfunding campaigns -- and we've had some success with our own Insider Shop, but it's not nearly enough for the kind of coverage we'd like to bring to these and other important issues. So that's where this crowdfunding campaign comes in. Beacon is a fascinating startup that is working hard to combine the best concepts of crowdfunding, but with a 100% focus on making it work for journalism, leading to some unique opportunities. With this campaign, our net neutrality coverage will appear on both Techdirt and Beacon, and supporters will get some specific perks from Beacon as well. Like all crowdfunding campaigns, this is something of an experiment -- meaning that it's also an opportunity for you to tell us how important you think net neutrality is as well. We'll obviously cover the unfolding story no matter what, but if we can meet our goal with this campaign, we'll be able to dedicate a lot more resources to making sure that we can truly cover every angle, including following the story to wherever it leads us: whether that's Washington, DC or elsewhere, and adding more voices and more in-depth coverage on what's really happening and what it really means for you and the future of the internet. The fact that any money pledged now gets immediately doubled by matching donors makes it easy for you to have even more impact right now. We've mentioned ways to supports us in the past, but we've never before made a direct plea to help us out. Today, however, I'm asking if you'll step up and contribute and enable us to bring you more thorough reporting on the net neutrality fight. The fact that BeaconReader will match your dollars, doubling the impact of every dollar you give, will act as added incentive. Thanks for any possible support you can give. Once again: Support our net neutrality coverage and double your impact right now! » Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 17 days ago on techdirt
It wasn't even whistleblowing, although that too can destroy careers and lives. It was a FOIA request, made by someone who knew exactly which documents he wanted released. His CIA career included assignments in Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq, but the most perilous posting for Jeffrey Scudder turned out to be a two-year stint in a sleepy office that looks after the agency’s historical files. It was there that Scudder discovered a stack of articles, hundreds of histories of long-dormant conflicts and operations that he concluded were still being stored in secret years after they should have been shared with the public. To get them released, Scudder submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act — a step that any citizen can take, but one that is highly unusual for a CIA employee. Four years later, the CIA has released some of those articles and withheld others. It also has forced Scudder out. "Historical documents of long-dormant conflicts and operations." Scudder dared to ask for these documents, and the CIA cut him loose. It also sent another federal agency after him -- the FBI. On Nov. 27, 2012, a stream of black cars pulled up in front of Scudder’s home in Ashburn, Va., at 6 a.m. FBI agents seized every computer in the house, including a laptop his daughter had brought home from college for Thanksgiving. They took cellphones, storage devices, DVDs, a Nintendo Game Boy and a journal kept by his wife, a physical therapist in the Loudoun County Schools. To date, only his daughter has received her laptop back. Every other computer remains in the hands of the FBI, despite the fact that no charges were ever pressed and despite the fact that many of the documents Scudder asked for have been released by the CIA in the interim. More from his request list are due to be released in the near future. The CIA avails itself of a wide array of FOIA exemptions, but its reluctance to publish historical documents is just baffling -- and is most likely a result of the agency's long-running adversarial relationship with transparency. It's been noted here before that the CIA has used the often-abused b(5) exemption to withhold documents over five decades old (dealing with the Bay of Pigs invasion), claiming that the release of the "sensitive" documents would "confuse the public." Despite Scudder's efforts, the flow of historical CIA documents will only decrease in the future. The office charged with declassifying historical documents has been closed, deemed expendable by the agency in the face of budget cuts. This workload will be routed through the agency's FOIA office, creating even more incentive for the CIA to stonewall requests. Scudder never did anything his superiors thought was wrong until after he attempted to free these historical documents. Everything the agency never took issue with during his previous 18 years of employment -- like personal call infractions and the possession of photos (taken by Scudder in his position as "official CIA photographer") deemed "classified" -- was suddenly yet another reason to force him out. It's been clear for a long time that the government doesn't care much for whistleblowers. It also seems to have something against transparency, even concerning documents of historical interest only. Scudder did nothing criminal. He just did something the agency didn't like. And for that, he lost his job and clearance. So, it's not just whistleblowing that can get you destroyed. It's also holding the government to its own transparency standards -- something that isn't remotely criminal but is apparently completely unforgivable.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 17 days ago on techdirt
The recent leak of the XKeyscore source code has raised an interesting question. Is there a second leaker? The report written by Jacob Appelbaum and others for DasErste.de detailed the NSA's targeting of Tor users (and even those who just read about Tor) and the harvesting of their communications, but very explicitly did not state that Snowden was the source of this code snippet. Others noticed this lack of attribution and commented on it. Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing apparently received confirmation that this particular leak was not from Snowden's trove of documents. Another expert said that s/he believed that this leak may come from a second source, not Edward Snowden, as s/he had not seen this in the original Snowden docs; and had seen other revelations that also appeared independent of the Snowden materials. Cryptologist and security expert Bruce Schneier (who has seen the documents released to journalists by Snowden) concurred with Doctorow's conclusion. And, since Cory said it, I do not believe that this came from the Snowden documents. I also don't believe the TAO catalog came from the Snowden documents. I think there's a second leaker out there. The TAO catalog was originally revealed by Der Spiegel with reporting by (again) Jacob Appelbaum and Greenwald/Snowden partner Laura Poitras. Nothing in the story explicitly states its origin, although the inclusion of Poitras at least suggests the documents can be traced back to Snowden's stash. Glenn Greenwald, however, offered his agreement with Schneier's take here: Seems clear at this point RT @ageis @vruz Bruce Schneier: "I think there's a second [NSA] leaker out there." https://t.co/0iCULZWf0L — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 4, 2014 If so, then that's two people who have seen Snowden's documents, including one with ongoing access, claiming there's a second leaker. And if so, the NSA's problem, instead of gradually disappearing from the public eye, will become more severe. Coupled with the recent leak published by the Washington Post, which shows the agency harvests and stores plenty of unminimized non-terrorist communications with its 702 collections (the same collection the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board recently found to be more law-abiding and less Constitutionally unsound than the bulk metadata program), the agency now looks worse than ever. It was completely unprepared for the Snowden revelations, but at least by this point, it has a general feel for the leak release process. Now, it possibly has another leaker offering new data and info to journalists, one which is a totally unknown quantity. At this point, all anyone has is speculation. If there's another leaker, it's doubtful he or she will make his/her identity known any time soon. Snowden revealed himself as a leaker and that hasn't exactly worked out well for him. But there's also some indications that this snippet of code came from Snowden's leaks. Errata Security (the group of bloggers that exposed the fakery behind NBC's pre-Winter Olympics "report" that all visitors to Sochi would be instantly hacked) has done its own fisking of the code snippet and come to the following conclusions. 1. The signatures are old (2011 to 2012), so it fits within the Snowden timeframe, and is unlikely to be a recent leak. 2. The code is weird, as if they are snippets combined from training manuals rather than operational code. That would mean it is “fake”. 3. The story makes claims about the source that are verifiably false, leading us to believe that they may have falsified the origin of this source code. 4. The code is so domain specific that it probably is, in some fashion, related to real XKeyScore code – if fake, it's not completely so. Errata Security notes some of the oddities of the code, pointing out that it looks more like something pulled from a training exercise or manual rather than directly from XKeyscore itself. More investigation by Errata Security and The Grugq (another security expert) apparently uncovered the fact that the text was pulled from a document (pdf, docx, etc.) rather than an actual source file. But the aspect that seems to indicate this is part of Snowden's stash is the timeline. As this post to the Tor developer mailing list describes, the signatures in the code are old. The earliest date this file can be valid is 2011-08-08, when the Linux journal reported on TAILS. The latest date might be 2012-09-21, just before a new server was added to Tor that isn't in the XKeyScore list. Since this is shortly before Snowden first tried to contact Greenwald, the dates sync up. If the code is unrecognizable by those who've had access to the documents, that's probably due to it being compiled from various pages and mocked up into a short code excerpt. Rob Graham at Errata Security doesn't feel it's necessarily fake, but believes the origin of the quoted source code may have been obscured -- hence, no citation of Snowden's leaks or any acknowledgment of existing NSA files. Of course, this could mean another leaker is simply hiding behind Snowden, and has pulled files roughly in the same date range in order to deliver new leaks in order to remain undetected. If there is another leaker, my guess is he/she will be discovered rather than coming out publicly. New leaker or no, the one-two punch of published leaks by Jacob Appelbaum and Barton Gellman (of the Washington Post) shows that the NSA is doing everything it's been accused of -- namely, hoovering up and holding onto incidental communications (even those originating from "untargeted" American citizens) and viewing anyone with even a passing interest in anonymity or encryption as "suspicious."Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 17 days ago on techdirt
We just wrote about the UK's filtering systems blocking access to 20% of the world's top 100,000 sites, even though only about 4% of those host the porn Prime Minister David Cameron seems so obsessed with blocking. Also noted in that story was the fact that many "pirate sites" are being blocked at ISP level via secret court orders. MPAA head Chris Dodd absolutely loves web filters, proclaiming them to be the best tool the industry can (ab)use to thwart piracy. Speaking recently at the IP Summit in London, Former Senator turned MPAA boss Chris Dodd pronounced his love for forcing ISPs to block and filter websites accused of aiding copyright infringement. Despite the fact filters can be easily bypassed by anyone with a modicum of technical knowledge and often filter legitimate content (a report this week suggests a massive swath of legitimate websites are blocked by UK filters), Dodd believes filters are the "most effective tools anywhere in the world" at fighting piracy. It appears the studios agree as well, going so far as to attempt to equate the act of piracy with the act of distributing child porn. The UK’s Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) maintains a blocklist of URLs that point to sexual child abuse and criminally obscene adult content. Over in New Zealand the Department of Internal Affairs maintains DCEFS, the Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System. Both are run in cooperation with the countries’ ISPs with the sole aim of keeping the most objectionable material away from public eyes… According to a RadioLIVE report, in order to prevent copyright infringement the studios requested access to the DCEFS child abuse filtering system. After obtaining government permission, Hollywood hoped to add their own list of sites to DCEFS so that by default subscribers to New Zealand’s main ISPs would be prohibited from accessing torrent and other file-sharing type sites. So, in hopes of protecting their business model, studios tried to add file sharing sites to a list of child pornography sites. Not one of them seemed to realize how wrong it was to equate their companies' profitability with the sexual abuse of children. Whatever level of entitlement these companies have risen to in the past, they've vastly exceeded it with this maneuver. Studios may secretly believe copyright infringement is (very subjectively) as damaging as child pornography, but they've never made it this explicitly clear. Fortunately, ISPs and the Kiwi government pushed back, unwilling to be complicit in the studios' most insensitive act of self-preservation yet. Unfortunately for Dodd and his charges, the studios will have to make do with secret court orders and default web filters that still allow end users to flip the "hide file sharing sites" switch to "off." The studios believe they should have root access to government-ordained web blocking. In the interest of not making the situation worse than it already is, this should never be granted. Various governments have already included protection for the copyright industries in some of their web-targeted "for the children" legislation. Giving studios the go-ahead to tamper with child porn blacklists would just stretch the definition of "children" to include major Hollywood studios -- entities full of full-grown adults with enough power and money to protect them from anything.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 17 days ago on techdirt
Another day, another story of ridiculously errant DMCA takedown notices. The latest involves Qualcomm hiring Cyveillance to issue a DMCA notice to Github, demanding the site take down 116 repositories for allegedly violating Qualcomm's copyright. Of course, among those repositories are... Qualcomm's own repository. Because, apparently, like many other companies out there that do DMCA takedown notices, Cyveillance doesn't much care about collateral damage, and issues overly broad takedown notices because it can, and because there's simply no penalty for doing so. The takedown also impacted CyanogenMod developers and Sony's own Xperia dev Github repository. Because if you're going to create collateral damage, why not try to hit everyone? The impetus behind the takedown request is a WiFi config file �“ literally a text file �“ which is taken straight from a Sony firmware release. In this takedown Qualcomm also took down PRIMA mirror which is open source code for Atheros wireless chipsets that they release on the CodeAurora gitweb site. The article at Ausdroid also points out that Qualcomm has been trying to create "better relations with the open-source community for sometime." I would imagine one way to do that would be to not pull down their GitHub repositories with bogus DMCA claims. But, of course, Qualcomm has long been known as a patent and copyright bully, so apparently old habits die hard.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 17 days ago on techdirt
Last week, of course, there was a lot of attention around Google alerting publications that some of their stories had been removed from its index over "right to be forgotten" requests, following a dangerous European Court of Justice ruling. Various publications in the UK complained about some of the removals, and requested if there was any sort of appeals process. The BBC was initially told that there was no such process, though the Guardian claimed it was looking for ways to appeal. It appears that the current "appeals" process is based on how much attention and ridiculousness happen in response to the revelations. Because late last week, Google restored some of the links for the Guardian (mainly the ones where the removals made no sense at all). Either way, this has now created quite a mess, which was easily predictable as soon as the court's ruling came down. How anyone can think a somewhat arbitrary censorship mechanism would function smoothly is beyond me.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 18 days ago on techdirt
After a dangerous ruling that allowed Microsoft to seize a bunch of domain names without even notifying the owners, there were plenty of problems to be discussed. But, ultimately, most of it boils down to the simple absurdity of such seizures being possible in the first place, as Adrian Lopez pointed out in this week's first-place comment on the insightful side: Yet another example of why in rem seizures need to be done away with altogether. Property has owners. Want to seize the property? Argue against the owner in front of a judge. It's called due process. Our next comment took both the second place spot for insightful and the first place spot for funny. After the IRS denied non-profit status to an open source organization, one anonymous commenter pointed out the ridiculous imbalance between this and another recent bit of news: It has to benefit the poor ... like Massachusetts SWAT who apparently had no problem getting 501(c)(3) status For editor's choice on the insightful side, we've got two excellent responses to common arguments that show up in the comments (and elsewhere). The first is related to Aereo: as we've pointed out many times, saying Aereo is abusing a loophole in the law is a gross mischaracterization of the situation, and I've never seen that as cleanly demonstrated as in this anonymous analogy: The difference is between following the law, and trying to carefully position yourself to get through a loophole in the law, by doing all sorts of obvious contortions that would not normally occur to do it. Sorry. That logic doesn't hold much water. To get through the "loophole" in jaywalking laws I'm "doing all sorts of obvious contortions" by "carefully positioning myself" at the crosswalk, which "would not normally occur" because it's a half a block away. You wording things differently doesn't magically change the legality of things. Next, as we've been pointing people towards Larry Lessig's Mayday PAC, some have argued that it's inherently dumb to try to use money to get money out of politics. I think there's plenty of room for informed debate here, but many people seem to reject the idea out of hand — and JP Jones makes a solid case for why this isn't fair by better illuminating the idea: Politics costs money. Everything costs money in one way or another. To paraphrase one of my college professors: "politics is the method by which human beings decide who gets what." Since we use money as the primary determination for our economy (also "who gets what") that means politics is all about money, or at least economic value. You can't remove money from politics. The money, however, isn't the problem. The problem is the strings attached to the money, the intent behind those who "donate" to the political process. This has a class-based definition: if the rich or affluent do it, it's called "lobbying" and if the poor or middle class do it it's called "bribery." The result is the same; the implication is that the individual receiving the money will behave in a manner that benefits the one giving the money, and if they do not, the money will not be offered. Since money is required to have a successful campaign (and thus get elected) this becomes a major factor in how politians act. The idea behind a crowd funded PAC is that by making the money generic and outside of the control of any political goal or intent you remove the "or else" from the equation. This means politicians are compelled to act in accordance with what their constituents want because now their votes are the primary determining factor in how they represent us, not the money from campaign contributions (which currently have the largest impact on elections). In other words, our representatives are motivated to represent the voters rather than the lobby. Over on the funny side, we've already had our first place comment above, so it's on to second place, where we've got another crossover comment referencing other recent news. After the new NSA boss commented that he'd observed terrorist organizations "making changes" in response to the Snowden revelations, Michael took a guess at the new security advice they might be seeking: Just the other day they were on the phone with someone willing to help them secure their systems for $1m per month... For editor's choice on the funny side, we've got two short scripted scenes that readers dreamed up. First, Rekrul imagined a likely phone call now that SoundCloud has given Universal Music the ability to take down content: Tech Support: SoundCloud tech support, how may I help you? UMG: You know that tool you gave us to take down any content that we deem to be infringing? Tech Support: Yes. UMG: Well, I can't find the "Delete All" button... Finally, Baron von Robber anticipated a coming exchange between the ACLU and the DOJ, which has been ordered to deliver unredacted memos: ACLU: "You were told to give an unredacted memo" DOJ: "It's no redacted" ACLU: "What's all that black stuff blocked out?" DOJ: "Um...new font called "ACLU type" ACLU: "Look, I know redacted when I see and I'm looking at it right now" DOJ: "It's pineing for the feuds." (I think that was supposed to be "fjords", unless there's an additional joke I'm not getting.) That's all for this week, folks! Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 19 days ago on techdirt
A little less to go through this week in history, as we mostly took July 4th off, but still plenty of news to look back on. Five Years Ago:: An American court banned a book. I still shake my head over this. But, yes, an American court banned an unauthorized "sequel" to Catcher in the Rye, saying that it was copyright infringement... and leading us to wonder if this case put the nail in the coffin of the idea/expression dichotomy concept in copyright law. Meanwhile, a judge was tossing out the dangerous CFAA ruling against Lori Drew (which found her guilty of a crime for "violating" MySpace's terms of service, but was really an attempt to punish her because a girl her daughter had bullied committed suicide), and Jammie Thomas began her appeals process of the RIAA's big win against her (that appeals process eventually failed). The other big story of the week was that the Pirate Bay was supposedly bought by a public company, but as more and more details came out, that story got more and more questionable, eventually leading nowhere. There was plenty of news in the patent trolling world. Intuit paid a $120 million tax to Intellectual Ventures to avoid getting sued, there was a ridiculous interview with Erich Spangenberg, one of the biggest patent trolls out there. And, the guy after whom the term "patent troll" was originally coined, Ray Niro, found that his favorite patent -- which he claimed covered any JPEG image, and which he'd used to sue plenty of businesses who upset him in one way or another -- was smacked down. On the copyright front, five years before the Aereo ruling came out, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal in the Cablevision remote DVR case that may or may not have been overturned with the Aereo ruling. In those lovely days before copyright trolling came to US shores, we were already finding out how lucrative it was overseas. Oh, and the Australian media was bleating on about laughably inaccurate claims about how piracy funds terrorists. It was also a big week for misplaced blame. Craigslist was sued because someone holding the trademark on "call first" thought he could get money out of the company because people used that phrase in posting. L'Oreal was trying to blame eBay for users posting counterfeit goods. Police were -- no joke -- blaming Google Earth for koi thieves. Obviously. And then media execs were blaming content creators who put their work online for free for "insulting" those who paid for cable. Because free is evil. Ten Years Ago:: A judge slapped down an attempt by famed spammer Scott Richter to sue SpamCop for blocking some of his spam. And yet, a study was pointing out that a ton of people were still buying products from spam. I wonder how much that's changed. This past week, Google finally announced that it was shutting down Orkut, one of its first attempts at building a social network, but ten years ago, the company was getting sued for appropriating the code of another company (which Orkut Buyokkokten had founded) in order to build Orkut. The Jack Valenti era of the MPAA ended and Dan Glickman took over, making the MPAA become incredibly dull. Hard to believe that was ten years ago. Former FCC boss Michael Powell told us that "broadband over powerlines" would be the solution to a lack of competition, but as we predicted broadband over powerlines was clearly a joke played on a gullible FCC. Remember micropayment company Peppercoin? No? No one did back then, either. Ten years ago, we were also marveling about the possibility of controlling computers with body gestures. And, in less than ten years, everyone's already bored with Kinect. Fifteen Years Ago:: Right in the middle of the original dot com bubble, we had some crazy IPOs, such as a company trying to go public on revenue of $74,000. For all the worries that we're in another bubble these days, at least we're not seeing stories like that any more. Of course, we also saw that Ask Jeeves had a great IPO leading us to wonder when Google might IPO (yes, seriously, we were wondering that back in 1999). And, of course, the greatest symbol of the dot com bubble was the funding frenzy around pet food/supply dot coms. There were a whole bunch of them, and each raised more money than the next. I even remember one insisting that it's competitive advantage was that it had outraised its competitors, and a day or so later, one of its competitors raised many millions more. Crazy days. It wasn't just IPOs, of course. There were plenty of buyouts going on as well. We covered some buyouts of music tech startups as well as Slashdot being acquired by Andover (remember when that happened?). Of course, buyouts often have a way of going sour, and people were already getting angry about Yahoo's stewardship of GeoCities, while Microsoft couldn't figure out how to keep Hotmail running. Meanwhile, we were wondering if open source was finally going mainstream and we imagined a crazy dark future in which people could get instant messages on their mobile phones. The horror! 48 Years Ago: We weren't publishing, but President Lyndon Johnson signed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) into law, and it has since been a useful, if frustratingly ignored by government, tool for journalists, both professional and amateur, ever since.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 20 days ago on techdirt
Okay, we've written about Larry Lessig's Mayday PAC a bunch of times already, including when it launched, when it hit its first target of $1 million (which was then matched by donors for another $1 million), and again when the second round launched with a goal of raising $5 million (again to be matched with another $5 million) by July 4th. Guess what? Today is July 4th, and the campaign ends today. And you have a chance to help determine if it meets that $5 million goal or not. While there's been a big last minute push from a variety of places, as I write this, the campaign is still significantly short of its target goal. There is a very real chance that it won't reach the $5 million. And that would be unfortunate. So, today is basically a big chance for you to make a statement about trying to limit the impact of money in politics. One note on cynicism: pretty much every time we've written about this, the comments have been filled with people cynically trashing the idea either based on the argument that it's impossible to get rid of the influence of money in politics or because Lessig hasn't taken a specific issue on a particular pet issue (term limits is one that comes up often enough). Personally, I find this disingenuous and disappointing. It seems like people are actively looking for ways to keep the status quo, rather than to represent any real challenge to it at all. This kind of attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy that only keeps things the way they are. No one knows for sure if Lessig's plans will have any real impact, but I know of no one who has put as much time, thought and effort into tackling the problem of the corrupting influence of money in politics. For every simplistic point that someone has for why this plan or that plan won't work, Lessig has a detailed, fact-based or data-based answer. This isn't just some randomly idealistic person with a dream. This is someone who has dedicated a huge chunk of his life and intellectual resources towards really tackling the problem in a realistic and doable way. Even if I don't know all of the details, if there's one person who can actively make a difference, who has thought through the pros and cons of basically every possible approach, it's Larry Lessig. Go ahead and be cynical, if you must. But think about what that cynicism leads to in the end. Even if the MAYDAY PAC fails, isn't it better that they have a chance to succeed, rather than killing it off from the start so you can sound smart about how you knew it wouldn't work?Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 20 days ago on techdirt
Just when I thought Amazon Derangement Syndrome couldn't get any more acute, I woke up to this "letter to our readers" spearheaded by bestselling writer Douglas Preston and signed by 69 authors. One day, historians and psychologists might manage to explain how various authors came to fear and revile a company that has sold more books than anyone in history; that pays authors up to nearly six times the royalties of the New York “Big Five” lockstep rate; that single-handedly created the ebook and self-publishing markets; that offers more choice and better prices to more readers than anyone ever has before; and that consistently ranks as one of the world’s most admired companies. But for now, let's see if we can figure it out ourselves... A letter to our readers: Amazon is involved in a commercial dispute with the book publisher Hachette, which owns Little Brown, Grand Central Publishing, and other familiar imprints. Unmentioned is that Hachette is part of the Lagardère Group, a French conglomerate with sales of something like ten billion dollars a year. Not exactly David to Amazon's Goliath. These sorts of disputes happen all the time between companies and they are usually resolved in a corporate back room. Indeed, Amazon and Hachette are just a retailer and a supplier having trouble coming to terms. Something that couldn’t be more common. Unless, unless... But in this case, Amazon has done something unusual. It has directly targeted Hachette’s authors in an effort to force their publisher to agree to its terms. This is misleading. Not only has Amazon not "targeted Hachette’s authors," it has offered to compensate them for any damage they suffer by virtue of their publisher's dispute with Amazon. Hachette has refused that offer. Do the authors of this letter not know about Amazon’s offer to help compensate Hachette's authors, and Hachette's refusal? Why don't they mention it? For the past month, Amazon has been: --Boycotting Hachette authors, refusing to accept pre-orders on Hachette’s authors’ books, claiming they are “unavailable.” Amazon is not boycotting anyone. All books by all Hachette authors are available in the Amazon store. In the face of this, to claim there’s a “boycott” is either ignorance or propaganda. Not including a preorder button for a tiny percentage of titles isn’t a boycott. It’s a shot across the bow, and a fairly mild one compared to what an actual boycott of all Hachette titles would look like. As for “unavailable,” if a book isn’t published yet and you can’t preorder it, how else should its status be described? --Refusing to discount the prices of many of Hachette’s authors’ books. The prices of Hachette’s books are set by Hachette. If the authors of this letter think those prices are too high �” and apparently, they do �” it’s bizarre that they’re blaming Amazon. --Slowing the delivery of thousands of Hachette’s authors’ books to Amazon customers, indicating that delivery will take as long as several weeks on most titles. When a retailer and supplier can’t come to terms �” something the letter’s writers acknowledge happens “all the time” �” what is the retailer supposed to tell its customers? As writers�”some but not all published by Hachette�”we feel strongly that no bookseller should block the sale of books or otherwise prevent or discourage customers from ordering or receiving the books they want. This is a bit rich. My own Amazon-published titles are boycotted by Barnes & Noble and by many indie bookstores. Tens of thousands of Indie-published authors face the same widespread boycott. An actual boycott, as in, outright refusal to stock books written by these authors �” not because of price or other contractual terms, but simply because the retailers in question don't like these authors' way of publishing. Yet this is the first I've heard any of the letter's authors express their strong feelings on bookstores preventing or discouraging customers from ordering or receiving the books they want. What's really weird, when you stop and think about it, is that if customers being able to read the books they want is really an important value for the letter’s authors, you would think they would love Amazon’s business model and find Hachette's suspect. After all, Hachette is a gatekeeper �” their whole business model is predicated on excluding from readers probably 99.99% of manuscripts. Amazon’s model is to let all authors publish and to trust readers make up their own minds. If customer choice is the real value in play here, you can’t coherently support Hachette and decry Amazon. Unless, of course, all that happy talk about customer choice is a canard. It is not right for Amazon to single out a group of authors, who are not involved in the dispute, for selective retaliation. It wouldn't be right if Amazon were doing it. As explained above, they're not. What I'd like to know is why the letter's authors apparently feel it is right when Barnes & Noble and other booksellers really do single out authors for retaliation? Why are they upset about a fictional Amazon boycott, and sanguine about a real Barnes & Noble one? Moreover, by inconveniencing and misleading its own customers with unfair pricing and delayed delivery, Amazon is contradicting its own written promise to be “Earth's most customer-centric company.” I agree that it's an inconvenience for customers when a retailer and supplier can't come to terms. But it happens, and it's not that hard to understand why a retailer might feel compelled to hold the line in one discrete area to prevent its supplier from forcing it to charge higher prices across the board. Think of it as a "lesser of two evils" dynamic a retailer might face with regard to what's best for its customers. Regardless, I'm not sure why the letter's authors reflexively lay blame for the dispute and its consequences at Amazon's feet while reflexively absolving (and refusing even to question) Hachette. And I don't see Amazon doing anything here that I would characterize as "misleading." All of us supported Amazon from when it was a struggling start-up. We cheered Amazon on. Our books started Amazon on the road to selling everything and becoming one of the world’s largest corporations. We have made Amazon many millions of dollars and over the years have contributed so much, free of charge, to the company by way of cooperation, joint promotions, reviews and blogs. This is no way to treat a business partner. Under the circumstances, that last line sounds like projection. Nor is it the right way to treat your friends. I'm not sure what this means. What does friendship have to do with a retailer and supplier negotiating terms? Are they saying that in a contract dispute, you can't allow your friends to become collateral damage? Okay, but why is that message directed at Amazon and not at Hachette? I know, I know... they really just want to end this destructive conflict, and bring order to the galaxy... Bear in mind that no one outside of Amazon and Hachette even knows for sure the details or their discussions. There's been a lot of informed speculation in the blogosphere, and it seems likely that the essence of the dispute is that Hachette wants to return to "agency" pricing, which enables Hachette to keep the prices of ebooks artificially high, while Amazon wants the flexibility to charge less. But in the face of no knowledge, or of the likelihood that Hachette is trying to force Amazon to charge higher prices, the knee-jerk anti-Amazon response isn't easy to understand. Without taking sides on the contractual dispute between Hachette and Amazon, we encourage Amazon in the strongest possible terms to stop harming the livelihood of the authors on whom it has built its business. Well, that made me smile. I’m glad no one is taking sides! In fact, reading their letter, I still have no idea which side the letter’s authors favor… :) But seriously, I have to ask… do these people really not recognize that they're taking sides? Not that I think taking sides is wrong; personally, I think Hachette is a joke and I side with Amazon because I favor lower prices, higher royalties, and more choice. But to write a letter like this and claim you're not taking sides... are they disingenuous? Or are they so psychologically wedded to legacy publishing that they think taking Hachette's side is just being neutral? For some reason it reminds me of the joke: "If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?" But anyway... if the value in play here is that a company should "stop harming the livelihood of the authors on whom it has built its business," I'm gobsmacked that these people aren't demanding more from Hachette. Hachette pays its authors 12.5% in digital royalties. It keeps the lion's share of increased ebook profits for itself. It demands life-of-copyright (that is, forever) terms of license. It inhibits its authors' ability to publish other works by insisting on draconian anti-competition clauses. It pays its authors only twice a year. It has innovated precisely nothing, ever, preferring to collude to fix prices with Apple and the other members of the New York "Big Five." That's Hachette's business record... and these authors, who purport to care so much about a company harming the livelihood of authors, have nothing to say about it? I guess that’s what they mean by "not taking sides." None of us, neither readers nor authors, benefit when books are taken hostage. Then why aren’t they telling Hachette to set their books free? End agency pricing! Let retailers discount! Don't collude! Free those books! (We’re not alone in our plea: the opinion pages of both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, which rarely agree on anything, have roundly condemned Amazon’s corporate behavior.) I always mistrust this kind of assertion in the absence of links or other citations �” especially coming from a group that has already made as many misleading claims as this one. But let's assume their claim about overlapping op-eds is true. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal "rarely agree on anything”? This is possibly the most thoughtless (or misleading) claim the letter's authors have made yet. I know it's a bit discursive, but here’s Noam Chomsky on propaganda: "One of the ways you control what people think is by creating the illusion that there's a debate going on, but making sure that that debate stays within very narrow margins. Namely, you have to make sure that both sides in the debate accept certain assumptions, and those assumptions turn out to be the propaganda system. As long as everyone accepts the propaganda system, then you can have a debate." Like the Democratic and Republican branches of America's single political party, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have far, far more in common than they do in dispute. Suggesting their concurrence on a topic is meaningful is exactly like suggesting that because majorities of Democrats and of Republicans voted to invade Iraq, the war was a good idea. We call on Amazon to resolve its dispute with Hachette without hurting authors and without blocking or otherwise delaying the sale of books to its customers. I know I’m repeating myself, but... it's fascinating that these people �” who are of course not taking sides! �” are calling on Amazon this way and saying nothing at all to Hachette. You'd think Hachette is a wholly pure and innocent child, lacking any autonomy at all in this business dispute. We respectfully ask you, our loyal readers, to email Jeff Bezos, c.e.o and founder of Amazon, at jeff@amazon.com, and tell him what you think. He says he genuinely welcomes hearing from his customers and claims to read all emails from this account. We hope that, writers and readers together, we will be able to change his mind. It’s sad. Imagine the good that might be accomplished if mega-bestselling authors like Child, Patterson, and Turow were even fractionally more inclined to leverage their fame and fortune in calling attention to real injustices in publishing. The pittance the New York "Big Five" (the cartel is right there in the moniker) pay their authors. The industrial-level scamming of newbie writers by Penguin Random House-owned Author Solutions. Harlequin setting up subsidiaries solely to screw writers out of their royalties. Instead, these one-percenters consistently ignore the tremendous good Amazon has done for all authors, and allow misguided self-interest to distort their perceptions and their arguments. They take full-page ads in the New York Times, they give interviews with an adoring press, they publish letters like this one… all to perpetuate a publishing system that is designed to create a one-percent class of winners and to exclude everyone else. You want to know something else the New York Times and Wall Street Journal are going to agree on? They're going to offer a ton of coverage to this "letter to readers" because it was signed by a few superstars. And they're going to ignore a competing petition that in the few hours since it went live is already closing in on a thousand signatures, many of them submitted by the mom-n-pop, small-business, indie authors Amazon has enabled to earn a living from their writing for the first time ever. This imbalance is the way establishments work, and the authors of the "letter to our readers" are nothing if not part of the publishing establishment they seek to perpetuate. It's all right. The establishment has the names. Freedom and choice have the numbers. And the numbers always win in the end. Oh, and that petition? You can add your name here. P.S. Some further suggested reading on this topic. If you love books then you should be rooting for Amazon, not Hachette or the Big Five Authors Behaving Badly and Authors Who Aren’t Amazon Finally Defends Itself Against Accusations That It's A Bully Pushing Around HachettePermalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 21 days ago on techdirt
The number of zombie apocalypse movies has been growing over the last few years, introducing "fast-moving" zombies and new kinds of swarming behaviors for the undead. The causes of the zombie apocalypse range from viral to supernatural, but the general awareness of biotechnology's ability to create monsters is undeniable. Meanwhile, Mother Nature herself is creating her own deadly diseases (ahem, ebola) and is making them more difficult to eradicate. Here are just a few observations of evolution that we can hopefully learn from and use to prevent an extinction event. Maybe you've heard of a strain of group A Streptococcus because you've had strep throat. Beginning in the 1980s, strep strains have acquired four (just 4!) genetic modifications -- via horizontal gene transfer and regular old mutation -- to become a flesh-eating (necrotizing fasciitis) infection. [url] Researchers are looking at populations of Escherichia coli under various conditions to try to capture snapshots of genetic evolution in progress. There may be constraints on evolution, and mutations might not be as random as they might initially appear. [url] The Permian-Triassic extinction (aka The Great Dying) was an event about 252 million years ago in which the majority of life on our planet was extinguished. The cause is uncertain, but a recent hypothesis suggests that the transfer of two genes from one type of bacteria to one type of archaea resulted in a microbial bloom that disrupted our planet's carbon cycle by pouring an exponentially-growing amount of methane into the atmosphere. [url] If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 21 days ago on techdirt
We've had a great many discussions about how employers react to the social media content of their employees. There have been questions over whether employers should be able to fire staff for Facebook content, whether staff can be perma-banned from using social media sites at all, or even whether or not employees should be required to cough up social media passwords to their employers. These stories tend to focus on an employer doing something that makes the employee uncomfortable. You want to know what's really an uncomfortable result of an employer looking into an employee's social media account? How about losing five million dollars? That's exactly what happened to New Orleans Saints receiving tight end Jimmy Graham. Unable to negotiate a deal, the Saints slapped Jimmy Graham with a franchise tag as a tight end. Graham disagreed, declaring himself a receiver, in order that he be paid like one. The dispute went to arbitration, and today arbitrator Stephen Burbank came down on the Saints' side. The difference is significant. A franchise tag pays a player the average of the five highest-paid players at that position, and WRs—especially the top tier—are paid better than their TE counterparts. A ruling favorable to Graham would have seen him make $12.312 million this season; instead, he'll make $7.035 million. For you non-sports fans out there, the reason for the average price difference is due to the fact that a team's wide receivers are generally more skilled players compared with tight ends. Typically, receivers primarily, you know, receive, as in the ball, typically on pass plays. Tight ends traditionally occasionally catch passes, but are often used as on-the-line blockers as well and aren't considered to have the catching, jumping, and speed skills of a receiver. For you non-Jimmy Graham fans out there, Graham breaks the stereotype completely, having led his team in receptions, caught yards, and receiving touchdowns. His argument that he wasn't really a tight end had a ton of merit. Unfortunately for Jimmy Graham, the arbiter took to the opinion of Jimmy Graham in part when rendering his decision. The arbitrator's decision isn't public, but dribs and drabs of Burbank's reasoning have come out. (Ian Rapaport and Albert Breer are your best sources.) Among Burbank's justifications: -Graham attends TE position meetings. -Graham was drafted by the Saints as a TE. -Graham lists himself as a TE in his Twitter bio. (Yes, the Saints argued this.) Burbank, via Rapaport: "Mr. Graham refers to himself as a tight end in social media that he controls and his agents do so as well." -Graham lined up within four yards of the offensive line on a majority of his snaps last season. Oops. Kind of hard to argue that you're not a tight end when your own Twitter bio calls you a tight end. Now, the article notes that the Twitter bio probably wasn't the key factor in the decision, stating that the arbiter likely instead focused on how close to the offensive linemen Graham started most plays (which is stupid, by the way), but it did serve as a sort of catchy "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" moment against his claim. Either way, before you go telling your bosses what role you play in a company, probably best that you get your story straight with your social media accounts first. Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 21 days ago on techdirt
While we've talked in the past about whether or not a blog or publication should out a previously anonymous commenter if the outting would be newsworthy, it's worth noting that there was no real consensus reached amongst the venerated Techdirt community. Some of us think that there might be room for such a move. Others, such as myself, take more of a hard line approach to protecting anonymity (see the comments section in the link above for what I'd say is a really nice discussion on the question). Either way, with the widespread blogosphere and public participation in online communities only ratcheting ever-higher, it's useful to bring stories to the table to discuss how this all works when such events do occur. This latest example is about John Huppenthal, Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction and apparent frequent anonymous commenter at Blog For Arizona. Bob Lord, of BFA, recently penned a post that outs Huppenthal for his previously anonymous and simultaneously insane comments on the site. Okay, for the few of you who have not figured this out yet, by all indication our friend Thucky is John Huppenthal, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, which is the fifth highest elected office in the state. This may be a first. I don't know of any other elected official who has led a double life as a serial blog troll besides John Huppenthal. Chalk that up to Arizona having the market cornered on political craziness, I guess. The post then outs Huppenthal for commenting anonymously there, on other conservative sites, and for creating duplicate handles all over the place in order to fake some kind of consensus around what he says. And what he was saying, analysis indicates, is batshit crazy. Such as: -"bat shit crazy stuff"!!! Its in Obamas book, Obama said he was born in Kenya!!!! If this were a Republican, you would be going nuts demanding those college records. -Hitler worked to eliminate the Jews. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was given the job of eliminating African Americans. Hitler fed 6 million Jews into the ovens. Sanger has fed 16 million African Americans into the abortion mills. -No spanish radio stations, no spanish billboards, no spanish tv, no spanish newspapers. This is America, speak English. Now, it's worth noting that Huppenthal has since acknowledged that he did indeed make those comments under several different names, speaking of and to himself in the third person. That acknowledgement was followed up with something about believing in public discourse, regretting certain inflammatory words (Hitler! Kenya!), but hoping that we should all recognize that our great country has a long history of anonymous speech from politicians. And...I happen to think he's right on that last point. Look, Huppenthal is a blowhard, fact-ignoring caricature of a politician on one end of the political spectrum. He's not representative of anything other than his own idiocy, but the sites he went to offered anonymous commenting and then pulled the rug out from under him when they decided that his commenting was a story. They're not wrong; Huppenthal's online antics and self-sock-puppetry is indeed a story, but does that story outweigh the fallout from the removal of anonymity? I would say no. Others, including other writers here at Techdirt, might say yes. I'm more interested in what you all think, anonymous or otherwise. Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 21 days ago on techdirt
New York's highest court has just struck down a cyberbullying law that went (as many do) past the point necessary and started walking all over First Amendment-protected speech. The wording of the law (particular to Albany County) defined cyberbullying in the following loose language. 1. "any act of communicating … by mechanical or electronic means,” 2. “including posting statements on the internet or through a computer or email network,” - “disseminating embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs;” - “disseminating private, personal, false or sexual information,” - “or sending hate mail,” 3. ”with no legitimate private, personal, or public purpose,” 4. “with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, abuse, taunt, intimidate, torment, humiliate, or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on another person.” As Eugene Volokh points out, this wording is problematic, to say the least. This wasn’t limited to offensive speech to a person, but included offensive speech about people; and it wasn’t limited to speech that falls within a First Amendment exception (such as threats, or knowing defamatory falsehoods)[...] Note, for instance, that the ordinance criminalizes “disseminating … personal … information” — even if it’s not “false” or “sexual” — about any person, if it’s done “with the intent to … annoy …, abuse, [or] taunt” and “with no legitimate private, personal, or public purpose,” whatever that might mean. The state's highest court found that this language was too broad and too harmful to protected speech to be allowed to continue. Based on the text of the statute at issue, it is evident that Albany County "create[d] a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth" (United States v Stevens, 559 US at 474). The language of the local law embraces a wide array of applications that prohibit types of protected speech far beyond the cyberbullying of children. As written, the Albany County law in its broadest sense criminalizes "any act of communicating . . . by mechanical or electronic means . . . with no legitimate . . . personal . . . purpose, with the intent to harass [or] annoy. . . another person." On its face, the law covers communications aimed at adults, and fictitious or corporate entities, even though the county legislature justified passage of the provision based on the detrimental effects that cyberbullying has on school-aged children. The county law also lists particular examples of covered communications, such as "posting statements on the internet or through a computer or email network, disseminating embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs; disseminating private, personal, false or sexual information, or sending hate mail." But such methods of expression are not limited to instances of cyberbullying -- the law includes every conceivable form of electronic communication, such as telephone conversations, a ham radio transmission or even a telegram. In addition, the provision pertains to electronic communications that are meant to "harass, annoy . . . taunt . . . [or] humiliate" any person or entity, not just those that are intended to "threaten, abuse . . . intimidate, torment . . . or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on" a child. In considering the facial implications, it appears that the provision would criminalize a broad spectrum of speech outside the popular understanding of cyberbullying, including, for example: an email disclosing private information about a corporation or a telephone conversation meant to annoy an adult. The county (and the two dissenting judges) argued that the law could be "fixed" by tightening the language and restricting it solely to communications targeting children. All well and good, but the court wasn't inclined to believe this would fix the law, and further pointed out that separation of powers prohibit judges from rewriting laws on the fly in order to make them Constitutional again. We conclude that it is not a permissible use of judicial authority for us to employ the severance doctrine to the extent suggested by the County or the dissent. It is possible to sever the portion of the cyberbullying law that applies to adults and other entities because this would require a simple deletion of the phrase "or person" from the definition of the offense. But doing so would not cure all of the law's constitutional ills. As we have recently made clear, the First Amendment protects annoying and embarrassing speech (see e.g. People v Golb, __ NY3d __, 2014 NY Slip Op 03426 [May 13, 2014]; People v Dietze, 75 NY2d at 52-53), even if a child may be exposed to it (see Brown v Entertainment Merchants Assn., 131 S Ct at 2736), so those references would also need to be excised from the definitional section. And, the First Amendment forbids the government from deciding whether protected speech qualifies as "legitimate," as Albany County has attempted to do. The court followed this up by suggesting Albany legislators return to the drawing board and try crafting a better law with an eye on its Constitutional ramifications. It is undisputed that the Albany County statute was motivated by the laudable public purpose of shielding children from cyberbullying. The text of the cyberbullying law, however, does not adequately reflect an intent to restrict its reach to the three discrete types of electronic bullying of a sexual nature designed to cause emotional harm to children. Hence, to accept the County's proposed interpretation, we would need to significantly modify the applications of the county law, resulting in the amended scope bearing little resemblance to the actual language of the law. Such a judicial rewrite encroaches on the authority of the legislative body that crafted the provision and enters the realm of vagueness because any person who reads it would lack fair notice of what is legal and what constitutes a crime. Even if the First Amendment allows a cyberbullying statute of the limited nature proposed by Albany County, the local law here was not drafted in that manner. The problem with many cyberbullying bills is exactly what was pointed out by the state court: the haste to do something "laudable" as a reaction to a problem tends to result in bad laws, badly written. Legislators are more concerned with moving forward quickly and eliminating possible loopholes than with addressing free speech concerns and end up roughly shoving aside Constitutional rights in their hurry to "fix" the problem. This is only one of several problematic cyberbullying laws. Several are already in place (the state of New York has its own) and others are on their way. Very few of these will be able to survive the strict scrutiny of the court, but it generally takes a prosecutor's attempt to wield the newly-crafted, terrible-all-over law before it reaches the attention of those able to declare them unconstitutional. This usually means someone has spent a lot of time and money fighting charges resulting from a law that should never have been passed in the first place. Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 21 days ago on techdirt
And we're back with another episode of Lindsay Lohan Sues People For Stuff They Didn't Do. It's been a while, so you may not remember that Lohan, who has been quite lawsuit-happy in the past, was reportedly discussing filing a likeness-rights suit against the makers of Grand Theft Auto 5, claiming that a character in the game is based on her. That was in December of last year and apparently over six months of her lawyers explaining to her what parody is hasn't taken, because reports are now coming out that she has indeed filed in a New York court. Lindsay Lohan is suing the makers of the "Grand Theft Auto" video games. The actress says the latest installment used her image and created a character based on her without her permission. Lohan's lawsuit says a character named Lacey Jonas is an "unequivocal" reference to the "Mean Girls" and "Freaky Friday" star. The suit says Lohan's image, voice and styles from her clothing line are depicted. It says the game features West Hollywood's Chateau Marmont hotel, where Lohan once lived. Once again, lawyers for GTA5 should be able to walk into the courtroom, softly say the word "parody", and then walk right the hell back out victorious. But, as I previously described, Lohan's allegations are way more fun than that. She claims that two separate characters are based off her in the same game, including a character that is described as a drunk driver and who enjoys fornicating in public places. One would think that a person would want to avoid claiming a likeness to such a thing, but that's apparently not the case with old LiLo. Worse yet, while there may be some obvious draws on Lohan's life story to create this parody, there are several aspects of both characters that clearly have nothing to do with her and are simply composites of celebrity culture in order to create a funny homage to the L.A. celebrity lifestyle. As other commentators note, suing over this kind of thing has little chance of going anywhere. As a general matter, you will not be held liable for using someone's name or likeness in a creative, entertaining, or artistic work that is transformative, meaning that you add some substantial creative element over and above the mere depiction of the person. In other words, the First Amendment ordinarily protects you if you use someone's name or likeness to create something new that is recognizably your own, rather than something that just evokes and exploits the person's identity. As I mentioned in the last post, I've played this game, played this mission, and I didn't once even think about Lindsay Lohan. The character is just mocking celebrities that get themselves into trouble and generally behave like entitled miscreants. The only reason I now associate those kind of personality flaws with Lindsay Lohan is because she insisted on it through this lawsuit that will likely fail. So...well done all around, Lindsay! Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 21 days ago on techdirt
Neelie Kroes, the VP of the European Commission, recently gave a speech about rethinking copyright in Europe, which kicks off with a little joke about the ridiculousness of Happy Birthday still being covered by copyright: Happy birthday to you all at the Institute for Information Law. I would sing you "Happy Birthday". But technically I think the song is still under copyright �” I don't want to have to pay the royalty. Of course, whether or not Happy Birthday is truly under copyright is at the heart of a big legal fight, with significant evidence suggesting that the song is clearly in the public domain. However, Kroes is making a larger point about the way we view copyright today, and how that does not fit with how the world works. As such, she suggests rethinking how a copyright system should work: I start from principles. What should a sound EU copyright system do? First, it needs to promote creativity and innovation. To encourage and stimulate innovative new works, new opportunities, new channels, new models. To enable the research that leads to new discoveries. This is a great start, and it highlights a key point of copyright law: it is supposed to encourage those kinds of things. The problem is that very little research has actually been done to determine if it actually does that. Instead, it's often taken on the basis of faith that it must do that, without considering whether it really does, or if there are other limiting downsides to how it's currently done. Some people claim that I am somehow "against" copyright. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am happy to support a copyright system that has been shown to actually promote creativity and innovation. I've just seen very little evidence to suggest our current system really does that. Unfortunately, Kroes' next point seems a bit off to me, though I understand why she's making it: Second, it must remunerate and reward creators. That's not just about fairness. We expect creators to invest their time and talent. Of course reward, recognition, remuneration are essential: without them, the creative tap would fast stop flowing. I have always believed that. But the current copyright system does not do it well. Not nearly well enough. Many creators scrimp by on a pittance, unable to find their full audience, unable to share or sell their works as widely or creatively as they want. Limitations and obstructions do nothing for creativity. A few points on this. First, it seems to come from the incorrect assumption that copyright is a sort of "welfare" system for artists. That's not its purpose, nor how it was designed. Copyright itself has never "remunerated or rewarded creators." You can create all you want, and if no one likes it, all the copyrights in the world won't get you paid. It's the market that decides if you'll be rewarded for your creativity, and sometimes the market is cruel. It's possible that copyright can, in some cases, help create such a market, but to argue that copyright's job, alone, is to help get artists paid is misleading, as it leaves out the basic fact that that's never been the job of copyright. It may be an offshoot of the first point -- creating the incentives for creativity and innovation -- but to elevate the "help people get paid" point, dangerously positions copyright as more of a welfare system for artists, rather than as a tool for incentives in the market. At the same time, the argument that "the creative tap would fast stop flowing" also does not seem supported by the data. At a time when artists keep complaining that it's harder and harder to get paid, we've seen an astounding explosion in new content being created. Part of the issue is, in fact, that the money being spent today is spread much more widely -- thus you have a lot of artists making that said "pittance," but it does not appear to have resulted in any decrease in creativity. That said, I'm all for figuring out more ways for there to be more creativity, and if we can figure out ways to get more artists paid, that's a great idea. It's why I'm excited about new innovative services that helps drive that process forward. Platforms like Kickstarter, Patreon, YouTube, Bandcamp and more have created entirely new ways for artists to make money from their artwork. But, there's something important to note in all of that: almost none of those really are reliant on "copyright," and pretty much all of them would function in nearly the identical fashion without copyright. Again, this is not to say that copyright is not important. It's to point out that it's faulty and dangerous to assume that copyright alone is the tool by which to get artists paid. It leads to poor policy choices that often ignore more interesting (and potentially lucrative) methods being developed in the market. Third �“ it should enable a digital single market. Removing the barriers that get between artists and their audience, that prevent innovation, that shatter economies of scale. The EU's leaders are signed up to a full, vibrant digital single market. So is President-designate Juncker. Now they need to act on their ambitions �“ copyright is a major, essential part. I'll leave this aside for the moment because it's a messy and complex issue in Europe that isn't quite as simple as some would like it to be. I agree that taking down barriers would help, but there is a lot of nuance at play in this particular issue. And last: perhaps most importantly, the legal framework needs to take account of the needs of society. Users' interest and expectations matter alongside creators' rights. Rules cannot be impractical, uncertain, or unreasonable for ordinary users. Indeed, this is the most important, but I think it also goes hand in hand with the first item on the list. If you take into account the needs of society, and make sure that copyright really does focus on incentives for creativity and innovation, then everything else in the system works out nicely. But still, Kroes is absolutely right to note that today's copyright laws don't function well under these current principles, and because of that copyright itself is at risk of becoming irrelevant: Every day citizens here in the Netherlands and across the EU break the law just to do something commonplace. And who can blame them when those laws are so ill-adapted. Every day, startups, small businesses, scientists abandon innovative ideas because the legal fees are too great. Every day, people bypass the copyright system using alternatives like open source: something which can lead to huge creativity, innovation, and richness. Copyright risks becoming an irrelevance. And Kroes further points out how it's not just that copyright is out of touch, but it may actively be harming the principles she states above: The Internet gives enormous opportunities for artists and consumers. More direct access to a wider audience, and a wider range of content. New ways to share, spread, sell. New ways to reward and recognise. New ways for audiences to appreciate �“ getting what they want, when they want it. A good copyright system would help us achieve that. Today's does not. Some examples. When uncertainty prevents people remixing or creating their own content, how does that boost creativity? When teachers are afraid to share teaching materials online, how does that help our society? When a European Video-on-Demand provider tries to expand to new markets, but gives up because clearing copyright is so catastrophically cumbersome: how does that benefit our economy? When consumers want to buy films or TV shows online but find they are geo-blocked: how does that benefit the fight against piracy? How does it benefit the artists whose works they could be watching? When lovers of old films have to physically fly to a different country to see them, even if they're no longer in commercial circulation, how does that support European culture? When museums have to take out insurance specifically against the risk of copyright lawsuits, because it's too complex and costly to figure out �“ how does that help promote European heritage? When you can't sing happy birthday, or post a picture of the Atomium, how is that fair or reasonable, how is that something you can explain to ordinary citizens? When European scientists have to abandon text or data mining because they can't afford the legal fees �“ how does that help innovation and scientific progress? And by the way that restriction is costing our economy tens of billions of euros. I see no real winners in any of those cases. Creators lose out; innovators lose out; users lose out; our economy loses out. The system serves no-one. Solve those problems and I see only winners. We just have to jump over our own shadow. As she then notes, it's basically impossible to explain copyright to the average "man on the street." Many now see copyright as "a tool for obstruction, limitation and control" rather than "openness, innovation and creativity." The speech is well worth reading, and has some very good points. I just fear that the focus on that second point -- of pretending that copyright is a tool for guaranteeing payments in a kind of welfare system, is part of what leads to the current problems of the system, and takes it away from those other key goals of benefiting the public. If the system is designed properly to benefit the public, it should automatically create incentives that help artists, whose work is in demand, get paid.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 21 days ago on techdirt
Remember UK Prime Minister David Cameron's China Lite® web blockade, the one that was set up to keep British children from stumbling across Internet Pornography™ and other assorted subjectively objectionable material? While being ostensibly "for the children," the default settings (applied by ISPs at the request of the Foster State) are blocking a whole lot of non-porn. Nearly one in five of the most visited sites on the internet are being blocked by the adult content filters installed on Britain's broadband and mobile networks. A Porsche car dealership, two feminist websites, a blog on the Syrian War and the Guido Fawkes political site are among the domains that have fallen foul of the recently installed filters. The Open Rights Group, which campaigns for digital rights, surveyed the 100,000 most popular sites as ranked by digital marketing research firm Alexa, and found that 19,000 of them were blocked by at least one fixed line or mobile internet service provider. By the end of 2014, every internet user in the UK will have the opportunity to browse the truncated web, with porn and other assorted nastiness blocked by default. Users will have the opportunity to opt out (oddly by "opting in" to an uncensored web) or, if they really want the ultimate in sanitzation, flip further switches to filter out even more content. But what's being blocked by default on most services goes far beyond pornography. Following close behind porn is the blocking of "copyright infringement sites," something usually the result of a secret court order. At this point, every single mobile provider offers some sort of web filtering, in many cases switched on by default. So, while the UK works hard to keep porn and piracy blocked, the blocking of actual technical threats (malware, phishing, etc.) to users' devices still remains completely optional and, in most cases, unimplemented. Compliance with the government's wishes has basically disappeared a full fifth of the most popular sites on the internet, of which pornography only contributes 4% of the total. Torrentfreak, a site that doesn't have anything (directly) to do with file sharing or porn, reported being blocked (a situation that was straightened out once the BBC got involved). Numerous other false positives are sure to be uncovered in the coming weeks by the Open Rights Group web blocking test, which runs submitted URLs through a variety of ISPs and returns blocked/unblocked results. As was pointed out repeatedly when Cameron began pressing the issue, what's being asked of ISPs is both censorious and impossible. False positives were a foregone conclusion, as was the fact that objectionable content would still sneak past filters. While ISPs are generally willing to investigate incorrect blocking, there's only so many employees they can throw at the problem. ORG's investigation turned up 19,000 sites being incorrectly blocked, and if each is subject to its own investigation at every ISP that's blocked them, it will be a long time before the situation is corrected. In the meantime, more sites will find themselves snagged on filters meant to stop other content. One of the other problematic aspects is that the filtering system is actively being made worse in order to service a few choice industries. Adding corporate pressure to an already terrible idea is a recipe for full-blown disaster. On a more personal note, Techdirt still seems to be available everywhere in the UK, the word "dirt" and all that might conceivably imply notwithstanding. It appears TalkTalk (the service provider with the most restrictive filters) blocked it at some point in the last few days but is entirely cool with it for the time being. (The time listed seems to coincide with the release of this post [which has the word "sex" in its title] or possibly this slightly earlier one [which deals with Tor].) Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 21 days ago on techdirt
We learnt about the NSA's XKeyscore program a year ago, and about its incredibly wide reach. But now the German TV stations NDR and WDR claim to have excerpts from its source code. We already knew that the NSA and GCHQ have been targeting Tor and its users, but the latest leak reveals some details about which Tor exit nodes were selected for surveillance -- including at least one in Germany, which is likely to increase public anger there. It also shows that Tor users are explicitly regarded as "extremists" (original in German, pointed out to us by @liese_mueller): The source code contains both technical instructions and comments from the developers that provide an insight into the mind of the NSA. Thus, all users of such programs are equated with "extremists". Such is the concern about Tor that even visitors to Tor sites -- whether or not they use the program -- have their details recorded: not only long-term users of this encryption software become targets for the [US] secret service. Anyone who wants to visit the official Tor Web site simply for information is highlighted. The source code also gives the lie to the oft-repeated claim that only metadata, not content, is gathered: With the source code can be proven beyond reasonable doubt for the first time that the NSA is reading not only so-called metadata, that is, connection data. If emails are sent using the Tor network, then programming code shows that the contents -- the so-called email-body -- are evaluated and stored. As well as all this interesting information, what's important here is that it suggests the source of this leak -- presumably Edward Snowden, although the German news report does not name him -- copied not just NSA documents, but source code too. As in the present case, that is likely to provide a level of detail that goes well beyond descriptive texts. Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+ Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 21 days ago on techdirt
We've written a few times in the past about the movie and TV industries irrationally freaking out over fans in other countries providing subtitles for works that aren't being released locally in that language. These are always labor-of-love efforts by fans who want to share the work more widely by providing the subtitles that the studios themselves refuse to offer. And yet, because of standard copyright maximalism, these efforts almost always end up leading to legal action. The latest such example involves Fox, Warner Bros and four other Hollywood studios pressing criminal charges against 15 internet users in South Korea for daring to do the most horrible thing in the world: making their soap operas watchable in Korea by adding subtitles. And, of course, thanks to US pressure creating a ridiculous "free trade" agreement with Korea that includes ridiculously draconian copyright requirements, the punishment here can be extreme: People who make subtitles without permission from the original authors or producers can be given a five-year jail term or fined up to 50 million won [about $50,000 US] The police involved in this case, go on and on about the "harm" these fan subtitles are creating. They claim, without any evidence or numbers, that there was a massive decline in some cable broadcast revenue based on this and, also, that those poor professional Korean translators are being put out of work. The [anonymous police] officer went on to say that a cable broadcast, which has aired U.S. dramas, held an emergency meeting recently after experiencing income loss following dwindling viewer ratings because of the massive spread of subtitled dramas on the Internet. “Professional translators were also hit hard by the subtitle makers. I understand that the U.S. television drama producers took legal action against them to issue a warning to end such an illegal practice rather than making money through an out-of-court settlement fee,” he said. This is positively insane. This is not what copyright is supposed to be about, and the fact that it's being considered a criminal action to add subtitles to US soap operas is simply ridiculous. While the potential fine is a lot lower than statutory rates in the US, just the fact that this is considered a "criminal" matter at all, rather than a failure by these Hollywood studios to adequately serve their market, really says an awful lot (and none of it good) about how distorted the debate over copyright has become.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...
posted 21 days ago on techdirt
The ODNI's first transparency report put a lot of not very reassuring numbers on display, misusing the word "target" to give the impression that Section 702's ~90,000 targets were actually limited to 90,000 people, rather than, say, several thousand collection points gathering data and communications from several additional unspecified targets. The ODNI also claimed it couldn't offer specifics on the number of people targeted by the 19,000+ NSLs issued last year, even while pointing to letters sent to Intelligence Committees and members of the administration that attempted to do exactly that. A caveat was appended to the 2013 letters, noting that the FBI's NSL target estimates were probably inflated due to the NSL's limitations and targeting specifications. But there are further statistical "anomalies" hidden within the transparency report. The section detailing the business records program (aka, Section 501 [formerly Section 215]) listed a small number of targets as well, something entirely at odds with the NSA/FBI's demands for every phone record from certain providers. While there are only a certain number of RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion) approved selectors that can be used by the NSA to search the bulk records, there's apparently a workaround that allows analysts to access many more records within the database. Marcy Wheeler of emptywheel spotted some wording in the two most recent FISA court orders (released late Friday afternoon) that confirms the agency is using numbers one hop out from the RAS-approved numbers as additional selectors, triggering even more contact chaining. In that same motion it implemented the change in standard dragnet language that has been retained in these more recent dragnet orders: the NSA is chaining on “connections” as well as actual calls. 14 The first “hop” from a seed returns results including all identifiers (and their associated metadata) with a contact and/or connection with the seed. The second “hop” returns results that include all identifiers (and their associated metadata) with a contact and/or connection with an identifier revealed by the first “hop. If it's any consolation, this new chains-upon-chains method apparently can't be performed automatically, most likely due to these automated searches not complying with FISA court limitations (rather than a lack of computing ability). The most recent bulk records orders note that these searches will now always be performed manually. Queries of the BR metadata using RAS-approved selection terms for purposes of obtaining foreign intelligence information may occur by manual analyst query only. As Wheeler notes, this wording may also indicate the agency's anticipation of bulk records being maintained and held by service providers, thus further limiting its splashing around in the collected metadata. But it does indicate that the recently-imposed "hop" limitation is nearly useless. Rather than simply searching one hop out from the RAS selector, the agency is having its analysts build contract chains starting from that hop and moving outward. This puts the agency right back where it was prior to the minimal restrictions placed on it by the administration's reform measures. It's not a strictly legal move, no matter if it's automated or not. Feinstein's fake reform measures would have codified this quasi-legal procedure, as Wheeler points out. Denials offered by NSA officials may have had a slight ring of truth, especially if the automated system wasn't capable of meeting FISC stipulations, but it appears to be all systems go at this point. Whether Administration witnesses were being deliberately deceitful when testifying about call-based chaining (“not wittingly!”) or the NSA only recently resumed doing connection based chaining manually, having given up on doing it automatically, one thing is clear. The NSA has been doing connection based chaining since at least February, and very few people in Congress know what that means. Nevertheless, they’re about to authorize that formally. What the NSA buries in half-truths, carefully-worded denials and artful retractions always has the chance to become legally sanctioned by efforts like Feinstein's, which seek to codify the NSA's programs and instantly whitewash any past brushes with illegality. The NSA plays to edges of the letter of the law and disregards the spirit. Even its past excesses and deliberate misuse of its powers have failed to keep it down for long. At worst, it's back to its 2008 form, dealing with the same sort of limitations FISC Judge Walton imposed on it after uncovering years of abuse. But it has more contacts to chain than it did previously, thanks to its manual search method, even with reform efforts taking away one of its hops.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read More...