Brindle

It would appear that actress Cindy Lee Garcia and her lawyer Chris Armenta are figuring that since they've already mucked up copyright law with their ridiculous victory in the 9th Circuit that they might as well go on pushing the boundaries of copyright law to further ridiculous extremes. If you don't recall, the 9th Circuit, via Judge Alex Kozinski found the actress had a magical "copyright interest" in the 5 seconds of Innocence of Muslims 13-minute trailer that she appeared in, allowing her to demand that Google takedown every copy of the video. Multiple copyright experts were flabbergasted at this ruling, and a variety of folks have been lining up to support future proceedings in the case (starting with a possible en banc review of whether or not the court should grant a stay on the ruling until even more review can occur).

In the midst of this, Garcia has filed a motion for contempt against YouTube and Google arguing that the company has failed to abide by the takedown order. However, as the details show, Garcia and Armenta are applying some rather questionable interpretations of copyright law yet again -- though they're interpretations helped along by a bunch of additional problems with Kozinski's order (problems that were mostly ignored given the immensity of the ridiculousness of the key parts of the original order). It seems that their main complaint is that Google only blocked the videos for people in the US. That is, if you visit a foreign version of YouTube, you can still see the clips. That may be true, but it's hard to see how that's contempt. US copyright law only applies in the US. The US court can't realistically order Google to remove the video in other countries, since US courts don't have jurisdiction there. Imagine the flip side: if a court in, say, China, ruled that Google had to block a certain video -- and then found Google in contempt for not blocking viewers in the US from accessing that content. Most people would flip out.

But Garcia and her lawyer seem to think that a single copyright ruling in the US is grounds for worldwide censorship. That's fairly incredible. Though, once again, Judge Kozinski is largely to blame here, as his order certainly could be read to suggest (clearly incorrectly) that he has the power to censor the content globally.

Google has failed to comply. As of this morning, at 7:55 a.m EST, a version of Innocence of Muslims that includes Ms. Garcia's performance is still available on Google's Worldwide Platform and also viewable in Egypt, the nation in which the fatwa was issued for Ms. Garcia's execution. All a viewer needs to do to view a copy of the video that contains the infringing material from any computer in the world and within in YouTube's global platforms--and therefore is governed by the takedown order--is to change his or her settings to any country platform, such as "Egypt."

That's not the only problem with the motion. It also seems to completely ignore existing rulings (such as in the Viacom case) that state that in issuing takedowns, you need to point to the specific instance of infringement, rather than just "make all of this disappear." That's quite reasonable, because content itself is not infringing absent context. There may be perfectly valid versions of the content that are fair use -- especially given the news interest in this particular ruling. But Garcia is insisting that Google has to proactively police all copies and block them -- again, thanks in part to Kozinski's overly broad language in his order that implies a duty to police this issue, despite the law not saying that at all.

Furthermore, the DMCA's 512(j) itself says that injunctions granted under it can only apply to "a particular online site," rather than some sort of global ban across every site in every locale. Kozinski, once again, seems to have gone beyond what the law allows in his weird quixotic quest to twist copyright law into something it is not.

For Google, it is a pedestrian, technical exercise to take down those URLs, to hire an intern to just search for "Innocence of Muslims," and their suggestion that Ms. Garcia should comb through YouTube again, and provide Google with the information again, belies Google's claim that it is in compliance.

While Kozinski seems to ignore this, the DMCA has never had a forward-looking duty to monitor and block all instances of a particular piece of content. It appears that Garcia and her lawyer are trying to simply make up new law here. As we noted just recently, there are some efforts underway to change the DMCA from a "notice and takedown" provision to "notice and staydown" but that's simply not the law today, no matter what Kozinski thinks it is.

The motion goes even further, insisting that the only way to comply with a takedown notice is to completely remove the file from the server, rather than just disable it from being viewable:

Additionally, as of the writing of this brief, Google has not "taken down" anything. Instead, it has merely disabled the various uploads displaying Innocence of Muslims in forms that contain infringing content, leaving the content up and viewable via thumbnails.

Of course, the actual law says that upon notification a company only needs to "remove, or disable access to, the material." Once again, it seems that this is another problem with Kozinski's overly broad order, which declared that Google had to "takedown" the content, rather than just disable it, even as the law has said disabling it should be sufficient.

Furthermore, the motion seems to suggest that Google has a further duty (not even discussed in Kozinski's order) to somehow block Google's search engine from ever pointing to the video anywhere else in the world.

Google has failed to remove full copies of the video from its platforms, has failed to prevent new uploads of the video to YouTube, and continues to publish on its Google search index platforms links to numerous sites and platforms where the video can either be directly viewed or where it can be easily downloaded and saved to viewers' computers.

So now they want to censor Google search results to other sites as well? Yikes.

Garcia also complains about the "snide" error message placed on copies of the video that were disabled.

Indeed, Google has not even made a pro forma attempt to comply with the order, choosing instead to temporarily disable only a few copies of the video that contain infringing content and putting in their place a snide message to the public that states:

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by an actress over her 5-second appearance in the video. A U.S. court has ordered Google to remove the video. We strongly disagree with this copyright ruling and will fight it."

As is clear from Google's near-total disregard of the order and its ridiculing of the Court's authority, Google is thumbing its nose at the Court and making a mockery of our judicial system in an apparent attempt to encourage the public to blame and harass Ms. Garcia and to continue to use infringing content to generate YouTube revenues from traffic directed through the 852 URLs that have illegally posted the content.

Of course, all of Google's responses so far do not seem like "contempt" or "thumbing its nose," but rather following through with the exactly what the law says is proper. Disabling access to the known videos in the US. This is the same way that Google responds to legal takedowns in other countries as well -- disabling it for those countries only. And, yes, Kozinski's order could be read to demand further actions, including fulling taking down all such videos, even those outside the US, but those are just additional problems with Kozinski's order, which go way beyond what the law says. Everyone has reasonably focused on the ridiculousness of the original claim of giving Garcia a copyright interest in the film, and to a lesser extent the First Amendment-defying gag order he placed on Google. But, the details of this contempt motion highlight that Kozinski got a lot of the little things completely wrong as well, such as ordering Google to go way beyond what copyright law requires.

This is a bad case on so many levels, but it could be even more ridiculous if these kinds of precedents by Kozinski's blatant misreading of the law are allowed to stand. The dangerous precedents go beyond just allowing an actor in a film to claim a copyright on the film, but further allowing bogus "worldwide" injunctions and a requirement to completely "take down" content, rather than just disable access to it (which creates a whole host of other problems). Once again, it seems abundantly clear that Kozinski simply went off the reservation with his ruling, ignoring what the law actually says to satisfy his own desire to censor this video.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Live a clean life and the cops should leave you alone, right? RIGHT?!? Harvey Silverglate wasn't being facetious when he wrote "Three Felonies A Day." There are all sorts of laws waiting to be broken, laws that boggle the mind in their insipidity.

As we covered recently, the FBI arrested one of its own handcrafted "terrorists" for "conspiring" to materially aid a terrorist organization. This "conspiring" apparently took the form of the suspect talking about possibly joining a terrorist group and, with undercover agents' urging, traveling to Canada to fill out some sort of terrorist job application. He was arrested at the border, having really done nothing more than talk big and wear the "rube" label really well.

More recently, Techdirt covered Judge Otis Wright's beration of the ATF for setting up stooges to pull off a fake crime -- a conspiracy to rob a "stash house." Of course, the stash house didn't exist, but this didn't stop the government from bringing criminal charges against the "criminals" and seeking sentences based on the entirely fictional contents of the fictional house. The ATF told its stooges that the house contained 20-25 kilos of coke in the house. Judge Wright asked why not just say 10, or 100 or 1,000, as long as the government's just making up numbers? No crime here because said "stash house" simply didn't exist and yet, people were arrested and put on trial.

Here's another case of no criminal activity somehow turning into a crime in the hands of zealous law enforcement officers who apparently couldn't handle not getting the drug bust they were obviously seeking. (via Reason)

Deputies said they stopped Delbert Dewayne Galbreath at NW 10th Street and Interstate 44 for a broken brake light. The deputy said Galbreath admitted he did not have a license to drive. Two deputies asked to search his car and he agreed.

A deputy found a cigarette pouch that had 16 pieces of a rock-like form, which authorities generally associate as crack cocaine. The deputies said they also found a digital scale.

Authorities tested the rocks and said they did not contain cocaine. When they asked Galbreath what the rocks were, he said they were Scentsy.
Galbreath was arrested on suspicion of possession with intent to distribute imitation controlled dangerous substance (CDS), possession of drug paraphernalia, driving under a revoked license and defective equipment.

Read that again: a man was arrested for not possessing drugs. Note the oddly specific denial. The man said they were "Scentsy." This doesn't sound like someone just blurting out the first thing that came to mind when deputies searched his vehicle.

If you're not familiar with Scentsy, it's a direct marketing company that specializes in "wickless candles," which are scented wax cubes that are warmed on its proprietary warmers. (All images taken from Scentsy's catalog unless otherwise noted)

Here's how the process works.


Here's a shot of a couple of Scentsy cubes sitting in a warmer with a vaguely scale-like shape.


Here's some more scale-esque warmers Scentsy offers.


And here's another scale-like warmer that's included in every Scentsy starter kit.


And here's some vaguely crack-colored wax sitting in a Scentsy warmer.


And for comparison's sake, here's a DEA file photo of crack cocaine.


So, this seems like an entirely plausible explanation. The plausibility factor shoots way up when you factor in the negative test results. But rather than investigate whether Galbreath's claims were accurate after the "NOT COCAINE" determination, the deputies ran with their original plan: nail Galbreath for drug dealing. Instead of dealing drugs, Galbreath was trying to sell fake drugs, which is completely indistinguishable from actual criminal activity when you're sitting in a jail cell.

Maybe the Sheriff's Dept. is hoping to sweat out some more info from the jailed "dealer," like who his pissed off customers are or who's further up the chain supplying him with fake drugs and taking a percentage of each sale he makes. (My hunch? A regional director in Oklahoma as well as any number of intermediaries along the direct marketing food chain.)

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time," they say. But they somehow fail to add, "Don't NOT do the crime if you can't do the time," because everyday citizens like you and me might find that statement baffling, horrifying and complete bullshit.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

With two of his own review panels saying that the bulk collection of phone records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act had failed to produce anything of value, and one of them clearly stating that it was also illegal and unconstitutional, the NY Times is reporting that President Obama is finally ready to call for the true end of the NSA's bulk collection of phone records. Surprisingly, according to that report, President Obama is willing to do this without adding data retention requirements for the telcos to hold onto that data themselves. If true, that really is a pretty big deal -- though it only covers the issue of the bulk phone records collection. That leaves other forms of bulk collection under Section 215 in place. So, in effect, it seems like an agreement to kill off the one high profile problematic program that hasn't been remotely useful, rather than a full policy shift. It's a start, however.

Unfortunately, at the same time that's happening, it appears that the House Intelligence Committee, run by Rep. Mike Rogers is pushing a new bill that would take a step towards limiting some aspects of the NSA's data collection powers, but also lowering the standard by which the government could collect specific information:

The bill, titled the End Bulk Collection Act of 2014 and currently circulating on Capitol Hill, would prevent the government from acquiring "records of any electronic communication without the use of specific identifiers or selection terms," some 10 months after the Guardian first exposed the bulk collection based on leaks by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.

But the bill would allow the government to collect electronic communications records based on "reasonable articulable suspicion", rather than probable cause or relevance to a terrorism investigation, from someone deemed to be an agent of a foreign power, associated with an agent of a foreign power, or "in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power."

While a separate report says that this House bill would actually ban the mass collection of other types of data (including internet activity) as well as phone records (i.e., going further than the Obama proposal), it would leave out the requirement that a court approve specific requests for information before it's submitted to a company.

But unlike other pending legislation, it does not call for judicial approval of a specific phone number before a request for data is submitted to a company.

The Rogers-Ruppersberger legislation would have the court make that determination “promptly” after the FBI submits a number to a phone company. If the court did not approve the number as being linked to an agent of a foreign power, including terrorist groups, the data collected would be expunged.

The details of these proposals are going to matter a lot. The full House bill is expected to be introduced in a few hours, and it will take some time to go through the details to see if there are any dangerous easter eggs hidden in there. Still, for all the arguments from Rep. Rogers and the Obama administration about how "necessary" these programs have been and how horrible it's been that Ed Snowden revealed the details to the press, these moves show just how much of an impact the Snowden leaks have had on the public debate concerning surveillance. It will take some time to sort through the details of these proposals, but it's safe to say without Snowden's actions, none of this would be happening.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We've seen dumb criminals do a lot of dumb things with the technology on their fingertips, always resulting in their prompt arrest, because that's how things turn out for dumb criminals. Whether it's sharing the police Facebook post seeking their arrest or college kids celebrating their illegal behavior online, the idea is that for the nefarious criminal, over-sharing can get you into lots of trouble.

But for the idiot criminal who wants to set the record for being the biggest assbag, I'll simply point to Dakkari Dijon McAnuff, who was angry enough at apparently being named after a condiment that he sent out the following tweet:

I'll give you three guesses what happened next, but you'll only need one.

Dakkari Dijon McAnuff, of Los Angeles, was booked Wednesday on suspicion of making criminal threats, police said. He remained in jail in lieu of $50,000 bail. The investigation began Wednesday morning when LAPD officers were notified about a photo on Twitter. The photo shows a rifle pointed at a Los Angeles street with the caption "100 [retweets] and I'll shoot someone walking."

I have to say, even though you'll often find me wandering the halls of my workplace muttering under my breath about the ridiculous over-prosecution and punishment in our legal system, $50k bail seems a bit light to me. Perhaps McAnuff was joking, except that his joke wasn't funny, it was a promise to harm people. Perhaps he thought people would realize it was an air rifle (as police later determined) and not a hunting rifle, except that really doesn't make and damned difference. And, to my mind, the kind of person who would send this out for any reason whatsoever isn't the kind of person I trust getting back out on the street without a severely taught lesson applied to him.

Here's to you spending some time in jail, Mr. McAnuff. I want you to think real hard about what you've done, now.



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Former President Jimmy Carter says that he believes the NSA is likely spying on his communications, so he actually avoids using email when communicating with foreign leaders:

"You know, I have felt that my own communications are probably monitored," Carter told NBC's Andrea Mitchell in an interview broadcast Sunday. "And when I want to communicate with a foreign leader privately, I type or write a letter myself, put it in the post office and mail it.

"I believe if I send an email, it will be monitored," Carter continued.

Of course, regular letters are quite frequently intercepted and read as well (the USPS already scans and stores the front and back of every piece of mail). But it's still rather telling that a former President feels that his own communications with foreign leaders are not private or secure. Someone should set him up with some encryption.

Meanwhile, in a separate interview, Carter said that he thinks Snowden's revelations were probably a good thing, even if he thinks Snowden probably broke the law.

"There's no doubt that he broke the law and that he would be susceptible, in my opinion, to prosecution if he came back here under the law," he said. "But I think it's good for Americans to know the kinds of things that have been revealed by him and others -- and that is that since 9/11 we've gone too far in intrusion on the privacy that Americans ought to enjoy as a right of citizenship."

It's not a full support for Snowden's actions, but it's a lot farther than many others have gone. Either way, Carter thinks the NSA has gone way too far:

"I think it's wrong," he said of the NSA program. "I think it's an intrusion on one of the basic human rights of Americans, is to have some degree of privacy if we don't want other people to read what we communicate."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Over the last few weeks we've discussed a few times how Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan wanted to ban Twitter. If you don't follow the details of what's happening in Turkey, Zeynep Tufecki has a great backgrounder piece in the NY Times. Either way, the threats became reality, as Erdogan flat out announced his intent was to "eradicate Twitter" and also:

I don't care what the international community says. Everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic

Turkish ISPs followed the orders to block Twitter, but so far, it's not the power of the Turkish Republic we're seeing, but the power of people and technology to route around attempts at censorship. Many people quickly turned to VPNs or realized that they could still Tweet via text message... or that they could use alternative DNS providers. In fact, it's reached such a level that there's graffiti on the walls in Turkey pointing to Google's DNS which lets users route around the Twitter block:

Twitter is blocked in Turkey. On the streets of Istanbul, the action against censorship is graffiti DNS addresses. pic.twitter.com/XcsfN7lJvS

— Utku Can (@utku) March 21, 2014

And it appears that the people are winning so far, as Turkish Twitter users are still tweeting at quite a rapid rate.

As we had noted earlier, while the Prime Minister has been pushing this, Turkey's (less powerful) President, Abdullah Gul has been fighting back against these censorship attempts, and even went so far as to get around the ban himself to tweet against the ban and his tweet quickly was retweeted thousands of times.

Twitter itself is apparently looking into legal action to restore the site fully, but so far it seems that basic technology and the will of the people is beating out the "legal" process. As Tufecki has now noted, Erdogan may have banned Twitter in Turkey, but "people in Turkey had banned the ban."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

It's not much of a secret that Apple sees itself as some kind of supreme overlord of apps for its iProducts. And that supreme overlord has some very puritanical views, it seems: no nudity, no literature, and no immoral comics (censorship claims based solely on Apple's pure-as-the-driven-snow morality indexer). Far be it from a silly little human like myself to question whether our overlords' iron-grip is good for the app ecosystem, but with all the questionable decisions that seemed to be made in the name of the app approval process, perhaps it's time for a more democratized solution, like letting customers decide whether they want something or not.

I say that because when we've reached the point that a World War 2 strategy game is initially rejected for app store inclusion for the sin of having Nazi enemies in the game, we've reached an absurdity level typically reserved for Monty Python sketches.

Hunted Cow Studios chief Andrew Mullholland just sent me screenshots of the status of Tank Battle: East Front 1942, the followup to the WWII wargame we just reviewed last week. Apple has rejected the game for having Germans and Russians in it. I’m not kidding.

We found that your app contains content or features that include people from a specific race, culture, government, corporation, or other real entity as the enemies in the context of the game, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines. Specifically, we noticed your app depicts real entity as the enemies.

Apple...come on. They're Nazis. Somewhere between playing war as children, playing video games, watching movies, or pretending they're Indiana Jones, roughly every damned person on the planet has either pretend-killed a Nazi or watched a Nazi getting pretend-killed. That's what Nazis are for. You want a little mildly violent entertainment, but you need a fall-guy to shoot at so your friends and family won't think you're a jerk...boom, Nazis! This initial rejection was all the more silly since the game is set in a historical period when half the world was at war with, you guessed it, the Nazis!

Now, because not everyone at Apple is a lobotomized monkey that's been dipping into Steve Jobs' left-behind liquor cabinet, the decision to reject the game was quickly reversed.

Andrew Mulholland just wrote in to say that Apple re-reviewed the game and have reversed their decision without Hunted Cow Studios having to make any changes. Common sense prevails. Tank Battle: East Front 1942 will be on the App Store tonight at midnight.

Nonsense. In what world is it common sense prevailing for this to have ever happened to begin with? The whole censorious process is an amalgam of frustrated confusion, created only because Apple wants to play parent rather than letting their child of an app store go free and grow up. We're talking about an entire situation that never need have happened, and we're calling it a win for common sense?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

I spend a fair amount of time working with legacy operating systems. Apart from being obsolete themselves they suffer from a common problem - the web browsers are simply unusable on a present day Internet. You start by getting JavaScript error on google.com and it only gets worse once you go further. Try going to microsoft.com with IE 1.5 or qnx.com with the last version of Voyager. This just doesn't work. With rapid progression of web standards, the situation will only be getting worse in time. Something had to be done. This is some really cool stuff.

President Barack Obama may soon be giving up his trusty Blackberry in favor of something more… green. Before you give Obama brownie points, the switch (like most things) has absolutely nothing to do with his own preference, but that of the White House Communications Agency (WHCA), which oversees all of the President’s communications, both incoming and outgoing.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the WHCA (along with an internal technology team) is still in the early phases of testing smartphones from both Samsung and LG to be used for official use. Because testing is still in its early phases, Obama will still be using his Blackberry – the smartphone he recently used to snap a controversial selfie — for another good couple of months, but should be up and running with Android before his term in 2017 ends.

Because of the open nature of Android, it makes it more appealing for government agencies to hack up and lock down in order to gain clearance. Why not the iPhone? It simply isn’t secure enough to gain White House certification. Not that it matters, but when Obama does receive his new Android, there’s a good it will be running something a little closer to stock Android, without all bells and whistles that come along with TouchWiz (or whatever LG is calling their UI customizations these days).

For those unaware, the President’s current Blackberry only allows him to contact 10 people, something we expect will remain the same once his shiny new Samsung or LG phone arrives. It’s tough being a President.

[The Wall Street Journal | via The Verge]

As pretty much all of you have been sending in, our favorite open source electronics firm, Sparkfun, has found itself in the middle of yet another unfortunate intellectual property issue that highlights how broken intellectual property law continues to be. In short, SparkFun needs to pay to have $30,000 worth of multimeters (2,000 of them) destroyed because they're yellow and because trademark law is stupid. Basically, electronics maker Fluke holds trademark 2796480, which is described thusly:

The mark consists of the colors dark gray and yellow as applied to the goods. The dotted outline of the goods is intended to show the position of the mark and is not a part of the mark.

The trademark makes clear that it is not claiming a trademark on the color yellow, but rather dark gray and yellow applied to something that looks like this: Now, here's Sparkfun's multimeter: And, apparently, while having these 2,000 multimeters shipped from China to the US, they were stopped by Customs because of an ITC ruling (warning: big pdf file behind that link) that blocks the import of:

digital multimeters and products with multimeter functionality that have a contrasting color combination of a dark-colored body or face and a contrasting yellow border, frame, molding, overlay, holster or perimeter.

And this is based on claims that other companies were violating that Fluke trademark we discussed above. As the folks at Sparkfun point out, this is all kinds of ridiculous and immensely damaging to them:

Yellow is awfully broad: In my mind, multimeters have always been yellow. I’ve never had the opportunity to own a Fluke-branded DMM so I’m not sure where my brain picked up this association. I can respect trademarks and company branding and I respect Fluke’s reputation for high-quality multimeters. If Fluke wants to own a color I would expect the USPTO to require them to assign an exact color just like Tiffany’s did with Tiffany Blue. But allowing a company to trademark ‘yellow’ seems broad.

Wicked burden on small business: Trademark law is heavily skewed towards large business. Small business does not have the resources to stay abreast of all trademarks for all the products they don’t carry. If you’re going to put the onus on the little guy to avoid infringing IP then you shouldn’t need an army of consultants or attorneys to find this information. We will lose $30,000 on this shipment. But the cost of the legal legwork and manpower to make sure we don’t violate a future color seems unreasonable and simply not feasible.

No recourse: Our multimeters are actually kind of orange, not Fluke yellow. The document from the Department of Homeland Security is matter of fact. Where is the opportunity for recourse? What is the appeals process? Because of a $150 per day warehousing fee we are forced to decide quickly with limited legal guidance and mounting penalty costs.

Decide between bad and worse: So we really only have two options, ship them back or have them destroyed. Having them destroyed costs $150 per hour with no indication of how much time it will take to destroy 2,000 units. Returning them has been ruled out by the manufacturer in China because the import taxes in China are so steep (yay free trade) that bringing them back into the country to have them modified would be more expensive than paying for the return shipping and taxes. Between bad and worse, we have to have them destroyed. Sorry Earth.

To be fair, the first point is slightly misleading. This isn't a color trademark like Tiffany Blue or the variety of other trademarks that have issued in the past (though many of those are ridiculous in their own right), but a specific trademark about how the color is used on a specific product. It's still ridiculous and makes no sense, but it's not directly comparable to color trademarks (which, again, are also ridiculous).

Sparkfun is using the publicity around the blog post in the hopes that Fluke might grant them a brief license to save these multimeters, but admits that's unlikely. The company is also changing the color of its multimeters, but likely going to need to eat the cost of the ones about to be destroyed. Because trademark law is, yet again, pretty ridiculous.

Update: And Fluke is apparently going to give Sparkfun a bunch of its multimeters to do what they want with them.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

In the ongoing idiocy that is schools employing zero tolerance policies, the admittedly misguided overbearing results at least tend to have some pretend logic behind them. The school is afraid of guns, so ban everything that remotely looks like a gun, even if we're just talking about some kid's fingers. The school wants to curtail bullying, so they go nuclear at anything even remotely resembling bullying. Yes, it's misguided, yes, it's stupid, but you can at least follow along the logical path they walked before jumping off the cliff.

But where one California North Carolina grade school got the stones to blame Grayson Bruce and his backpack for the bullying he's endured is beyond me.

A mother and her 9-year-old son say school officials won't let him bring a My Little Pony bag to school. The boy and his mother say he's getting shoved around because bullies think his pick of a favorite toy is for girls.

My Little Pony, which has enjoyed something of a resurgence lately, is a show about friendship. One would have to work extremely hard after being hit in the head with a hammer in order to find anything offensive within it. The only explanation anyone has offered for banning Grayson from bringing his damned backpack to school has been that it sets off the bullies to go about their bullying ways. This, in case you're dense, is about as pure a form of blaming the victim as one can find. Fortunately, while the school in question decided to paint a damned backpack as the culprit in this scenario, the power of social media has risen to support Grayson.

Since it aired, the story has been picked up by websites, blogs and television stations across the nation. Tuesday it was one of the top stories trending on social media. The Facebook page 9-year-old Grayson Bruce's parents have set up for him now has more than 3,700 "Likes". Grayson has developed a following on Facebook after a friend made a support page for him. Grayson stands by his favorite cartoon and the message he says it sends. His mother says, why not?

But Noreen says Thursday the school asked him to leave the bag at home because it had become a distraction and was a "trigger for bullying."

This is absurd. In a world where too many schools are embracing too many zero tolerance policies, this one is actually going down the road of removing the subject of the bullying instead. What fun! What if the young man was gay? Or black? Mexican? What if he liked a certain kind of music, or was a huge fan of the wrong sports team? What if he had a medical condition? Sorry, sport, but you have to leave your crutches at home, 'cuz the kids just ain't down with them.

No, the proper response to is to pull those bullying Grayson aside and explain to them in stark terms why their actions aren't acceptable. Banning MLP backpacks can't be the answer, lest we allow all those children to learn the exact wrong lesson in their place of learning.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Oppo is jumping ahead of the curve today with the announcement of their latest flagship handset. It’s the Oppo Find 7, and it’s being billed as the world’s first phone sporting a camera sensor that can take 50 megapixel photos.

Oppo Find 7 Camera details

The sensor itself isn’t 50 megapixels — it’s actually Sony’s 13 megapixel Exmor IMX214. So how did Oppo achieve the feat? The Find 7 does this with a new image processing feature called Pure Image 2.0, which makes the image chip fast enough to take 10 photos in really quick succession.

The phone then automatically selects 4 of the best images and pieces them together to produce a photo that packs in a lot of pixels. 100% crop samples of the photos (courtesy) indeed prove that the camera produces shots which retain a very impressive level of detail, even for objects that are far away.

And that’s just the start of it. The camera also features 4K HD video recording, 100 frames per second recording for slow motion video, an HDR mode, the ability to shoot in RAW, the ability to shoot video directly to GIF format, and the ability to set exposure to up to 32 seconds. Wowza. We’re not saying this thing could produce DSLR-level photos, but you don’t get features like that in typical smartphones.

Other Oppo Find 7 specs

So how about the rest of the phone? It’s equally impressive in all the right areas, with a spec sheet daring to rival any top smartphone on the market today. Note that there are both standard and premium versions of the device. The standard specs will be listed below, with the premium equivalent in parentheses. Here’s the quick list:

• 5.5-inch 1080p display (2560 x 1440 premium)
• Snapdragon 800 quad-core processor (Snapdragon 801 with Adreno 330 graphics premium)
• 2GB of RAM and 16GB of internal storage (3GB of RAM and 32GB of internal storage premium)
• 3,00mAh removable battery with VOOC Fast Charging technology — charges up to 75% in 30 minutes
• 13MP rear camera with LED flash; 5.0 megapixel front camera
• GPS w/ GLONASS, WiFi ac, Bluetooth 4.0 LE
• Android 4.3 Jelly Bean
• 152.6 x 75 x 9.2 mm, 171 g

Sitting on top of Android 4.3 is Oppo’s Color OS 1.2, which features decent customization and some interesting gestures for doing things like launching camera, weather and other favorite apps. It’s largely the same as Color OS on the Oppo N1, which you can read more about in our Oppo N1 review.

Oppo Find 7 availability

There’s no way you can’t want this thing by now, but how can you get it? Well, you can probably rule out the possibility of your carrier offering one, though Oppo will be selling these direct to consumers online starting mid-April (add a month or two for the premium version).

Those in China can find them in local shops starting tomorrow, and it will be available in White and Midnight Black.

Discuss Android Wear and all the latest smart watches at AndroidForums.com!

While Google already rattled off a list of manufacturers we’ll be seeing making Android Wear smart watches (with two of those already having announced their products earlier today), the future is undoubtedly much brighter than it already is. We’re going to talk about 20 of the best smart watches available now, available in the future, and even those which haven’t even been made official as of yet.

Smart watches available right now

So where are things today? Well, the smart watch scene is already chock full of options that you can get your heads on right now. Let’s take a quick stroll down recent memory lane to see which devices have helped shape this exciting new category of technology.

Qualcomm Toq

This unique device included the first Mirasol display for a smart watch, which is a color-based non-LCD technology that gives you a vibrant watch face without sacrificing battery life. It debuted at a bit of a steep price — $300 — but it’s certainly one that stood out from the rest of the pack.

Sony SmartWatch 2

Sony took the gold home for having one of the best looking smart watches out there, as well as providing a nice set of features for users to sink their teeth into. Our favorite thing about the Sony SmartWatch 2? You don’t need a Sony smartphone to use it. Other manufacturers should definitely take note.

Pebble and Pebble Steel

Pebble was a very interesting story to follow, with its multi-million dollar Kickstarter success story culminating in a spot on major retailers’ store shelves and a follow-up product. This e-ink device might be inherently limited due to the lack of a touch screen and color, but its open nature has allowed developers to build a ton of apps that many users have grown to love. Oh, and it’s also on the more affordable side compared to most devices on this list, which definitely awards it extra brownie points.

Samsung Galaxy Gear

Tbe original Galaxy Gear received a lot of flack from the community, mainly due to its unattractive price tag and looks and slim support for devices outside of the Galaxy range. Still, it caught our attention with several unique features such as a camera mounted on the side. The Galaxy Gear has been antiquated at this point, but whether you liked it or didn’t, it did its part to help move the smart watch scene forward.

I’m Watch

This smart watch was cool before making smart watches was cool (2012, in case you’re wondering). The I’m Watch enjoyed a long history of being one of the only Android-based smart watches out there, and was quite exciting when it finally launched. Unfortunately its makers got a bit behind on production early on, and the industry began catching on at that point. Still, I’m Watch deserves to be credited for its significant role in introducing Android into the then-budding world of smart watches.

Motorola MOTOACTV

For all that the MOTOACTV was hyped up to be, it ended up being a bit underwhelming once it finally made its way to the forefront. We can’t fault Motorola too much, though, considering they were entering uncharted territory in a time where smart watches were still new. With only one other major competitor to deal with, the MOTOACTV was outshined and eventually laid to rest, but it wouldn’t have been the last we’d heard of Motorola in the wearables space.

Smart Watches on the horizon

So we just talked about what’s out, now it’s time to talk about what’s not. These devices are just outside our reach, though their official status means they should be heading to store shelves at some point soon. Let’s take a look!

Moto 360 by Motorola

Just announced earlier today, the Moto 360 is one of the first smart watches that will take advantage of Google’s new Android Wear platform. Motorola certainly stepped their game up in the design department with their second attempt at a smart watch, with the use of premium metal and quality wrist straps being among the long list of reasons why they’ve grabbed our attention.

LG G Watch

LG didn’t reveal many details about their smart watch. Hell, the photo they used to show it off barely gave us anything concrete to look at. But the fact that it’ll be running the newly-announced Android Wear platform instantly awards it a spot near the top of our list of smart watches to watch. One exciting detail LG sought to point out was that their watch would work with a wide range of Android devices, so it’s nice that they’ve quelled fears of brand exclusivity early on.

Samsung Gear 2 and Gear 2 Neo

These follow-ups to the original Samsung Galaxy Gear don’t run Android, but they don’t need to. They still support communicating with Android devices, and they’re filled to the brim with features. Unfortunately they are still only compatible with select Samsung Galaxy devices, though the company tells us they’re still exploring the possibilities of opening it up to more users. (PS: these two devices are nearly identical, except the Neo doesn’t have a camera.) See our hands-on from Mobile World Congress here.

Samsung Gear Fit

This little strip of wonder is more focused on providing a capable fitness, sleep and activity tracker for those who need it, but its curved AMOLED display gives it a leg up on other products in its category. The rectangular aspect ratio of the display doesn’t lend itself well to traditional smart watch applications, but it shouldn’t be a hindrance to the basic needs of most users. You’ll still be afforded the ability to tell time, for instance, as well as get instant access to new messages and notifications, and music controls. Learn more in our hands-on.

Omate TrueSmart

This Kickstarter sensation is going to be introduced at $300, but it’s doing a lot of things that other smart watch makers can’t seem to get quite right. For starters, it has a charging solution that doesn’t suck. It’s also one of the only smart watches that can work independently of other devices, so you won’t have to have a compatible smartphone to tether it to if you don’t need it. Anything more is just a nice cherry on top.

LG LifeBand Touch

Less of a smart watch and more of an activity band, this thing won’t do much more than give you a quick look at the time, some light workout information and give you the ability to change tracks in your music player. If that’s all you need, though, then the LG LifeBand Touch will be a nice addition to your wrist once it’s finally made available.

ZTE BlueWatch

ZTE only revealed this device as a prototype back at Mobile World Congress, but it looked pretty decent for something that supposedly isn’t ready for retail. The device relies on e-ink technology to display all the useful bits of data you’re interested in, but that’s all we know for the time being. We’ll have to see if ZTE will look to bring this out to consumers at some point, or if they’ve decided to go back to the drawing board in light of recent developments.

Rumored and Beyond

This list largely comprised of Motorola, LG and HTC, but those three — among other names — were wiped off once they were confirmed to be in cahoots with Google for smart watches with Android Wear. So what’s left?

HTC, Samsung and ASUS?

These three were among Motorola and LG’s names in the Android Wear press release, so we know they have something coming… we’re just not sure what yet. Regardless, their involvement in the early days of Android Wear will certainly be well-documented, so it’s a good idea to add them to your radar right now.

Nexus smart watch

When rumors of a Nexus smart watch first started swirling, we had no idea it could evolve into a full-fledged open platform that any OEM could join in on. That said, there is still some evidence that Google could be looking to make an actual Nexus smart watch. Whether it’s a modified version of one of today’s announcements remains to be seen, but we’re certainly still holding onto hope that it exists.

Apple iWatch

Rumors that Apple would be launching an iWatch have been longstanding. In fact, it’s likely one of the reasons Samsung admittedly rushed the original Galaxy Gear out to market. It looks like the bitten fruit company decided to take their time, though, and won’t be releasing a product until they can do it just right. Let’s hope “just right” happens to include a healthy dosage of Jony Ives.

Nintendo QoL Platform

While Nintendo has never been specifically rumored to launch a smart watch, they have discussed wanting to introduce a platform that would help improve people’s quality of life. One of their original goals was to leapfrog smartphones and tablets, and even wearable technology (which would include the very topic we’re currently discussing). Their classification of “non-wearables” for this platform doesn’t make much sense right now, but we imagine it could still feature some form of a smart watch whenever it’s all said and done.

That’s a wrap!

This brings us to the end of a large list of the smart watches that have defined, and are continuing to define, this growing platform. Things aren’t fully mature yet, but the Android Wear platform and some of the latest smart watches announced from top manufacturers certainly have brought things a full leap forward. We can’t wait to see what’s in store for the future, but for now let us know what you think of everything available or soon to be available in the comments section below!

As we recently covered, the DHS and ICE asked for bids for a nationwide license plate database before killing off the plan a few days later, apparently realizing more massive government surveillance wasn't exactly what Americans were looking for at this point in time.

But all is not what it seems. As Kade Crockford at PrivacySOS points out, contrary to what's been reported by a majority of the coverage on this issue, the government doesn't need to build a nationwide license plate database because it already has access to one.

[C]ontrary to widespread understanding, DHS’ solicitation for bids had nothing to do with asking a contractor to build a nationwide license plate tracking database. Such a database already exists. The solicitation was more than likely merely a procedural necessity towards the goal of obtaining large numbers of agency subscriptions to said database, so that ICE agents across the country could dip into it at will, as many have been doing for years already. There was never a plan to "build" a plate database. A database almost exactly like the one DHS describes is a current fact. It is operated by a private corporation called Vigilant Solutions, contains nearly two billion records of our movements, and grows by nearly 100 million records per month.

So, instead of being a "win" for privacy-minded Americans, it's not even a tie. The government already has access to collected plate records. It was just looking to expand its existing access. Plate readers, some operated by federal government agencies like the CBP, are adding millions of records a day, and these records are loosely governed by a patchwork of state and local statutes, most of which allow for the retention of "non-hit" data for periods as long as five years.

As I pointed out in my post detailing the cancellation of the bid solicitation, nothing much changes for ICE. It, like many, many, many, OH MY GOD THERE'S SO MANY other law enforcement agencies (click on that pulldown menu and get ready for a whole lot of scrolling), already has warrantless access to a variety of license plate databases. And, as I noted when the news of the bid solicitation first hit, Vigilant seemed to be vying for the top spot, having recently sent out a press release touting its ALPRs' effectiveness in fighting crime, as well as filing a lawsuit against the state of Utah for violating its First Amendment rights by preventing it from setting up shop.

Crockford goes further in his earlier post on the subject, suggesting a national contract with Vigilant is as good as signed.

The department doesn’t intend to build its own license plate reader database, and it isn’t asking corporations to build one. Instead, it is seeking bids from private companies that already maintain national license plate reader databases. And because it’s the only company in the country that offers precisely the kind of services that DHS wants, there’s about a 99.9 percent chance that this contract will be awarded to Vigilant Solutions. (Mark my words.)

According to documents obtained by the ACLU, ICE agents and other branches of DHS have already been tapping into Vigilant’s data sets for years. So why did the agency decide to go public with this solicitation now? Your guess is as good as mine, but it may simply be a formality so that the agency can pretend as if there was actually robust competition in the bidding process.

So, apparently all that's really been achieved is the removal of the bidding process from the public eye. Vigilant may already be in the process of hooking ICE up to the ALPR database mainline and everyone involved is now just waiting for the furor over massive domestic surveillance to die down. The privacy concerns are even less likely to be addressed now that the process has been pushed out of the sunlight. As a private company, Vigilant has the luxury of ignoring constitutional issues, leaving that up to its customers to sort out. All it wants to do is be the top company in the ALPR business. Everything else is someone else's problem.

The bottom line is: nothing was avoided or prevented here. It was a momentary setback for ICE itself, but the government (including entities on state and local levels) already has millions of license plate records to sift through, with millions more being generated every single day.



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

On the day of his inauguration in 2009, President Barack Obama announced that his administration would be "the most open and transparent in history." It did not take long for that promise to be tossed aside, and it has been clear for quite a while that this administration is perhaps the most secretive in history. A new analysis by the AP of how the administration responds to FOIA requests confirms that it is becoming even more secretive each year:

The Obama administration more often than ever censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.

Basically, the administration is doing everything possible to keep information secret. Despite President Obama's memo to the federal government upon taking office on the importance of openness in responding to FOIA requests, the government has done exactly the opposite. His memo, you may recall, stated:

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.

All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.

The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

Compare that to the reality:

In a year of intense public interest over the National Security Agency's surveillance programs, the government cited national security to withhold information a record 8,496 times — a 57 percent increase over a year earlier and more than double Obama's first year, when it cited that reason 3,658 times. The Defense Department, including the NSA, and the CIA accounted for nearly all those. The Agriculture Department's Farm Service Agency cited national security six times, the Environmental Protection Agency did twice and the National Park Service once.

And five years after Obama directed agencies to less frequently invoke a "deliberative process" exception to withhold materials describing decision-making behind the scenes, the government did it anyway, a record 81,752 times.

Yes. It appears that "the most transparent administration in history" has never been all that transparent, and it's only getting worse.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Over the past few months, one thing we keep hearing over and over again from defenders of the intelligence community is that everything is under control and "legal" because Congress has powerful oversight. We've shown, repeatedly, how that's something of a joke. The intelligence community has lied repeatedly, has withheld documents and is generally nonresponsive to oversight attempts by Congress. And, with the reports that the CIA spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee, we also find out that for all the bluster and talk of oversight, folks in Congress are actually scared by the intelligence community.

In response to Senator Dianne Feinstein's speech last week calling out the CIA for spying on her staffers, Rep. Nancy Pelosi was asked to comment and gave what might be the most revealing comments to date as to why Congress is so scared of the CIA:

“I salute Sen. Feinstein,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference of the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I’ll tell you, you take on the intelligence community, you’re a person of courage, and she does not do that lightly. Not without evidence, and when I say evidence, documentation of what it is that she is putting forth.”

Pelosi added that she has always fought for checks and balances on CIA activity and its interactions with Congress: “You don’t fight it without a price because they come after you and they don’t always tell the truth.

A few months back, the ACLU had posted something questioning whether or not the intelligence community might be blackmailing Congress. And, quite frequently when we write about the intelligence community, we see suggestions in the comments that certain politicians probably cover for the NSA and CIA because they know what those agencies "have on them." I've always dismissed those kinds of claims as being a bit far-fetched, even if they have plenty of historical precedent. So far, there's certainly been no direct evidence of that happening.

And yet... Pelosi's comments certainly seem to hint at even more nefarious activity by the intelligence community against politicians who dare to actually do the job of oversight. The point of that ACLU post linked above is that, even if it's not happening, the fact that we can't definitively rule it out is a serious problem for democracy. And just the fact that some of the most powerful members of Congress, who are theoretically in charge of oversight, are now publicly admitting that they're scared of how the CIA fights back when they take them on, suggests that the intelligence community really is rotten to the core. And Congressional oversight, as it stands today, is clearly not able to deal with the issue by itself.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear," right? Here's how that works in reality. (via Reason)

On Jan. 5, 2012, Paul Valin called the police to report he'd found a backpack containing what he believed to be meth-making equipment. That simple act of good citizenship landed his and wife Cindy's house on the National Clandestine Laboratory Register [NCLR], the federal Drug Enforcement Agency's list of meth labs.

Valin spotted a backpack in a river while kayaking. He took it home and opened it up looking for some identification that might point to its owner. Instead, he found tubing and chemicals. Being a good citizen (with nothing to hide), he called local law enforcement who came and removed the backpack… and then put him on a federal list that put his house in the same category as property where drugs had been seized (you know, as opposed to voluntarily and proactively given to police officers).

The NCLR's website openly admits that no federal agency verifies the information being forwarded to it. Valin's house was added to this list by local law enforcement, who filled out a standard form that failed to note that Valin had found the backpack and at no point had the "drug lab" ever crossed the threshold of his house (it had been in the back of Valin's pickup the entire time).

Once Valin was made aware of his home's placement on this list by a local TV reporter, he contacted the DEA in hopes of being delisted.

Valin sent an email to the DEA explaining the facts of his case and asking that his address be removed from the NCLR. The reply he received three weeks later was not encouraging.

An unsigned email from NCLR@doj.gov explained that Valin's address had been listed because of a Clandestine Laboratory Seizure form the DMPD submitted to the DEA following the collection of the backpack.

According to the email, the DMPD officer who filled out the report had checked the boxes for "abandoned lab" and "boxed lab," but didn't include any other information, such as where and how Valin found the backpack.

The email also stated that the DEA was only the "caretaker" of the NCLR site and, again, pointed out that it doesn't perform any sort of verification of submitted forms. According to the email, Valin had a couple of options: persuade the Des Moines, IA police department to contact the DEA and straighten out its paperwork error or have a local health agency declare his home free from drug contamination.

Unsurprisingly, the DEA's suggestions were both dead ends.

The second option isn't possible. No local or state health agencies in Iowa conducts such inspections. The state hasn't even set any standards for what constitutes meth-related contamination.

Valin hasn't had much luck with the first option, either. He's still waiting for a reply to the voicemails he left at the DMPD phone number he was told to call.

The good news is that someone finally decided to do something about this error. Special Agent Eric Neubauer of the El Paso branch of the DEA took the Des Moines Police Dept. investigative report (which detailed the whole chain of events) provided to him by Iowa Watchdog and used that info to delist Valin's home. The DMPD still hasn't explained why the details on its internal investigative report failed to make their way onto the form sent to the DEA -- an omission that put Valin's home on a national "drug lab" watchlist for two years.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Another legislator has weighed in on governing the internet. This time, it's not so much for "the children" as it is for the poor, oppressed corporations of the world.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat, strongly suggested that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, better known as ICANN, the body in charge of approving Web site domain names, should reject a proposal to allow ‘sucks’ as a new generic top level domain, referred to as gTLD.

In a letter to the organization, Rockefeller, who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, argued that the .sucks domain name could be abused by parties “to unfairly defame individuals, non-profit organizations and businesses.”

First off, simply saying a person, NPO or business "sucks" isn't defamation. The content of those sites may meet that bar, but a domain name utilizing .sucks isn't defamatory in and of itself. And it's routinely been found that sites such as walmartsucks, etc. are covered under the First Amendment.

But Rockefeller goes even further than just assuming .sucks domains will be filled with defamatory content. He also assumes that anyone/anything confronted with a .sucks site will be forced to spend money fighting to keep their reputations from sliding into the internet toilet.

“I view it as little more than a predatory shakedown scheme,” Rockefeller said. “The business model behind this gTLD seems to be the following: force large corporations, small businesses, non-profits and even individuals to pay ongoing fees to prevent seeing the phrase ‘sucks’ appended to their names on the Internet.”

What Rockefeller fails to consider is that these entities could also do nothing. Fighting a "sucks" site rarely makes the situation better. But this is the way those to seek to govern the internet view things: as worst case scenarios played out against a Wild West background. There's no room for subtlety in the debate and there's no "fostering" of "conversations," as those marketing these domains state in their defense.

And every new gTLD can be viewed as a "shakedown scheme." Businesses rush to secure (or to block off) new TLDs in order to prevent domain squatters, competitors and critics from snatching them up. Singling out ".sucks" as nothing more than a predatory scheme ignores the reality -- a new gTLD will always be a combination gold rush/shakedown.

Rockefeller points to one registration site, Vox Populi Registry, which is marketing .sucks domain names as "defensive" purchases -- with a starting price of $2,500 which will escalate to $25,000 once the "sunrise period" hits. From this, he extrapolates a "shakedown scheme" across all registration entities, even as others have denied viewing this gTLD as an easy way to hoover up defensive corporate funds.

A spokesman for the other firm, Donuts Inc., said the company “carefully considered the utility of each gTLD for which we applied.”

He also defended Donuts’ business model which he said “is focused on providing Internet users around the world with real choice in how they craft their online identities. We are not soliciting, and have no plans to solicit, ‘defensive registrations.’”

So, there are those who facilitate an open internet, one that will certainly bring out the worst in some people. And there are those who assume only the worst kind of people exist and try to route the internet around them. But Rockefeller, like many other legislators who set their sights on making the web "safe," fails to realize that it's the internet itself that does the "routing," and it views censorship as nothing more than damage to be avoided.

(Rockefeller may be more concerned than most, considering some of his biggest donors -- AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon -- are often referred to in phrases that end with "sucks.")

Rockefeller envisions an internet where corporations and individuals seldom hear discouraging words, but that notion is entirely unrealistic. If he gets his way, the internet (as it were) will simply find another outlet for its frustrations with corporations, non-profit organizations and aggravating people -- and it will still be composed (nearly) entirely of protected speech that "forces" these entities to play defense. And there won't be a thing he can do about it.



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Wingman is an upcoming dating app for meeting people at the airport and on your flight. It's kind of like Tinder or Grindr, except with more potential for sex in an airplane lavatory. You ever gotten a handjob under a blanket after the beverage cart passes? LEGIT. You just enter your flight info and it allows you to chat to anyone else on the same flight using the app. Which, I imagine, will be nobody. Don't give up though, I'm sure there's somebody out there for you. That person is just not going to be very funny or attractive. Thanks to E V I L A R E S, who is so evil he spends his time developing fake dating profiles to make people fall in love with him.

More documents have been uncovered (via FOI requests) that show local law enforcement agencies in California have been operating cell phone tower spoofers (stingray devices) in complete secrecy and wholly unregulated.

Sacramento News10 has obtained documents from agencies in San Jose, Oakland, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and Alameda County -- all of which point to stingray deployment. As has been the case in the past, the devices are acquired with DHS grants and put into use without oversight or guidelines to ensure privacy protections. The stingrays in use are mainly limited to collecting data, but as the ACLU points out, many manufacturers offer devices that also capture content.

Some of these agencies have had these devices for several years now. Documents obtained from the Oakland Police Dept. show the agency has had stingrays in use since at least 2007, citing 21 "stingray arrests" during that year. This is hardly a surprising development as the city has been pushing for a total surveillance network for years now, something that (until very recently) seemed to be more slowed by contractor ineptitude than growing public outrage.

The device manufacturer's (Harris) troubling non-disclosure agreement (which has been used to keep evidence of stingray usage out of court cases as well as has been deployed as an excuse for not securing warrants) rears its misshapen head again, mentioned both in one obtained document as well as by a spokesperson reached for comment. One document states:

"The Harris (REDACTED) equipment is proprietary and used for surveillance missions," the agreement reads. "Its capabilities can only be discussed with sworn law enforcement officers, the military or federal government. This equipment's capabilities are not for public knowledge and are protected under non-disclosure agreements as well as Title 18 USC 2512."

The Sacramento County Sheriff's Dept. had this to (not) say when asked about its stingray usage:

"While I am not familiar with what San Jose has said, my understanding is that the acquisition or use of this technology comes with a strict non-disclosure requirement," said Undersheriff James Lewis in an emailed statement. "Therefore it would be inappropriate for us to comment about any agency that may be using the technology."

Law enforcement agencies are conveniently choosing to believe a manufacturer's non-disclosure agreement trumps public interest or even their own protection of citizens' Fourth Amendment rights.

The devices aren't cheap, either. Taxpayers are shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars for these cell tower spoofers, and the agencies acquiring them are doing very little to ensure the money is spent wisely. ACLU's examination of the documents shows that many of the agencies purchased devices without soliciting bids.

It's hard to know whether San José or any of the other agencies that have purchased stingray devices are getting good value for their money because the contract was "sole source," in other words, not put out to competitive bidding. The justification for skirting ordinary bidding processes is that Harris Corporation is the only manufacturer of this kind of device. (We are aware of other surveillance vendors that manufacture these devices, though a separate Freedom of Information Request we submitted to the Federal Communications Commission suggests that, as of June 2013, the only company to have obtained an equipment authorization from the FCC for this kind of device is Harris.)

With Harris effectively locking the market down, buyers are pretty much ensured prices far higher than the market would bear if opened to competition. (Not that I'm advocating for a robust surveillance device marketplace, but if you're going to spend taxpayers' money on products to spy on them, the least you can do is try to get the best value for their money…) Using federal grants also allows these departments to further avoid public scrutiny of the purchase and use by circumventing the normal acquisition process.

Beyond the obvious Fourth Amendment concerns looms the very real threat of mission creep. These agencies cite combating terrorism when applying for federal funds, but put the devices to use for ordinary law enforcement purposes. The documents cite stingray-related arrests, but since so little is known about the purchase, much less the deployment, there's really no way to tell how much data and content totally unrelated to criminal investigations has been collected (and held) by these agencies.



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

You've probably seen this image making the rounds on social media. It shows a method of doing basic subtraction that's intended to appear wildly nonsensical and much harder to follow than the "Old Fashion" [sic] way of just putting the 12 under the 32 and coming up with an answer. This method of teaching is often attributed to Common Core, a set of educational standards recently rolled out in the US.

But, explains math teacher and skeptic blogger Hemant Mehta, this image actually makes a lot more sense than it may seem to on first glance. In fact, for one thing, this method of teaching math isn't really new (our producer Jason Weisberger remembers learning it in high school). It's also not much different from the math you learned back when you were learning how to count change. It's meant to help kids be able to do math in their heads, without borrowing or scratch-paper notations or counting on fingers. What's more, he says, it has absolutely nothing to do with Common Core, which doesn't specify how subjects have to be taught.

I admit it’s totally confusing but here’s what it’s saying:

If you want to subtract 12 from 32, there’s a better way to think about it. Forget the algorithm. Instead, count up from 12 to an “easier” number like 15. (You’ve gone up 3.) Then, go up to 20. (You’ve gone up another 5.) Then jump to 30. (Another 10). Then, finally, to 32. (Another 2.)

I know. That’s still ridiculous. Well, consider this: Suppose you buy coffee and it costs $4.30 but all you have is a $20 bill. How much change should the barista give you back? (Assume for a second the register is broken.)

You sure as hell aren’t going to get out a sheet of paper ...

There have been plenty of efforts by defenders of the intelligence community (including the Department of Justice) to publicly destroy the reputations of various whistleblowers, from Thomas Drake to John Kiriakou to Chelsea Manning to Ed Snowden. All of them were whistleblowers, with most leaking important information to the press. Yet they were all charged as spies under the Espionage Act, and the intelligence community and its defenders went out of their way to claim that they were the equivalent of the worst spies around, putting national security in danger, and often questioning if they were really working for foreign powers. Yet, as (former FBI agent, now defender of civil liberties) Mike German points out, it's odd how the very same people seem noticeably quiet concerning actual spies who handed sensitive information directly into the hands of adversarial governments.

So how come most people have never heard of Jeff Delisle? He is, after all, an admitted Russian spy who compromised US signals intelligence for almost five years before his arrest in 2012 and whose dismissal from the Canadian military was revealed in court last week.

Don’t blame Canada; American officials have been strangely silent on the matter. As part of his duties as an analyst assigned to an “intelligence fusion centre”, Delisle had access to a top-secret US Defense Intelligence Agency database – part of the intelligence-sharing arrangement among the so-called “Five Eyes”, the US, Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. He volunteered his services to Russian intelligence as an embassy walk-in, then used thumb drives to steal classified material that he disseminated to his spymasters through a shared email account. He was prosecuted in Canada, and sentenced to 20 years in prison – 15 fewer than Manning received.

As German notes, Delisle isn't a one-off situation either.

Delisle isn’t the only spy you never heard of. Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Ana Montes spied for Cuba for 17 years before her 2001 arrest. Former US Marine Leandro Aragoncillo spied on behalf of the Philippines for five years while serving as an aide to Vice President Cheney and then an FBI analyst, before his 2005 arrest.

But we don't really hear about those folks. And, as German points out, they actually caused a lot more damage. And that leads one to the inevitable conclusion. The anger about Snowden and the others has little to do with national security. It's much more about the uncomfortable reality that these whistleblowers are shining a very bright spotlight on questionable policies that were approved of and supported by these politicians:

If the US government’s crusade against Snowden reflected a genuine concern about leaks that do serious harm to the our nation’s security – rather than a public relations response to disclosures about controversial surveillance activities – one would expect to hear the names Delisle, Montes and Aragoncillo brought into the discussion as well. And often.

When spies reveal information to foreign powers, however, there are no angry tirades in Congress – no vote-grabbing tactics – that might draw public attention to this counter-intelligence failure. The silence helps them avoid uncomfortable questions about whether such broad information-sharing was really in our national security interests, or whether our intelligence agencies were negligent.

I think to some extent it goes further. Defenders of the intelligence community understand spies who sell out to other countries. It's part of the espionage game. Whistleblowers, however, they don't understand at all. It makes them uncomfortable in a very different sense. They're used to keeping secrets. The idea of "going public" with something goes against basically their entire life's work. And, even worse, whistleblowers reflect directly back on them in a way that spies selling out to other countries don't. Spies who give information to foreign governments aren't making any kind of comment on those who didn't do that. Whistleblowers, on the other hand, are by default highlighting exactly what the rest of the intelligence community has been doing and the fact that no one else was willing to step up and call out obvious wrongs.

And that's why they freak out so badly when true whistleblowers come along and treat them worse than actual spies and double agents.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hollywood's inability to see any new technology as anything other than a piracy enabler continues to cripple potentially great products. David Pogue has a review of a "set top" box that has the potential (remember that word) to make your home movie viewing instant and seamless.

You feed it all your movies and music on disc: CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray discs. The Cinema One copies each disc to its 4-terabyte hard drive. 25 minutes for a DVD; two hours for a Blu-ray.

And I mean it copies everything. Every deleted scene, director’s commentary, alternate ending. Every DVD extra. And it doesn’t touch the video — there’s no compression or anything; it copies every pixel of quality that’s on the disc.

Once these movies are stored on the drive, you can call them up instantly using the remote or the iPad app.

When you hit Play on the remote, the movie begins playing instantly.

Read that again. The movie begins playing. Not the FBI warning, not the MPAA screen, not the previews, not the DVD menu — the movie itself. You cannot imagine how delightful that is compared with what we’re used to now: Downloading or streaming movies is handy, but you don’t get anything like the quality of Blu-ray, and you generally don’t get any of the bonus features. And discs give you the quality and the extras but require you to sit there staring at stupid FBI and MPAA screens that you’re not allowed to skip. The Kaleidescape box offers the best of both worlds.

This convenience of not being told you're a thief by your purchased product comes at a price. One is the retail price, which is an astounding $4,000. The other is a tax (of sorts) borne out of Hollywood's stupidity and paranoia.

When you want to play a Blu-ray movie off the Cinema One, you have to hunt down the original disc you own, insert it into the Cinema One’s slot, and wait for it to load. You’re not playing the disc; you’re just confirming that you own it.

But you’re also losing 80 percent of the value of having a Cinema One! What happened to “any movie in your collection, instantly”?

That's Hollywood crippling a device to ensure the $4,000 product never lives up to its potential. This is what happens when execs see nothing in the technology but a new way to pirate movies. Instead of a seamless, instant experience, you're back in the position of hunting for the purchased discs you already "conveniently" stored on the hard drive. For whatever reason, you don't have to do this with regular DVDs. (Presumably because that market isn't where the money is anymore, although at one time, that ridiculous stipluation was forced on Kaleidescape by Hollywood lawyers -- and that's when the box ran about $10,000.)

You can also purchase movies through Kaleidescape, but at this point, the selection is woefully limited. For only $2, you can purchase what amounts to a digital license to play your purchased Blu-rays without having to load the original disc, but even that is hampered by a lack of upstream licensing.

That’d be a reasonably priced solution if it were available for any Blu-ray movie you own. But it’s not. In fact, it’s available for relatively few movies: only those from Lionsgate and Warner Bros. Kaleidescape says it’s working on reaching similar deals with other movie companies, but for now, it’s only a fractional solution.

So, the studios are more than happy to cripple the device, but not so interested in providing affordable licensing of their productions. It's certainly had time to work these details out. It's been fighting Kaleidescape since 2004, tenanciously combating every technological advance the company made. Along the way, it forced the company to require the insertion of every disc before playing (including regular DVDs) and dragged it to court on multiple occasions to claim its "circumvention" of disc-based copyright protection was infringement (even if people were "burning" movies they owned to the drive).

Now, Hollywood has been forced to accept this device, nearly a decade since it first began its attack. The number of licensed movies available for download barely clears 2,000 titles. There may be more to come, but it seems unlikely to be fully embraced by the same studios who spent 10 years fighting it. And who's to say that any licenses obtained won't be rescinded in the future, punching holes in your digital collection and putting you back in the position of hunting down Blu-ray discs you stashed away after burning them to Kaleidescape's drive? It's not as though that sort of "you don't really own your digital purchases" bullshit has never occurred before.

As Pogue points out, the studios' tampering makes this product almost completely useless.

But that copy-protection business is going to kill a lot of potential sales. It’s like having a TiVo that can’t record anything on a timer, or hiring a tax preparer who hands you the blank 1040 form and a pen. It just defeats the purpose.

That's copyright protection for you. All the promise in the world negated by fearful Hollywood execs who see pirates hiding under every new technological advance.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The NSA defenders who label Ed Snowden a "traitor" (senators, congressmen and any number of former intelligence officials) often assert the whistleblower had an opportunity to use "proper channels" rather than take the route he chose: leaking documents to journalists.

Snowden's written testimony to the European Parliament, which was covered here earlier by Glyn Moody, includes in-depth responses to those who still believe he could have handled this differently. When asked if there are "adequate procedures to signal wrongdoing" inside the agency, Snowden had this to say:

Unfortunately not. The culture within the US Intelligence Community is such that reporting serious concerns about the legality or propriety of programs is much more likely to result in your being flagged as a troublemaker than to result in substantive reform...

[As noted here earlier, Snowden's negative writeup while with the CIA was a result of him bringing a security flaw in the agency's software to a supervisor's attention. He fixed the flaw and was rewarded with a critical note in his file written by the person he originally brought the problem to.]

In my personal experience, repeatedly raising concerns about legal and policy matters with my co-workers and superiors resulted in two kinds of responses. The first were well-meaning but hushed warnings not to "rock the boat," for fear of the sort of retaliation that befell former NSA whistleblowers like Wiebe, Binney, and Drake…

The second were similarly well-meaning but more pointed suggestions, typically from senior officials, that we should let the issue be someone else's problem. Even among the most senior individuals to whom I reported my concerns, no one at NSA could ever recall an instance where an official complaint had resulted in an unlawful program being ended, but there was a unanimous desire to avoid being associated with such a complaint in any form.

The world's foremost intelligence agency is nothing more than the world's most secretive cubicle farm, staffed with supervisors more interested in coasting towards retirement at the helm of the placid USS CYA then actually addressing an employee's concerns.

And it's not as though Snowden didn't make an honest effort to utilize the proper channels.

I had reported these clearly problematic programs to more than ten distinct officials, none of whom took any action to address them. As an employee of a private company rather than a direct employee of the US government, I was not protected by US whistleblower laws, and I would not have been protected from retaliation and legal sanction for revealing classified information about lawbreaking in accordance with the recommended process.

The loophole in whistleblower protection is in the process of being closed by sympathetic court decisions. Courts are granting contractors the same protection as US government employees. But this "protection" is ultimately hardly worth the paper the decision is printed on. Intelligence agencies are still excluded from this protection, and the protection itself is highly suspect. Ultimately, everything runs through the Obama administration -- the same administration that has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined. Snowden harbors no illusions that the US government will ever take him back on amicable terms.

There has not yet been any substantive whistleblower reform in the US, and unfortunately my government has taken a number of disproportionate and persecutory actions against me. US government officials have declared me guilty of crimes in advance of any trial, they've called for me to be executed or assassinated in private and openly in the press, they revoked my passport and left me stranded in a foreign transit zone for six weeks, and even used NATO to ground the presidential plane of Evo Morales - the leader of Bolivia - on hearing that I might attempt to seek and enjoy asylum in Latin America.

As they say, there's no "there" there. The proper channels Snowden supposedly should have used were either a) sealed off by insular officials who preferred career longevity to "rocking the boat," or b) would have resulted in prosecution thanks to a lack of whistleblower protection.

Let's not forget that one of Snowden's "proper channels" publicly compared the whistleblower to spies who sold government secrets to foreign operatives, called him a "thief" and referred to the journalists who ended up with NSA documents as "agents" in control of their "handler." When not smearing the ex-NSA contractor, this "proper channel" said he would have met Snowden's concerns with talking points and meetings with intelligence subcommittees -- the same subcommittees that have done nothing but circle the wagons around the agency since the leaks began.

Suggesting Snowden could have handled this through "proper channels" is to suggest that the NSA's overreach should never have come to light or, at best, that Snowden should be prosecuted for whistleblowing. "Proper channels" in the intelligence community are an illusion. Snowden found this out firsthand and these responses prompted his eventual document heist. The government really has no one to blame but itself for the situation it finds itself in.



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As the scandal over the CIA spying on Senate staffers charged with oversight of the CIA deepens, it's now come out that the White House was fully aware that the CIA was pushing forward with a criminal complaint against those very same staffers and did nothing to stop it. It's been reported that the White House is standing strongly behind the CIA on this one, and that report confirms some of the serious Constitutional/separation of powers questions that have been raised over this incident.

Having the White House be supportive of the CIA not only spying on its overseers, but then (even more ridiculously) filing a criminal complaint against those same staffers for doing their job speaks volumes about how this White House views Congressional oversight of its giant spying machine. It views it with contempt. It only reinforces how the claims that have been stated repeatedly over the past few months that there is plenty of oversight of the intelligence community are completely hogwash.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

This morning, Senator Dianne Feinstein finally got angry over the abusive practices of the intelligence community that she oversees as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Historically, of course, Feinstein has used her role of "oversight" to actually do everything possible to protect and defend the various intelligence organizations. However, as we've been discussing, Feinstein has wanted to declassify and publish an apparently devastating $40 million 6,300 page report detailing how the CIA's torture program was a complete disaster. The CIA has been fighting hard against this, and in the last few weeks, it came out that the CIA also spied on Senate staffers who were working on the report, after they'd uncovered an internal CIA document that corroborated the big report, and which showed the CIA had lied to the Senate. The CIA has hit back trying to blame the staffers for "illegally" taking a classified document, but that argument rings hollow.

Feinstein is apparently quite furious about all of this and let loose this morning about the CIA, claiming that they not only spied on the staffers, but secretly removed documents from the computers the staffers were using. She directly claimed that the CIA "may have undermined the constitutional framework" of Congressional oversight. That's not a charge one throws around lightly.

Besides possible constitutional violations, Feinstein said the CIA may also have violated the Fourth Amendment, various federal laws and a presidential executive order that bars the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance. She said she has asked for an apology and recognition that the CIA search of the committee's computers was inappropriate, but, "I have received neither."

While this confirms much of what was reported last week, it's noteworthy that Feinstein is speaking out about it. To date, she has tried to avoid saying much about this whole debate publicly, but it appears that the issue has finally boiled over. As we noted last week, having the CIA spy on its Senate overseers (and potentially tampering with their computers to remove documents) is an incredible overreach.

Of course, wasn't it just less than two months ago that Feinstein claimed that the intelligence community would never abuse its powers, because they were made up of professionals whose activities are "strictly vetted"? Perhaps she'll now go back and admit that perhaps she shouldn't be so trusting of the intelligence community when they're spying on everyone else, beyond just her staffers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

If one were looking to find a singular, widespread example of the American people's abdication of common sense, the best of the available examples would have to be zero tolerance policies in schools. Think about it for a moment. Here we have a population consisting entirely of incomplete members of society, those that are still undergoing the learning and growth required to become fully functional members of our union. To treat that still-learning population with any measure of "zero tolerance" is antithetical in the extreme. These are the very people you would expect to make mistakes, to lack a full understanding of their surroundings and situations. They're the people in our culture most in need of tolerant learning opportunities, rather than the iron fist of bullshit justice.

Take the story reader kenichi tanaka writes us about, in which a youngster making the universal gun-symbol with one hand has ended up suspended from school. Keep in mind that Nathan Entingh is ten years old, was playing around with one of his friends, and that roughly every kid on the planet everywhere has done this exact same damned thing.

"He was pointing it at a friend's head and he said 'boom.' The kid didn't see it. No other kids saw it. But the teacher saw it," he said. "It wasn't threatening. It wasn't hostile. It was a 10-year-old kid playing."

The next morning Paul Entingh escorted his son Nathan to the principal's office, where they met with Devonshire Alternative Elementary School Principal Patricia Price.

"She said if it happened again the suspension would be longer, if not permanent," said Entingh, who also received a letter explaining the reason for Nathan's suspension as a "level 2 look alike firearm."

A level 2 look alike firearm? What the sweet hell does that mean? I'm just saying, I can make up nonsense levels about stuff, too, such as the policy on display here is a level 30 kind of stupid, with no save rolls for intelligence.

Look, I think the American people have been pretty patient with this kind of BS, but enough is enough. To take a common pantomime like this and use it to suspend a confused ten year old for three days from his place of education doesn't make a lick of sense. Worse, what could have been a learning moment about why we might not want to see kids doing that kind of thing in school was instead turned into a learning moment about the injustice of zero tolerance laws. Well done all around, Ohio educational system!

When asked what has Nathan learned from this incident, Entingh paused, then scoffed: "He's learned never to make his fingers like a gun a school again. I don't know if you consider that a life lesson."

In other words, no reason or context was taught, only uninformed respect for the power of authority. Yup, sounds about right.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The law is an ass. This has been true since well before Charles Dickens cranked out Oliver Twist in order to fulfill his four-book contract with Penguin Classics. We also hear quite frequently how the law's ass-ish gears (sorry, some metaphors are going be forcibly combined here) grind slowly, eventually birthing justice itself or, far more frequently, suffering a miscarriage.

Sometimes, however, the law is like an ass operating a second-rate rollercoaster for a third-rate traveling carnival in a fourth-rate town. It lurches forward and backward like a carny with a .28 BAC (also known as "cruising altitude"), with one hand lazily manipulating the rusty throttle/brake on this metaphorical coaster, giving every rider the opportunity to lose their lunches while simultaneously suffering whiplash.

Here's how everything went down.

On March 5th, the Massachusetts state supreme court found that "upskirt" photography was perfectly legal according to state law. The law, as (was) written, offered no protection for clothed individuals in public places. Dressing rooms, bathrooms, etc. were off-limits, clothed or not, but nothing in the law specifically protected the (clothed) public from people like Michael Robertson, who was caught by police holding his phone at waist-level to capture upskirt photos of fellow subway passengers.

Needless to say, outrage ensued. Instant outrage that ensnared several lawmakers, all of whom immediately rewrote the statute governing "secret photography" in order to prevent the state's pervert contingent from instantly turning every subway car into an (ultimately disappointing) sausage/camera fest.

When I say "immediately," I actually mean it. The rewrite was voted and passed March 6th and signed into law by the governor on the morning of March 7th. Within 48 hours, "upskirting" had gone from "presumably illegal" to "legal" to "very certainly illegal."

As is the case with any law based on instant reaction (you know, rather than a deliberative legislative process), it's problematic in its expansive terminology, as Jay Wolman of The Legal Satyricon points out.

Let me spell it out for you–Massachusetts just made many previously lawful and proper hidden security cameras potentially unlawful.

According to the new law, it is now unlawful to secretly record images of fully clothed breasts, buttocks and genitals. Full stop. Your nanny thinks she’s alone, but you have a nanny-cam. Sorry, you probably just broke the law. You want to know which of the neighborhood kids have been going into your backyard when you aren’t home and stomping your daisies? That’s double the punishment.

Here's what's being inserted into the state's law governing "Photographing, videotaping or electronically surveilling partially nude or nude person(s):"

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2½ years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a child under the age of 18 under or around the child’s clothing to view or attempt to view the child’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2½ years, by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

That's a lot of area being covered and none of it very specifically. It relies on a "reasonable person's" view of the intent of the photographer. When that "reasonable person" is a prosecutor, the obvious unintended collateral damage becomes apparent.

The law practically invites bystanders to point and scream like pod people whenever someone operates a cellphone or camera from lower than eye level. And while it attempts to address the previous law's shortcomings, it seems to leave decolletage enthusiasts free to do their thing (like shooting photos from above passersby, rather than under or around).

But it also turns anything merely questionable (photography-wise) into something potentially actionable. Any "secret" (read: "surveillance") photography could easily become an issue simply because the person being photographed is unaware of the camera's existence.

To expand on Wolman's example: you catch your nanny stealing using your home's camera system, but he or she spins it as "secret photography" and points out the frames that seem to catch him or her in positions that are "revealing." Good luck proving that you didn't set up the camera solely in hopes of catching a nude or nearly-nude nanny at some point in time. For that matter, good luck proving that the above wasn't merely one of the reasons you set up the camera.

And if your nanny is under the age of 18 (or substitute "babysitter" for "nanny"), you're in even more trouble. The prosecutor's not going to hit this law and stop. You'll also be looking at potential child pornography charges.

The state has to prove intent to make charges stick, but all that truly means is that it has to drop these accusations in front of a grand jury (the misdemeanor becomes a felony if the captured images are "distributed") and you're as good as convicted. An indictment looks a lot like a criminal sentence, especially if legislators are breathing (heavily) down prosecutors' necks, urging them to pursue maximum sentences and bail.

So, once again, we see legislative whiplash turning a questionable law into a terrible law. This isn't ever going to change. The only hope is that, once time and distance take their toll, the law will be revisited and repaired. In the meantime, citizens of Massachusetts will need to keep their cameras up high, completely visible and miles away from children, women in skirts, and anyone else whose clothing might reveal something if approached from lower/oblique angles.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story