Matthew

Read 4 remaining paragraphs | Comments

When the anonymous authors of the Truecrypt security tool mysteriously yanked their software last month, there was widespread suspicion that they had been ordered by the NSA to secretly compromise their software. A close look at the cryptic message they left behind suggests that they may have encoded a secret clue in the initials of each word of the sentence (“Using TrueCrypt is not secure as it may contain unfixed security issues”), the Latin phrase “uti nsa im cu si” which some claim can be translated as a warning that the NSA had pwned Truecrypt.

The final and best criticism of this article is the fact that the hidden message is bad Latin. It’s bad enough, so say some people, that it could just be a coincidence or a random accident. Essentially, they say that there is no hidden message, because there is no Latin, but I think that’s going too far, and I disagree. The critics are correct, it is bad Latin. But, the English phrase it came from was bad English too. The only important thing is that the Latin was good enough for the meaning to be apparent, and I think the odds of that happening completely coincidentally are too small to be believable. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck!

On the other hand, there are some good reasons to formulate a hidden message in bad Latin. Firstly, what I’m claiming is going on here is the TrueCrypt developers are giving us a warrant canary, which is a warning that they’re being forced to do things with TrueCrypt that they don’t want to do (Apple has a warrant canary too). If their warrant canary is too obvious, it could cause serious legal troubles for them, so the wisest thing to do is to make the warrant canary deniable. I believe they have done that. The bad Latin is bad enough that anyone can credibly state that it’s a hugely unlikely coincidence, but still only a coincidence.

The important thing is that the hidden message - even if it doesn’t exist - has succeeded in getting people to question whether the NSA might be trying to tamper with the security of TrueCrypt. That’s a bona fide “mission accomplished” from the point of view of the TrueCrypt developers, and there’s really nothing more to say about it.

Hidden message on the new sourceforge TrueCrypt site

Because battery technology still relatively sucks, electric vehicles like buses that have to run all day long usually stay tethered to a spiderweb of overhead cables. But as an alternative to that costly infrastructure, researchers at the EPFL have developed an electric bus that can recharge itself at every stop in as little as 15 seconds.

Read more...

In what is supposedly a battle to help curb distracted driving, the Transportation Department is now asking Congress for help in regulating any and all navigation aids, including the ones found on your smartphone. The proposed transportation bill would give — in writing –  the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration full authority to regulate apps like Google Maps or Waze, setting restrictions and ordering changes to features they feel are too dangerous to drivers.

In a surprise to no one, that automakers are supporting the bill, but not because this might finally put their costly navigation service plans on an even playing field with free apps like Google Maps or Waze — they’re just looking out for everyone’s well being. A spokesperson for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said in a statement:

“If you put restrictions on the built-in systems designed to be used while driving, it’s going to encourage people to use hand-held devices that are not optimal for use by a driver. We believe that if you’re looking at a smaller screen, that’s less effective than looking at a larger screen on the dashboard.”

Aside from the manpower or budget needed to oversee all the many navigation aids offered by the auto industry and company’s like Google, the measure faces other problems. Two years ago a man fought — and won — a ticket he received after a police officer ticketed the man for using a navigation app while driving. The matter reached an appeals court who later reversed the conviction. With the ever changing technological landscape, it’s clear our laws have some further catching up to do.

The highway agency says that once passed, changes to smartphone apps wouldn’t occur anytime soon. Their central focus would, at least for time being, remain on in-dash automotive software. And while it’s unclear exactly what changes, if any, would hit apps like Google Maps, apps like Waze which feature much more user interaction could see many of their social features — like police sighting reports — stripped away (or disabled while driving). With updates to these apps requiring approval from the transportation department, well, it’s easy to imagine these becoming much less frequent.

[NYT]

We've written a bunch about the City of London Police* and their extrajudicial campaign against "piracy" by trying to scare web hosting and domain registrar firms into taking down websites based on nothing more than the City of London Police's say so. However, Adrian Leppard, the guy in charge of the City of London Police's Intellectual Property Crime Unit (funded both by taxpayers and legacy entertainment companies) spoke at an IP Enforcement Summit in London and his comments, relayed by Torrentfreak, should raise questions about whether or not this is the right person to have anything to do with stopping "crime" on the internet:

“Whether it’s Bitnet, The Tor – which is 90% of the Internet – peer-to-peer sharing, or the streaming capability worldwide. At what point does civil society say that as well as the benefits that brings, this enables huge risk and threat to our society that we need to take action against?”

Yeah, try to parse that one. Beyond not being true, it's almost entirely nonsensical. And this guy is ordering websites completely shut down based on nothing more than his say so?

This sounds kind of like the idiotic debates that were had a decade or so ago, when clueless folks from the entertainment industry were first getting online.

"The Internet pushes through every border control legislation we have and it is carrying a huge amount of harm to our society, as well as offering creative opportunity for business. At some point there has to be a debate and a challenge about the harm the Internet brings."

Yeah, that debate happened long ago, and people realized (1) the claims of harm are completely overblown by folks like yourself and (2) the benefits are massive. Debate closed.

But, really, what Leppard is doing is trying to declare war on the internet, because it's upset the business model of a few businesses that are funding this effort (which would suggest a less-than-unbiased view of the issue):

"The new legislation that’s necessary is not just about prosecuting people and protecting people, we’ve got to think about some of the enabling functions that allow this to happen that we just take for granted."

"Enabling functions"? He's talking about regulating the internet to add deeper layers of secondary liability, thereby effectively destroying one of the most important ingredients to the internet's success. All because his friends in the obsolete legacy parts of the entertainment industry haven't figured out how to adapt.

It would appear that the City of London Police are the legacy entertainment industry's dream law enforcement group: completely clueless about technology and innovation, and not all that concerned about basic legal concepts like due process and protections against third party liability. That lets them rampage through the internet like bullies trying to shut down anything their friends in the industry don't like, oblivious to any collateral damage it might cause. That's a very dangerous tool, and it's going to cause serious problems before too long.

* I don't know what it is about the City of London Police that always seems to make people want to clarify stuff in the comments, but just to cut all this off: (1) Yes, I know that the City of London Police covers just "the City of London" which is about a 1-square mile area within London, rather than the wider London police force and (2) I also know that many of the big banks and big London businesses are in City of London, so the City of London Police have some amount of powerful connections with businesses. There is no reason to clarify any of that in the comments. We know already.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

For all of its surveillance and number-crunching powers, the NSA has had little success in dealing with its Snowden problem. It still seems the agency has no idea what Snowden took, with guesses varying wildly over the past several months. Some reports (not the NSA's) have put that number as low as 60,000. The NSA continues to claim the number is over one million, even with its most recent guess revising its first estimates downward.

But the number of documents is only part of the problem. Details of the government's inability to apprehend Snowden, as well as its uncertainty as to his current location or activities, continue to surface. Snowden seems to be able to operate in the all-seeing-eye's blind spots, according to officials quoted by Greg Miller at the Washington Post.

The first indication that the government was operating several steps behind Snowden surfaced during his move from Hong Kong to Russia. The plan, such as it were, was to rely on the benevolence of a country whose president often displays a casual antipathy towards the United States.

For weeks, senior officials from the FBI, the CIA, the State Department and other agencies assembled nearly every day in a desperate search for a way to apprehend the former intelligence contractor who had exposed the inner workings of American espionage then fled to Hong Kong before ending up in Moscow.

Convened by White House homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco, the meetings kept ending at the same impasse: Have everyone make yet another round of appeals to their Russian counterparts and hope that Snowden makes a misstep.

Snowden didn't misstep, but the US did, concentrating its efforts on a flight to Bolivia that the former NSA contractor never boarded. (It also scrambled a rendition jet on the off-chance that Snowden could be seized out in the open.) And even if he had decided to head that direction, there was actually very little the US could have done about it. Forcing the plane to land (as it did with the president of Bolivia's jet) wasn't the problem. This could be done in any allied airspace. The problem was that the country's jurisdiction ended where the plane's cabin began.

Even if Snowden had been a passenger, officials said, it is unclear how he could have been removed from a Bolivian air force jet whose cabin would ordinarily be regarded as that country’s sovereign domain — especially in Austria, a country that considers itself diplomatically neutral.

“We would have looked foolish if Snowden had been on that plane sitting there grinning,” said a senior Austrian official. “There would have been nothing we could have done.”

But what is probably more concerning is the fact that US intelligence seems to have little idea what Snowden's doing, where he's living or anything else. While some officials have made claims that Snowden is now working for Russian intelligence, any actual intelligence is sparse and nearly impossible to verify.

Snowden is facing espionage-related charges, and the FBI has power to conduct wiretaps and enlist the NSA and CIA in its investigative efforts overseas. But even with such help, officials said, the bureau’s reach in Moscow is limited.

“The FBI doesn’t have any capability to operate in Moscow without the collaboration of the FSB,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official who served in the Russian capital.

Further hampering its investigation is the lack of evidence that Snowden is working for a "foreign power" or actively aiding an enemy state. Russia, despite its problems, simply doesn't qualify as a direct opponent of our national security. And so far, nothing obtained has indicated Snowden is now an FSB operative. Without this crucial stipulation, the government can only go so far in its efforts.

Several U.S. officials cited a complication to gathering intelligence on Snowden that could be seen as ironic: the fact that there has been no determination that he is an “agent of a foreign power,” a legal distinction required to make an American citizen a target of espionage overseas.

For all the claims that Snowden has done irreparable harm to US security with his leaks, it's kind of surprising that the government can gather so little information on the current situation of its public enemy #1. This also shows that the surveillance state is severely limited without cooperative partners, something countries expressing outrage over expansive data/communication harvesting should take note of.

The government claims Snowden has harmed America, but can't even determine what he took, who he's working with or even where exactly he's currently living. It can't even provide enough evidence of its claims to build a case that would provide it more surveillance options. And yet, it wants to throw Snowden in jail for espionage. That doesn't add up.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The IRS is currently being investigated by Congress for some possibly politically-motivated "attention" it directed towards "Tea Party" and other conservative groups that operated as tax-exempt entities. Along the way, IRS official Lois Lerner, who was the first to publicly disclose the inappropriate targeting, was also one of the first government officials to plead the Fifth (twice) in government hearings.

The Congressional investigation demanded copies of Lois Lerner's emails from the IRS. Some were turned over to the House Ways and Means Committee, but not everything it sought. Now, the IRS is telling the committee that it's not going to get everything it asked for.

The IRS has told Congress that it lost more than two years’ worth of emails involving former IRS official Lois Lerner, due to a computer crash.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) on Friday said it was “unacceptable” that he was just learning of this problem now, after a lengthy investigation into Lerner’s involvement in the IRS targeting scandal.

Camp points out that the IRS withheld these emails for over a year before suddenly "discovering" they were unavailable. The IRS says it can find everything Lerner sent to and received from other IRS employees but nothing containing correspondence with those outside the agency.

Obviously, this convenient "computer crash" has generated a lot of skepticism. For one thing, a "computer crash" doesn't really have the power to destroy electronic communications. Email is always almost stored somewhere else other than the local user's computer. And even if the IRS meant a "server crash" instead of a "computer crash," any decent server system contains multiple levels of redundancy.

The Blaze sought input from Norman Cillo, a former Microsoft project manager, who presented six reasons why he believes the IRS is lying about its inability to recover these emails. Number one on the list seems to be the most applicable.

I believe the government uses Microsoft Exchange for their email servers. They have built-in exchange mail database redundancy. So, unless they did not follow Microsoft's recommendations they are telling a falsehood.

The IRS's own policies on email state that its employees use both Microsoft Outlook and Exchange, which means it should have some form of backup available.

Secure Messaging enrollment is an automated process for all LAN accounts with an Exchange mailbox in IRS. You can find the instructions for configuring the Outlook client to use the certificates at the Secure Enterprise Messaging Systems (SEMS) web site: http://documentation.sems.enterprise.irs.gov/.

According to Cillo, the only other explanation for the IRS's inability to recover these emails is that the agency is "totally mismanaged and has the worst IT department ever." Unfortunately, the government seems to have a lot of mismanaged and terrible IT departments, so this may be closer to the truth than anyone would really like to admit. Perhaps the general ineptitude of large government agencies is behind the Treasury Department's policy that all email sent to or from IRS employees be "archived" via hard copy printouts.

If you create or receive email messages during the course of your daily work, you are responsible for ensuring that you manage them properly. The Treasury Department’s current email policy requires emails and attachments that meet the definition of a federal record be added to the organization’s files by printing them (including the essential transmission data) and filing them with related paper records. If transmission and receipt data are not printed by the email system, annotate the paper copy.

There's more information here, citing the IRS's own internal guidelines on tape backups, etc., that suggest further levels of redundancy, as well as the commissioner of the IRS testifying that the agency stores its emails on servers.

Critics believe the IRS has simply "vanished" the crucial emails in order to cut Lerner adrift and make it appear she acted alone. Any evidence that would tie outside government agencies (including the administration itself) into this situation has been deemed unrecoverable. Supposedly, there should be paper copies of the missing emails, but no one in Congress has requested these and the IRS certainly isn't offering to look.

But one Congressman thinks he has a solution to the missing email dilemma. Steve Stockman (last seen here threatening to bring a defamation lawsuit against someone who uttered true facts about his criminal past) knows some people who have a whole lot of email data just laying around.

“I have asked NSA Director Rogers to send me all metadata his agency has collected on Lois Lerner’s email accounts for the period which the House sought records,” said Stockman. “The metadata will establish who Lerner contacted and when, which helps investigators determine the extent of illegal activity by the IRS.”

Yeah, let me know how that works out for you, Steve. The NSA can't even confirm or deny its monthly water usage at its Utah data site, much less that it has metadata pertaining to Americans' communications.

[Sidebar: I do really love the fact that this sort of thing is becoming increasingly common -- the use of the NSA as the backup-of-last-resort for phone/email/internet communications data. If anyone claims it can't find email X or phone record Y, someone's going to say, "Hey, I'll bet the NSA has a copy!" Hilarious. The NSA will never again be allowed to pretend it doesn't harvest data on American citizens.]

The whole letter, which begins with some light ass-kissing of new NSA director Michael Rogers ("thank you for your 33 years of, and continued service to, our country...") and closes with a bit of grandstanding, surreally asking "the Agency" to send all relevant metadata on the missing Lerner emails to "Donny@mail.house.gov." All in all, probably one of the most incongruous demands the NSA has ever received, a letter which conjures up the image of a late-night meeting in an underground parking garage, with sunglassed NSA liaisons handing over a briefcase full of metadata to a 19-year-old intern dressed in his dad's suit.

It's pretty hard to shake the impression that this is a coverup. As always, the specter of pure ineptitude lurks in the background, as it often does when large bureaucracies tangle with technology. But until the IRS presents further evidence detailing how exactly these emails went missing, it's safe to assume there's been an active effort made to cover up government impropriety.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

This past Wednesday, the CIA held its first ever Conference on National Security at Georgetown University. It included plenty of the usual talking heads spouting nonsense, but I wanted to focus in on one particular talking head spouting particularly ridiculous nonsense. It's our old friend, Rep. Mike Rogers, who is retiring from Congress to try to become an even bigger blowhard on talk radio (as if that's possible). Apparently, Rogers is using this conference to practice the classical blowhard strategy of making a variety of absolutely ridiculous claims that directly contradict each other.

So, for example, he kicked it off by attacking Silicon Valley tech companies for fighting back against NSA surveillance, and for arguing (accurately) that the NSA's efforts have created a major business problem for them around the globe, as people outside the US no longer trust them. In Rogers' mind, that means these companies are putting "European profits above national security." This isn't even close to true, but that's what Rogers is claiming (at about 2 hours 10 minutes into the video, which is also embedded below):

While I'm on my soapbox, we should be really mad at Google and Facebook and Microsoft, because they're doing a very interesting, and I think, very dangerous thing. They've decided to come out and say "we oppose this new FISA bill, because it doesn't go far enough." And when you peel that onion back a bit and say "Why are you doing this? This is a good bill, it's safe, it's bi-partisan, it's rational. It meets all the requirements for 4th Amendment protections and privacy protection and allowing the system to work."

And they say, "Well, we have to do this because we're trying to make sure we don't lose our European business." I don't know about the rest of you but that offends me from the words "European business." Think about what they're doing. They're willing to, in their mind, justify the importance of their next quarter's earnings in Europe versus the national security of the United States. Everybody on those boards should be embarrassed and their CEOs should be embarrassed and their stockholders should be embarrassed. That one quarter cannot be worth the national security of the United States for the next ten generations."

This is wrong and ridiculous on so many levels, but let's just jump to the biggest one and then circle back later to the rest. Less than 15 minutes later (at about 2 hours 25 minutes into the video), Rogers was arguing how important the internet is to our economy, and how a cyberattack might destroy it. He's basically discussing his beloved CISPA and its "information sharing" components, which is really a backdoor way to "legalize" companies handing over all their data to the NSA without warrants.

One sixth of our economy now, is through the internet! One sixth! So this notion that we're all going to say "well the government should do nothing and just completely keep away" -- and I'm not for regulation, by the way, that's not what I mean, but I mean in some way to... to help defend these private networks or allow them to defend themselves -- if we don't get it right, one-sixth of our economy is going to go away. Like that (*snaps*). If every time you turn it on, you lose money, how many times are you going to turn it on and use the internet for commerce? You're not!

Right. Did you get that? If the NSA is violating all of your privacy, no big deal, and people will continue to use the internet and contributing to the economy -- and if it hurts the economy, well that's just the price we pay for national security. But, if those evil foreign governments violate your privacy, well, then all of you will stop using the internet and it will destroy our economy.

In short: if NSA hacking into Europeans eats into US companies' profits: that's patriotism. But if Europeans hack into US companies, then everyone will stop using the internet and it will destroy us all.

And then he goes even further:

If one financial institution -- we have one particular financial institution that clears somewhere about $7 trillion in global financial transactions every single day. Imagine if tomorrow that place gets in there, and through an attack of which we know does exist -- the potential does exist -- where the information is destroyed and manipulated. Now you don't know who owes what money. Some of that, they have lost transactions completely, forever. Imagine what that does to the economy? $7 trillion. Gone. Right? Gone! It's that serious!

So, profits of Wall Street banks are patriotic. But profits of Silicon Valley companies... well, they can be sacrificed for national security.

Except, of course, the underlying assumption in all of this -- which has been proven time and time again to be false, is that these efforts actually help with national security. Mike Rogers was one of the leading FUDspreaders, concerning the claim that the section 215 bulk phone records collection helped national security. Except that's been proven to be false time and time again. Both judges and the President's own task force have marvelled at the total lack of evidence that the bulk records provision was necessary.

The complaints from various tech companies (who Rogers himself admits makes up a huge part of our economy) is not about their "next quarter" of European profits, but about the very idea that he and his friends have more or less convinced the rest of the world that American internet companies are not trustworthy. That's not about next quarter's profits, it's about violating the privacy of everyone around the globe -- for no actual benefit.

So, in the end, we see what hypocritical views Rogers has. It's shameful and unpatriotic for Silicon Valley to be concerned about the privacy rights of their users, because that might lead to an attack on national security, and that attack on national security might harm the profits of Silicon Valley and (more importantly) Wall Street, and any attack on profits is unpatriotic (except, apparently, the profits he wanted them to give up first). Confused? Don't be. What Rogers is really saying is he doesn't give a shit, so long as the NSA gets to violate everyone's privacy, and he'll make any ridiculous argument to keep that happening. And, of course, to keep it secret, because if you don't know about it, he still thinks your privacy hasn't been violated.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

It's a strange thing to me when a union, say, the American Federation of Musicians, turns on one of its own members or even non-member musicians. Now, I'm supportive of the concept of organized labor as a general idea, though I certainly recognize that unions quite frequently fall into all the same trappings of any unwieldy and large organization -- where the original intent and the eventual results are quite different. So when the AFM demanded an apology from a musical artist simply for speaking his mind against a Canadian bill that the union supported, I could only scratch my head. But when that same AFM union goes after one of it own members for the crime of making video game music, a thing that I love, that's when I start to get really angry.

What's most striking in that video to me is the clear and obvious passion with which composer Austin Wintory speaks about working on game music. Still, the back story here is what makes it so ridiculous. AFM management constructed a contract for video game composers without the input of the union's own membership, a contract that is so one-sided that not a single game developer even hesitated to reject it completely, and constructed an ecosystem in which no AFM member could be hired with union sanction to perform his or her craft. For two years, the music in games was either made by composers not in the AFM or by composers who just ignored the AFM's rules. The union failed to benefit in any way. Then, when it discovered that one of its members, who had been vocally critical of the contract, had the gumption to actually make a living, the union threatened to levy a $50,000 fine against him.

Unions have a terrible reputation in this country because of stories like this, which is a shame. This union is an example of how not to behave, in making demands that will never be accepted, refusing to consult its own membership, actually coming out and suggesting that it chiefly operates through fear and intimidation, and going after its own members for daring to make a living doing what they do best (the kind of thing a union should be supporting, not hindering).

"Unfortunately employers have not signed the current agreement," admits AFM Local 47 Vice President John Acosta who represent the recording musicians of Los Angeles, "and the limited work we were doing before has all but vanished into non-union land."

And the solution to that is to levy fines against one of your members instead of negotiating a contract that will actually get composers back to work under the union umbrella? Please.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Earlier this week, we wrote about rumors that Elon Musk was going to free up some of Tesla's patents to encourage more people to adopt the company's Supercharger system. As we noted this shouldn't be controversial, but it was still considered as such. Elon Musk has now made the official announcement and it actually goes way beyond what was originally rumored. It's not just about the Superchargers, it's all of Tesla's patents. But, better than that, Musk explains why he no longer thinks patents make sense and even demolishes the one argument that even many patent skeptics make: that they're "still needed to stop big companies from copying your innovations."

As we've explained in the past big companies almost never recognize truly disruptive innovation when it happens. This is for a variety of reasons, including the basic innovator's dilemma, but also just because companies are so focused on their own things, it's tough to get them to realize outside innovation. Furthermore, even when they do copy, it's actually pretty rare for them to get it right. That's because, from the outside, they only copy the superficial stuff, and have no idea why something is really successful. And thus, even if they have the "exact plans" for the competitor's technology or process, they don't understand the little things that make customers love them. Similarly, innovators are constantly innovating, so by the time the copycat catches up, they're still behind.

But, an even bigger issue, as we explained before, is that having more viable competitors can also enlarge the overall market. So if a company like Tesla has no viable competitors, they're left educating the market and building all the infrastructure themselves -- and that's pure cost. Opening up their patents actually helps Tesla in the long run by (hopefully) spreading out some of those costs, and increasing the size of the overall market. This is what many patent system supporters just don't get -- but Musk clearly understands deeply.

He talks about how he used to be a patent system believer, but he's been converted in the other direction. And while he avoided patents at some of his companies, with Tesla he was convinced they were necessary, because "the big car companies" might just copy everything he's done. Now, he says, he knows that's not true, and he actually would prefer they do copy Tesla's work.

At Tesla, however, we felt compelled to create patents out of concern that the big car companies would copy our technology and then use their massive manufacturing, sales and marketing power to overwhelm Tesla. We couldn’t have been more wrong. The unfortunate reality is the opposite: electric car programs (or programs for any vehicle that doesn’t burn hydrocarbons) at the major manufacturers are small to non-existent, constituting an average of far less than 1% of their total vehicle sales.

At best, the large automakers are producing electric cars with limited range in limited volume. Some produce no zero emission cars at all.

Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis. By the same token, it means the market is enormous. Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.

We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.

This is absolutely true and it's great to see it stated so directly. If only other companies were willing to do so. As for the actual way this will work, Tesla has announced that it "will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology." That's not entirely putting the work into the public domain, but it's a good step. Years ago, I had hopes that Google and others would do something similar, but it has not come to pass. Google had made a similar pledge, but only for open source projects, and Twitter has basically given its own engineers the ability to veto any offensive patent litigation efforts by issuing their own license. But Tesla has now gone even further than both of them by basically telling any competitor to feel free to make use of its patents without worrying about getting sued.

Unlike so many other companies and company leaders, Musk appears to recognize the simple fact that innovation is not in how many patents you get, it's in how you actually build amazing products and services that people want -- and patents can often get in the way of that, rather than help it. It's nice to see him declare that so directly. He even took the symbolic gesture of removing the framed patents from Tesla's lobby wall. This is great to see and hopefully it will inspire others in the tech industry to put down similar stakes as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

While advertising the new World Cup card now available on Google Now, Google may have inadvertently confirmed the number of the next major Android release. The time, which shows 5:00, is typically used by Google to denote the Android version in all of their promos. It’s not uncommon for something like this to “leak” in Google’s screenshots, something we’ve seen in the past from their Google app listings in the Play Store.

Now that we could know the version number of the next Android version, still left open for discussion is the type of dessert they’ll use to name it after. Last year Google made a non-money-exchanging-hands kind of deal with Nestle to name Android 4.4 after their KitKat candy bar. It’s possible we could see Google do something similar with the L release (maybe Lemonhead?), or they could go the more generic route with something like lollipop. What do you guys think?

[Twitter]

View

We already knew the next game in the series – Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth – would support Linux at launch, but today's launch of Civilization V on Linux comes as a surprise.

The post Sid Meier’s Civilization V Now Available on Linux first appeared on OMG! Ubuntu!.

We're obviously big supporters of the public domain here at Techdirt, and frankly, believe that many more works should be in the public domain. In fact, we treat our own articles, written by staffers here, to be public domain, even though there's no official legal mechanism to officially put them in the public domain. We can only proactively state that we will treat them as such. And, of course, thanks to the switch from "opt-in" copyright to "everything eligible is automatically covered by copyright" in 1976, combined with ever-farther-reaching copyright term extension, nothing has officially entered the public domain in the US in ages. In the past, I've often relied on the handy website set up by my alma mater, Cornell, in trying to determine what is and what is not in the public domain, but that's somewhat limited. So it's great to see that the folks over at the Samuelson Clinic at Berkeley have developed a detailed handbook to determine what is in the public domain, which comes complete with this handy-dandy (if not altogether simple) graphic: The handbook itself (embedded below, based on their Creative Commons license -- which I'll note, is not CC's CC0 public domain dedication) is 52 pages going into detail explaining some of the details and nuances of the graphic. It's actually quite handy in many ways, but it still seems... wrong that the public domain should ever need a 52-page handbook just to figure out if a work is or is not actually in the public domain. It really seems to drive home just how much we've sidelined the public domain and created permission culture instead. Oh, and, you'll note that for stuff published after January 1, 2003, the only way for anything to actually go into the public domain... is for the copyright to expire (in other words, no real way to put these works into the public domain).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Teacher Tenure Laws Ruled Unconstitutional In California http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/sH3EefsXMqk/story01.htm

Teacher Tenure Laws Ruled Unconstitutional In California - Slashdot
An anonymous reader writes "Tenure laws one of the most controversial aspects of education reform, and now the tide seems to be turning against them. A California judge has handed down a ruling that such laws are unconstitutional, depriving students of an education by sometimes securing positions he...

A parent in San Antonio, TX is upset that her ten year old got sunburned on a school trip because the school district forbade bringing sunscreen to school, on the grounds that a child might drink the sunscreen and be poisoned by it. When called on this insanity, the Northeast Independent School District doubled down, calling sunscreen both a medication and a poison (it’s neither).

Chancellor says if parents know their child may be outdoors, they should come to school fully covered in sunscreen. “We have to look at the safety of all of our students and we can’t allow children to share sunscreen, they could possibly have an allergic reaction, they could ingest it, it’s really a dangerous situation,” she says.

“Where do you draw the line, do we say no hand sanitizer, do we allow to stop school glue? When you have several hundred children on field day being burnt, then you have to ask ourselves, what do you want, them to be safe or not?” says Riggs.

San Antonio-Area School District: Do Not Bring Sunscreen to School [KEYE-TV Austin]

So, this weekend's news in the tech world was flooded with a "story" about how a "chatbot" passed the Turing Test for "the first time," with lots of publications buying every point in the story and talking about what a big deal it was. Except, almost everything about the story is bogus and a bunch of gullible reports ran with it, because that's what they do. First, here's the press release from the University of Reading, which should have set off all sorts of alarm bells for any reporter. Here are some quotes, almost all of which are misleading or bogus:

The 65 year-old iconic Turing Test was passed for the very first time by supercomputer Eugene Goostman during Turing Test 2014 held at the renowned Royal Society in London on Saturday.

'Eugene', a computer programme that simulates a 13 year old boy, was developed in Saint Petersburg, Russia. The development team includes Eugene's creator Vladimir Veselov, who was born in Russia and now lives in the United States, and Ukrainian born Eugene Demchenko who now lives in Russia.

[....] If a computer is mistaken for a human more than 30% of the time during a series of five minute keyboard conversations it passes the test. No computer has ever achieved this, until now. Eugene managed to convince 33% of the human judges that it was human.

Okay, almost everything about the story is bogus. Let's dig in:

1. It's not a "supercomputer" it's a chatbot. It's a script made to mimic human conversation. There is no intelligence, artificial or not involved. It's just a chatbot.
2. Plenty of other chatbots have similarly claimed to have "passed" the Turing test in the past (often with higher ratings). Here's a story from three years ago about another bot, Cleverbot, "passing" the Turing Test by convincing 59% of judges it was human (much higher than the 33% Eugene Goostman) claims.
3. It "beat" the Turing test here by "gaming" the rules -- by telling people the computer was a 13-year-old boy from Ukraine in order to mentally explain away odd responses.
4. The "rules" of the Turing test always seem to change. Hell, Turing's original test was quite different anyway.
5. As Chris Dixon points out, you don't get to run a single test with judges that you picked and declare you accomplished something. That's just not how it's done. If someone claimed to have created nuclear fusion or cured cancer, you'd wait for some peer review and repeat tests under other circumstances before buying it, right?
6. The whole concept of the Turing Test itself is kind of a joke. While it's fun to think about, creating a chatbot that can fool humans is not really the same thing as creating artificial intelligence. Many in the AI world look on the Turing Test as a needless distraction.

Oh, and the biggest red flag of all. The event was organized by Kevin Warwick at Reading University. If you've spent any time at all in the tech world, you should automatically have red flags raised around that name. Warwick is somewhat infamous for his ridiculous claims to the press, which gullible reporters repeat without question. He's been doing it for decades. All the way back in 2000, we were writing about all the ridiculous press he got for claiming to be the world's first "cyborg" for implanting a chip in his arm. There was even a -- since taken down -- Kevin Warwick Watch website that mocked and categorized all of his media appearances in which gullible reporters simply repeated all of his nutty claims. Warwich had gone quiet for a while, but back in 2010, we wrote about how his lab was getting bogus press for claiming to have "the first human infected with a computer virus." The Register has rightly referred to Warwick as both "Captain Cyborg" and a "media strumpet" and have long been chronicling his escapades in exaggerating bogus stories about the intersection of humans and computers for many, many years.

Basically, any reporter should view extraordinary claims associated with Warwick with extreme caution. But that's not what happened at all. Instead, as is all too typical with Warwick claims, the press went nutty over it, including publications that should know better. Here are just a few sample headlines from publications. The absolute worst are the ones who claim this is a "supercomputer."

• The Verge: Computer passes Turing Test for first time by convincing judges it is a 13-year-old boy
• Venture Beat: Talk to the computer that passed the Turing Test, a historic artificial intelligence milestone
• Yahoo Tech: Turing Test Bested, Robot Overlords Creep Closer
• NBC News: Turing Test: Computer Program Convinces Judges It's Human
• Washington Post: A computer just passed the Turing Test in landmark trial
• The Independent: Turing Test breakthrough as super-computer becomes first to convince us it's human
• PC World: An AI milestone: Chatbot passes Turing Test by posing as 13-year-old boy
• The Wire: For the First Time Ever, a Computer Passed Turing Test for Artificial Intelligence
• Gizmodo: A Computer Program Has Passed the Turing Test For the First Time
• ZDNet: Computer chatbot 'Eugene Goostman' passes the Turing test
• Ars Technica: Eugene—the supercomputer, not 13-year-old—first to beat the Turing Test
• The Guardian: Computer simulating 13-year-old boy becomes first to pass Turing test
• CNET: Computer fools humans, passes Turing Test
• Computerworld: Supercomputer passes Turing Test by posing as a teenager
• Science Alert: Meet the first computer to pass the Turing Test

Anyway, a lot of hubbub over nothing special that everyone seemed to buy into because of the easy headlines (which is exactly what Warwick always counts on). So, since we just spent all this time on a useless nothing, let's end it with the obligatory xkcd:

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Whee!

Welcome to the modern equivalent of a book burning. The principal of Booker T Washington High in Pensacola Florida has apparently cancelled the school's "One School/One Book" summer reading program all in an effort to block students from reading Cory Doctorow's (absolutely fantastic) book Little Brother. It appears he may be against the fact that one of the messages of the book is the importance of "questioning authority," and has decided to show the school what true, obnoxious authoritarianism looks like.

Little Brother had been selected and approved as the school's summer One School/One Book reading pick, and the school librarian Betsy Woolley had worked with Mary Kate Griffith from the English department to develop an excellent educational supplement for the students to use to launch their critical discussions in the fall. The whole project had been signed off on by the school administration and it was ready to go out to the students when the principal intervened and ordered them to change the title.

In an email conversation with Ms Griffith, the principal cited reviews that emphasized the book's positive view of questioning authority, lauding "hacker culture", and discussing sex and sexuality in passing. He mentioned that a parent had complained about profanity (there's no profanity in the book, though there's a reference to a swear word). In short, he made it clear that the book was being challenged because of its politics and its content.

Ultimately, the entire schoolwide One Book/One School program was cancelled.

In an attempt to... er... question that authority, Doctorow and his publisher, Tor, are sending 200 free copies of the book to the school. A school trying to ban books is almost always a stupid idea, but it seems particularly stupid in this day and age with this particular book. In the end, all it is likely to do is cause more people to actually read the book and to, you know, question authority.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

View

So, yesterday, some of the tech blogosphere blew up over the fact that Netflix had started blaming Verizon for network congestion: Netflix claimed it had actually been testing this for a few weeks now, and others have seen it on AT&T networks as well. Verizon was, to put it mildly, not happy about all of this. It quickly told reporters that the whole thing was a "PR stunt" and pushed out an angry blog post, saying that it was all Netflix's fault for the way it routed traffic to Verizon's network. Notably, just about a month ago, Netflix had agreed to an interconnection deal, similar to the one that Netflix famously did with Comcast, but it's possible that the new ports aren't fully operational yet.

Either way, I was going to ignore this latest round of little stupid spats that have been going back and forth -- except that now it appears that Verizon has taken it up a level and actually issued a cease and desist to Netflix sayng it should no longer blame Verizon when the network is clogged. I'm not sure what actual legal basis Verizon thinks it has to do this, and wonder if Netflix will just cave in and stop with the messages. But, it certainly would create quite the interesting lawsuit if Verizon decided to go to court about this. Update: Netflix has indicated that it won't stop.

Either way, it's pretty clear that even once Netflix has signed an interconnection agreement with them, these ISP's are still not at all happy about the situation.

Update: Added an embed of the actual letter below.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Maybe if schools stop handing misbehaving students over to police officers, aggrieved parents won't be nearly as aggrieved... or so likely to sue. Schools are publicly funded already, but that's no reason to keep dipping into homeowners' wallets to pay out settlements for schools' bad decisions.

The very short background on this particular lawsuit is this (via Courtroom News Service):

B.R.K., a 13 year-old student at Raleigh Hills in Beaverton, OR was suspended after his teacher found his drawing of a person being hanged. The subject matter is no doubt disturbing, although plenty of rounds of Hangman have been played at school without issue. Since the suit doesn't dispute the disciplinary actions the school took (a one-day suspension), I'll withhold an opinion on a drawing being an offense worthy of suspension.

The school chose to file the student's drawing under the ultimate vagary: Threats/Menacing/Hate Lists. But this policy specifically requires a "word" or "action," of which a drawing is neither and B.R.K.'s doodle would need to place another person in "fear of serious imminent injury." Whether or not this designation was justified is open to speculation.

But that's neither here nor there, at least according to the filing by B.R.K.'s father, Robert Bernard Keller. His allegations are of civil rights violations, all occurring after the suspension was served and B.R.K. was cleared to return to school.

The drawing incident began April 30th. His parents were notified and B.R.K. served his suspension. A school psychologist performed a "risk assessment" on B.R.K. and cleared him to return to school. His parents were present for this "risk assessment," in agreement to the mother's request that they be notified (and hopefully present) for any meetings/questioning stemming from this incident. All seemed well and good until B.R.K. related to his parents that, later in the day, he was pulled from class and interrogated by Beaverton police officers.

After the parents left, Raleigh Hills called in officers of the Beaverton Police Department to interview B.R.K. without notifying the parents. At no time before or during the interview were the parents notified by Raleigh Hills or the Beaverton Police. Only after the fact did the parents learn of the police interrogation. No criminal charge was filed nor was a petition filed with the department of human services. As a direct and foreseeable result of the events that transpired during this incident, B.R.K. has suffered emotional damages.

Keller alleges Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, as well as emotional distress, false imprisonment and failure to supervise. Whether these will all hold up remains to be seen, but it would appear that Raleigh Hills violated its own policies by hosting an impromptu interrogation.

Early on in the school policy manual, the following is stated:

Unless an emergency situation exists relating to health or safety, the student shall receive prior notice of suspendable conduct as set forth herein and pursuant to District policy, specification of individual charges against the student, and an opportunity to present his/her view of the alleged misconduct. The suspending administrator may postpone these procedures if there is a risk that harm will occur if the suspension does not take place immediately. In all cases, an administrator will notify the parent/guardian by letter and, when possible, by telephone, and the procedure for reinstatement will be explained.

It would appear that parents are to be notified during every step of the process. For the most part, the school did this -- right up until it decided to bring the police in to "interview" a student whom its own psychologist had determined wasn't a threat and could return to general population.

Even if there's a little vagueness in the above statement, the school policy regarding the use of law enforcement is incredibly specific.

Referral to Law Enforcement

If it is necessary for law enforcement officers to interview, detain, or take into custody a student, the principal or his/her designee will follow regulations to insure compliance with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 162.245, 162.325). [The cited laws refer only to assisting law enforcement and not hindering prosecution. Neither have anything to do with the treatment of minors by law enforcement or rights retained by students.]

School personnel are responsible for cooperating with, and making it possible for, law enforcement officials to interview students on school premises. It is the responsibility of a law enforcement officer, who wishes to interrogate a student at school for law enforcement purposes, to contact that student’s parent or guardian in order to obtain advance authorization for the interview.

The district policy is even more definitive.

It is the responsibility of a law enforcement officer who wishes to interview a student at school for law enforcement purposes to contact that student's parent or guardian in order to obtain advance authorization for the interview. For this purpose, school personnel shall provide the telephone number of a student's parent or guardian to a requesting law enforcement officer…

There is an exception, but it doesn't fit this situation.

If the student's parent or guardian refuses to consent, the interview shall not take place unless the law enforcement officer represents that emergency or exigent circumstances justify an immediate interview. In such circumstances, before the interview occurs the law enforcement officer shall complete and sign a "No Consent/Interview Conducted Form," indicating that the parent or guardian refused to consent, and that emergency or exigent circumstances required an immediate interview of the student at the sole discretion of the law enforcement officer.

The Beaverton Police Dept. is also named in the suit. According to policy, the PD should have contacted the parents prior to this interview. Either way you look at it, someone should have talked to B.R.K.'s parents before putting the student in a room with police officers. The district's policy is just as narrow, stating there needs to be a form filled out stating the exigent circumstances that led to the consent-less interview. Keller's filing doesn't indicate he ever received this after-the-fact notification or, indeed, any awareness of this requirement.

Keller's allegations also state that the school has a "custom and policy" of seizing children from classrooms and "subjecting them to custodial police interrogations," so it would appear this isn't the first time Raleigh Hills has violated its own (and the district's) policies. The fact that police were involved after the student was cleared by staff gives this allegation credence. A school used to turning over nearly every discipline problem to local cops wouldn't think twice about bringing in law enforcement after the sentence has been served and the child interviewed by school staff.

If this ends up costing the school (Keller is asking for $100,000 in damages), it has no one to blame but itself. The policies are in place for exactly this reason -- to prevent the abuse of students' rights. But the school chose -- along with the Beaverton PD -- to violate its own policies, along with someone else's rights.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Rep. Bob Latta achieved an impressive feat last week in introducing some legislation, which he claims is to make sure the internet remains "open and free." While we're big supporters of an "open and free" internet, what's most amazing here is that almost everything that Latta claims about the bill is not true -- including the whole "open and free" bits.

Congressman Bob Latta (R-OH) today introduced legislation to ensure the Internet remains open and free from government interference by limiting the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) authority to regulate broadband under Title II of the Communications Act.

So, first, he's saying "open and free" not in the way that internet users, innovators and entrepreneurs can set up businesses, but rather "open and free from government interference." This is, simply, bullshit. While I tend to lean on the "less regulation" side for many things, people claiming that net neutrality is a fight about "regulating the internet" are one (or more) of the following three things: (1) stupid (2) ignorant or (3) lying. The internet is already heavily regulated. The question around net neutrality is not "do we regulate or leave unregulated" -- it's what type of regulation makes the most sense.

Remember, telcos are happy to be classified under Title II for their fiber, because that's how they're able to get subsidized access to power poles and conduits (and the ability to dig up yards and bury new lines). They're also "regulated" in how they get spectrum for wireless communications. The broadband providers are thrilled to be regulated in these ways because it has made it easier and cheaper to build their networks and to keep out pesky competition.

The idea that broadband should be "open and free" from government interference is simply untrue. If the broadband providers really wanted that to be true, then they shouldn't be making use of rights of way access granted by the government. Somehow, I don't see Latta asking Verizon and AT&T to change that...

The legislation comes after the FCC released a proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access under Title II as a telecommunications service rather than an information service.

Except, of course, the FCC did no such thing. It, in fact, released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which explicitly does not propose to reclassify broadband under Title II. It actually proposes to keep broadband as it was, preferring to put in place new rules under Section 706. The only thing on Title II is that, while making it clear the FCC is focused on Section 706, it asks the public to comment on what it thinks of Title II as an alternative. To outright claim that the FCC has proposed reclassifying is blatantly false.

Isn't it great that Congressional Representatives flat out lie to the public?

“In light of the FCC initiating yet another attempt to regulate the Internet, upending long-standing precedent and imposing monopoly-era telephone rules and obligations on the 21st Century broadband marketplace, Congress must take action to put an end to this misguided regulatory proposal,” said Latta.

Except, again, the internet has always been regulated in some form, this request for comments has upended no long-standing precedent, and broadband providers have long made use of those very same "monopoly-era telephone rules and obligations" to get government subsidies to install their broadband infrastructure. Oh, and again, the proposal does not actually suggest what he claims it's suggesting.

So, both the reasons and the overall claim of the proposal are simply wrong. Who elected this guy?

“The Internet has remained open and continues to be a powerful engine fueling private enterprise, economic growth and innovation absent government interference and obstruction. My legislation will provide all participants in the Internet ecosystem the certainty they need to continue investing in broadband networks and services that have been fundamental for job creation, productivity and consumer choice.

Yes, the internet has remained mostly open and is a powerful engine of private enterprise at the service level by keeping the network level free from discrimination. And the FCC claims to be looking for a way to keep that in place, while the telcos who are supporting Latta's proposal are looking to do the exact opposite: to limit private enterprise by allowing the infrastructure players to discriminate against services they don't like. Latta's legislation does not provide "certainty" to anyone other than Verizon, AT&T and Comcast -- all of whom will get to double-charge and increase profits.

Instead, it will create massive uncertainty for basically every other business that uses the internet. It will devastate investment into internet startups, because those with great new ideas will know that they'll have to pay extra just to reach people online. It will entrench big companies who already have the power to pay, while cutting off upstarts and innovators. It will take away the incentives for the big broadband providers to actually invest in infrastructure, because when their networks get clogged, they can charge more to internet companies. That means, the US will fall even further behind on the internet.

It makes you wonder why Rep. Latta is so against small businesses and innovation.

Oh, no, there's no reason to wonder. We already know. Latta is bankrolled by the big broadband companies with AT&T, NCTA, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, American Cable Assocation and Centurylink among his top campaign supporters. Because, of course they are.

Yes, we know that politicians mislead the public, but this is to an egregious level. Nearly everything about the reasons, the intent and the impact of Latta's legislation are completely incorrect. There are reasonable debates to be had about whether or not reclassifying broadband under Title II makes sense. But you won't get that from this bill. Thankfully, Latta can't find any other politician willing to co-sponsor his ridiculous bill, so it appears that even many other politicians heavily funded by the broadband companies recognize how totally dishonest this particular bill is.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

You know how fads are. They just get boring so fast. Take violence, for instance. Blaming video games for real-world violence is so yesterday. We need a forward-thinker, some kind of super-genius who can bring us into a new era of blaming video games for something way more hip than just blowing stuff up. You know, a real bullshit artist of the highest caliber.

My hero! Yes, Glenn Beck, upstanding journalist of freedom and 'Merica, has decided to expound on the dangers of video games in a way so completely backward and ill-informed, it sort of makes you wonder how everyone in whatever studio compound he tapes this drivel in didn't drown out the sound mics in laughter. Should you be unable to view the video, or simply don't want to waste the time and brain cells doing so, here's the relevant part of this illogical rollercoaster.

1. We start off with Beck quoting the coroner in that dumb story I just wrote about, with his shoot-from-the-hip remarks on how Call of Duty somehow made four teenagers kill themselves. He actually quotes the coroner fully, which is sort of nice for me, but bad for him, since the coroner helpfully noted that he had no actual evidence for anything he was saying.
2. He then goes on to note that Breivik, the Norway killer who murdered 77 people, trained to do so on Call of Duty, and apparently just decides to take the psycho's word for it and assume that this video game is every bit the murder simulator a real-life assassin needs.
3. We start the Watch Dogs portion of this discussion with Beck wondering why we always need an anti-hero. He asks why we can't have a Superman in our entertainment. I mean, it's been almost an entire year since Man of Steel came out. What the hell, people?
4. And then Beck gets to the culmination of this stupid screed, holding up his iPad and informing his listeners that Watch Dogs is training children how to hack into his tablet while he sleeps next to it.

Whoo-boy. Okay, let me make this simple, since I've actually, you know, played Watch Dogs: if the game teaches children how to hack people's tablets then someone is going to have to show me where the square-button is on my phone, because I can't find it. Hacking devices in the game is that simple. You push a button. Sometimes you actually have to solve a little navigation puzzle, too. That, I'm fairly certain, isn't hacking.

I've said this before: don't watch anything remotely resembling any cable news network or their talking mouthpieces. Beck isn't the only slinger of stupid out there and it's especially bad when it comes to video games. If people want to have a frank and open discussion on the impact of gaming on the lives of children and society as a whole, fine, let's do that. But the children have to shut up while we're having that discussion, because their wailing lies are getting in the way.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

On Monday morning, we wrote about John Oliver's brilliant report on net neutrality, which ended with a stirring "call to action" for internet commenters to tell the FCC why it should preserve a free and open internet. If you somehow missed it, here's the clip again: Many of our commenters noted that the FCC comment page that Oliver pointed to, FCC.gov/comments, appeared to be down for most of the day, either suggesting wonderful irony or that Oliver's call to action has been monumentally successful. The FCC has put up some tweets in which it apologizes for technical difficulties, without explaining why they were occurring beyond "heavy traffic."

We’ve been experiencing technical difficulties with our comment system due to heavy traffic. We’re working to resolve these issues quickly.

— The FCC (@FCC) June 2, 2014

We’re still experiencing technical difficulties with our comment system. Thanks for your patience as we work to resolve the issues.

— The FCC (@FCC) June 2, 2014

Some of us quickly speculated that the two things were related, while some publications have simply assumed without question that it was Oliver's pleas that brought the system down. To some extent I hope that's the case, though I do fear a bit the kinds of comments people might be leaving.

Either way, the irony of the FCC having trouble under heavy loads concerning net neutrality was not lost on many people, who didn't miss the opportunity to tweet some replies mocking the whole net neutrality proposal.

.@FCC can I haz priority access?

— Falk Steiner (@flueke) June 2, 2014

@FCC Don't worry. If you pay $8M more to Comcast you might get a better connection. They might even throw in a $4M/m server lease agreement.

— Richard Risner (@Kowder) June 2, 2014

@FCC Maybe because you servers are running on the "slow lane" internet? Since when do you read comments that dont include cash bribes?

— Mark Rodgers ツ (@KC8GRQ) June 2, 2014

.@FCC You didn't save the "fast lane" for yourself? How sweet. https://t.co/BCSSbwhV1H #NetNeutrality

— Daniel Wallen (@TheWallenWay) June 2, 2014

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Unfortunately, it appears that the Supreme Court has decided not to hear reporter James Risen's appeal in the case in which he has been subpoenaed to testify, concerning CIA leaks. Risen had refused to testify, claiming that as a reporter he was entitled to keep his sources confidential. Last summer, the 4th Circuit appeals court said that Risen could be compelled to testify and to give up his sources. The court refused a request to rehear the case en banc (with a full slate of judges, rather than just a 3 judge panel). He then appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to today's rejection.

The DOJ, of course, had vigorously argued that the Supreme Court should reject Risen's appeal (ridiculously, it did this the same day the State Department launched a "free the press" campaign). Last week, we noted that some were interpreting Eric Holder's comments to mean that he would not seek jail time for Risen, should he continue to refuse to testify, but a closer reading of Holder's comments said no such thing.

It appears we may now find out the truth. If Risen continues to protect his sources, the ball will be in the DOJ's court: will it give up or will it pursue throwing a widely respected reporter in jail? One would hope that a basic sense of common decency would lead the DOJ to give up this ridiculous fight, but the DOJ doesn't have much of a history of common decency.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Comcast continues its efforts to present itself as one of the most out of touch and ridiculous companies out there, with a new commercial directed at videogamers, highlighting how fast Comcast's in-game WiFi is. Note how it's addressed to "real gamers." Just one problem, as "Mr. Comcast" goes on about how there's "no buffering" and how much better the video gaming experience is with Comcast's Xfinity WiFi, people pointed out that the game in question has no online play. The game is Ubisoft's Trials Fusion, which means that there's no reason there would be any buffering at all in the first place.

Mr. Comcast gets the gamers playing Trials Fusion. The game is indeed a shiny new title, released on PC and for the major gaming consoles (Xbox 360, Xbox One, and PlayStation 4) just a few weeks ago. The motorcycle tricks-and-racing game launched to generally positive reviews that lauded its mechanics and features. But reviewers also mentioned one notable feature that the game does not have: an online multiplayer mode.

No online mode, no net connection. No network connection, no network lag.

“Do you notice any buffering?” Mr. Comcast then asks.

The gamers happily reply that they do not! And of course they don’t: the game ships on a disc or as a one-time digital download. It’s not on a streaming or cloud service like a Netflix or YouTube video; there’s nothing to buffer. That would be akin to asking if you see Microsoft Word buffering when you type a report on your work computer. Your software might be running slowly, but “buffering” is definitely not the issue.

As Re/code points out, this doesn't exactly help Comcast's reputation. And, if you want some amusement, this Reddit comment thread can't be beat: It really takes a special kind of cluelessness to target "real gamers" with an ad so ridiculously misleading, and which those very same "real gamers" will almost immediately call out as bogus.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story