Brindle

Apparently Homeland Security's Immigration & Custom's Enforcement (ICE) team has found a new tech issue to overreact to and overhype. shutslar points us to a story of ICE agents raiding 25 smartphone repair shops in South Florida for daring to repair phones with aftermarket parts, rather than original products from Apple. As seems standard for ICE these days, rather than actually understanding the details at hand, they're taking orders from a corporate entity, in this case, Apple:

Apple is working with the government to shut down those who mislead consumers.

This seems like a massive overreaction to a mere case of "misleading" consumers. They paint this as if it's some massive danger to make use of an aftermarket/non-Apple parts in doing the repair, but it's not. In many cases, such aftermarket parts are a good way to fix a phone at a more reasonable price. If Apple feels some of the shops are misleading customers, then it can sue for trademark infringement and deal with it that way.

Having over-aggressive, amped up ICE agents pretending this is a drug raid and that they need to "shut down" these shops is a massive overreaction which only serves to help prop up Apple's bottom line by taking aftermarket competitive parts out of the market, so that Apple can keep the margins on its parts extra high. Either way, there's simply no reason for treating the whole thing like a drug raid:

"When they came in it almost looked like a drug raid," Said Abella.

Abella claims there were 20 ICE agents and two people from Apple in his small Bird Road store.

Abella says he began fixing Apple Products because everyone else was.

"We got the parts from a company in California. To this day that vendor is still selling parts," Said Abella.

"Why did the come after me?” he added.

They came after you because you weren't paying the toll to Apple, and Apple doesn't like competition. Why our taxpayer money is being used to support such a massive overreaction, shutting down small businesses who provide a useful service repairing phones, is beyond me. Honestly, ICE's propensity to act as private cops (with guns) doing favors for giant businesses is really sickening. ICE has been out of control for a long time, and shutting down small businesses because Apple doesn't want to compete? That's just crazy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

If any OEM was going to rip off Psy's Gangnam Style to advertise a phone, you just knew it was going to be Samsung. See how the Korean company decided to launch the phone in India.

This is a video of some high school Pokemon trainer asking a girl out to prom during lunch. He made up a poem that goes, "Charmeleon is red, Squirtle is blue, prom is coming up, and I choose you." Amazingly, she accepts his invitation instead of laughing in his face and getting everyone in Mr. Besser's 11th grade chemistry class to chant, "DORK, DORK, DORK, DORK!" like happened to me. My senior year though, that was a completely different story. I pretended to have mono for the whole month so I had an excuse not to ask anyone then took a cousin. High-five! Anybody? Man, ya'll are lame. Hit the jump for the video. Thanks to Will, who actually went to the high school in the video and better have spent his lunches in the computer lab reading Geekologie.

Three years ago when we launched the Transparency Report, we said we hoped it would shine some light on the scale and scope of government requests for censorship and data around the globe. Today, for the seventh time, we’re releasing new numbers showing requests from governments to remove content from our services. From July to December 2012, we received 2,285 government requests to remove 24,179 pieces of content—an increase from the 1,811 requests to remove 18,070 pieces of content that we received during the first half of 2012.


As we’ve gathered and released more data over time, it’s become increasingly clear that the scope of government attempts to censor content on Google services has grown. In more places than ever, we’ve been asked by governments to remove political content that people post on our services. In this particular time period, we received court orders in several countries to remove blog posts criticizing government officials or their associates.

You can read more about these requests by looking at the annotations section of the Transparency Report. Of particular note were three occurrences that took place in the second half of 2012:

• There was a sharp increase in requests from Brazil, where we received 697 requests to remove content from our platforms (of which 640 were court orders—meaning we received an average of 3.5 court orders per day during this time period), up from 191 during the first half of the year. The big reason for the spike was the municipal elections, which took place last fall. Nearly half of the total requests—316 to be exact—called for the removal of 756 pieces of content related to alleged violations of the Brazilian Electoral Code, which forbids defamation and commentary that offends candidates. We’re appealing many of these cases, on the basis that the content is protected by freedom of expression under the Brazilian Constitution.
  
• Another place where we saw an increase was from Russia, where a new law took effect last fall. In the first half of 2012, we received six requests, the most we had ever received in any given six-month period from Russia. But in the second half of the year, we received 114 requests to remove content—107 of them citing this new law.
  
• During this period, we received inquiries from 20 countries regarding YouTube videos containing clips of the movie “Innocence of Muslims.” While the videos were within our Community Guidelines, we restricted videos from view in several countries in accordance with local law after receiving formal legal complaints. We also temporarily restricted videos from view in Egypt and Libya due to the particularly difficult circumstances there.

We’ve also made a couple of improvements to the Transparency Report since our last update:

• We’re now breaking down government requests about YouTube videos to clarify whether we removed videos in response to government requests for violating Community Guidelines, or whether we restricted videos from view due to local laws. You can see the details by scrolling to the bottom of each country-specific page.
  
• We’ve also refreshed the look of the Traffic section, making it easier to see where and when disruptions have occurred to Google services. You can see a map where our services are currently disrupted; you can see a map of all known disruptions since 2009; and you can more easily navigate between time periods and regions.

The information we share on the Transparency Report is just a sliver of what happens on the Internet. But as we disclose more data and continue to expand it over time, we hope it helps draw attention to the laws around the world that govern the free flow of information online.

Posted by Susan Infantino, Legal Director

Techdirt has written about the Special 301 report many times, but that's not the only US government publication putting other countries on the naughty step. Another is the less well-known National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (pdf):

The 2013 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE) is the 28th in an annual series that surveys significant foreign barriers to U.S. exports. This document is a companion piece to the President's Trade Policy Agenda published in March. The issuance of the NTE Report continues the elaboration of an enforcement strategy, utilizing this report, among other tools, in that strategy.

The report offers detailed discussions of the habits of 57 countries, but they all share a rather significant theme: transparency -- or, rather, the lack of it. It really seems the US just can't get enough of it. Here, for example, is a sample of the report's comments from the section on the European Union:

The U.S. pharmaceutical industry has expressed concerns regarding some EU and Member State policies affecting market access for pharmaceutical products, including nontransparent procedures and a lack of meaningful stakeholder input into policies related to pricing and reimbursement, including therapeutic reference pricing and other price controls.

Lack of transparency is also an issue for uranium, it seems:

The United States is concerned that nontransparent EU policies may restrict the import into the EU of enriched uranium, the material from which nuclear power reactor fuel is fabricated.

Public procurement is another area where transparency is cited as a big problem: countries singled out for a mention here include Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania and Slovenia.

Reading through the rest of the 400-page report, it's truly extraordinary to see transparency mentioned dozens of times as one of the US's key concerns with other countries around the world. Of course, that's deeply ironic, since the US was not only the lone holdout against ACTA transparency, and responsible for reducing what little transparency was present in the TPP negotiations, but it even refused to be transparent about its own positions on transparency. Hypocritical much?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Want to know one reason why the feds are so interested in giving blanket immunity to anyone who helps them spy on people? Perhaps because they're already telling companies that they have immunity if they help them spy on people. Specifically, they've issued special letters of immunity, more or less helping companies like AT&T ignore the Wiretap Act.

Senior Obama administration officials have secretly authorized the interception of communications carried on portions of networks operated by AT&T and other Internet service providers, a practice that might otherwise be illegal under federal wiretapping laws.

The secret legal authorization from the Justice Department originally applied to a cybersecurity pilot project in which the military monitored defense contractors' Internet links. Since then, however, the program has been expanded by President Obama to cover all critical infrastructure sectors including energy, healthcare, and finance starting June 12.

Basically, the Justice Department, at the urging of the NSA, went to various telcos and ISPs and issued secret letters which told them that if they violated the Wiretap Act, the DOJ promised them it would not prosecute. Not surprisingly, this kind of thing is not what you would generally consider legal. However, after CISPA... it would likely be more protected:

A report (PDF) published last month by the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan arm of Congress, says the executive branch likely does not have the legal authority to authorize more widespread monitoring of communications unless Congress rewrites the law. "Such an executive action would contravene current federal laws protecting electronic communications," the report says.

Because it overrides all federal and state privacy laws, including the Wiretap Act, legislation called CISPA would formally authorize the program without the government resorting to 2511 letters. In other words, if CISPA, which the U.S. House of Representatives approved last week, becomes law, any data-sharing program would be placed on a solid legal footing. AT&T, Verizon, and wireless and cable providers have all written letters endorsing CISPA.

Apparently, the DOJ knew how problematic this was, and the CEOs of the various ISPs had indicated how worried they were about this program, but it still went forward. In secret, of course. Until now.

Suddenly the emphasis on getting CISPA approved, and the attempts to frighten everyone with scare stories of what will happen without it, make a bit more sense...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Yesterday, in a disturbing report published on CNET, new documents obtained by EPIC reveal that Obama administration officials have authorized a new government program involving the interception of communications on Internet service providers, including AT&T—one of the key players in the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. 

Under long-standing federal law, the government needs to use legal process to compel service providers to hand over customer communications, yet reportedly, the government is promising these companies they will not to prosecute them for violating US wiretapping laws if they hand over the information voluntarily. And the secret surveillance authorization seems quite broad, touching on huge swaths of private, domestic activity:

The secret legal authorization from the Justice Department originally applied to a cybersecurity pilot project in which the military monitored defense contractors' Internet links. Since then, however, the program has been expanded by President Obama to cover all critical infrastructure sectors including energy, healthcare, and finance starting June 12.

CNET reported also that the National Security Agency (NSA) and Department of Defense were “deeply involved in press for the secret legal authorization” further underscoring widespread worries that the military may be given access to Americans’ personal information through cybersecurity operations.  The report comes as Congress is debating CISPA, a dangerous bill that carves a “cybersecurity” loophole in all our privacy laws.

While we are still sifting through the more than thousand pages of documents—obtained by EPIC Privacy through the Freedom of Information Act and posted to their website—the most controversial aspect of this program seems to be that the government has not used legal process to obtain Internet traffic from AT&T and other ISPs involved in the program. Instead, the Justice Department has handed them what the Justice Department calls a “2511 letter”—named after a section of the Wiretap Act—which purports to immunize them from prosecution.

Section 2511 makes it a crime to wiretap—intercept electronic communications—with some exceptions, like a properly issued warrant. It provides no exception for a letter from the Justice Department. CNET reported an industry representative told them "the 2511 letters provided legal immunity to the providers by agreeing not to prosecute for criminal violations of the Wiretap Act. It's not clear how many 2511 letters were issued by the Justice Department."

Beyond what CNET reported, we still need to analyze these new documents to determine how pervasive this surveillance is and its impact on the American public. We are currently reading them over and will have a more detailed analysis soon.

 

Related Issues:  Cyber Security Legislation NSA Spying Related Cases:  Jewel v. NSA
Share this:   ||  Join EFF

Good news, everyone. The terrorists will win and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to help. Of course, his speech is all about not letting the terrorists win. But he's giving them exactly what they want.

The Boston Marathon bombing was bound to generate this sort of reaction. It's a forgone conclusion that a tragic event like this will lead to political grandstanding and expansions of policies and plans deleterious to privacy and individual freedom. It's been twisted to argue for harsher immigration policies and held up as evidence that surveillance efforts need to be expanded.

But Bloomberg sees something else, something much more malignant than more cameras and fewer immigrants. He sees this attack as an indication that our country has outgrown its founding principles and that we can't be truly "safe" without altering the fabric of the nation.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

You hear that, citizens? You have a "legitimate worry" and it's followed by a magnificent "but" that leads directly to a call to alter our current laws and the Constitution itself, in order to make us more "secure" than the "olden days." As these two are changed to Bloomberg's liking, I would imagine our "legitimate worries" will be slowly stripped of their legitimacy as Constitutional protections are altered to better fit today's (imagined) realities.

Bloomberg also conjures up the 9/11 attacks to assist in his burial of these pesky formative documents from "olden days."

“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” he said.

Yes, we know there are people who want to "take away our freedoms." The problem is that, increasingly, these people are politicians and legislators -- politicians and legislators who enact laws that enable agencies like the NSA and the DHS to strip away our rights. The terrorists? They only "take away our freedoms" if we let them. And people like Bloomberg seem more than willing to capitulate to the implied demand.

Oh, but Bloomberg is worried that one aspect of the post-Boston bombing might result in curtailed rights. His one concern? That we, the people who "need" more "security" than rights, might take this recent attack to paint the Muslim religion as a hotbed of terrorism.

“What we can't do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms,” he said. “You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”

When we add this all up, this is what we get. Bloomberg is concerned about branding a certain religion as a terrorist breeding ground, something his police department has been doing for years. That's what's troubling to Bloomberg: some sort of lazy racism taking root. Reconfiguring the Constitution to fit his conception of the modern age? Rewriting current laws and drafting new ones to meet an exaggerated threat? Curtailing freedom and privacy in the name of "security?" This doesn't phase Bloomberg at all.

As Benjamin Franklin famously said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Bloomberg is in a hurry to give up your liberties. Many other politicians and legislators are more than willing to do the same. After all, these changes won't affect them nearly as much as they'll affect their constituents. But they'll be able to coattail-ride any foiled terrorist plots or relatively smooth post-attack investigations as "victories" and hold them up as "evidence" that they were right to carve up the Constitution in the name of safety and security.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Justice Department plans to give internet service providers participating in a new cybersecurity monitoring program legal authorization to intercept communications traffic, according to documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

We've written a couple of times about dentist Stacy Makhnevich, who used some forms from a company called Medical Justice, to make patients agree to assign the copyright on any online reviews they might later write over to the doctor or dentist. This struck many as of questionable legality and even more questionable ethically speaking. Medical Justice -- after receiving much criticism -- has completely changed its model (and name) and has urged doctors and dentists not to use its earlier forms. However, Makhnevich, actually sent one patient an invoice for $100/day, claimed $85,000 in damages, and asked for $25,000 in "general damages for fraud" (sending the patient a prepared legal complaint with that amount) after he posted negative reviews on Yelp and other sites. The patient, Robert Lee, filed a class action lawsuit in response. Makhnevich also sought to force Yelp to take down the review with a DMCA notice, but the company refused to do so (kudos to Yelp for not caving on a bogus DMCA notice).

The court has now rejected Makhnevich's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit, and appears to have some choice words for the dentist, directly calling some claims "ridiculous":

Defendants' argument that no actual controversy exists is specious. Defendants created the controversy with Lee by attempting to enforce the agreement, which they extracted as a condition for gelling dental treatment. Further, under the totality of circumstances, the controversy is sufficiently "real" and " immediate." Defendants cannot pretend now that their notices to Lee were "just kidding," or that Lee lacked any reasonable apprehension of liability. A brief review of Defendants' conduct in response to Lee's exercise of basic rights shows how ridiculous their arguments are: (1) Defendants twice threatened Lee with suit, the second notification being from an attorney who did not specify a deadline by which suit would commence; (2) Defendants prepared and sent a draft version of the complaint they would file in a New York state court (Ex. D); and (3) Defendants sent two invoices, one which threatened referral to a collection agency. No reasonable person could view Defendants' constant barrage of threats as anything other than a real controversy.

Further, Defendants have not released Lee from liability for the amount threatened in the draft complaint, which is in excess of $110,000, or the amount charged by the two invoices. There is an objectively supported threat of future injury-which Defendants' conduct as created.

The case is not over, and there's a long way to go, but the dentist is not going to get out of this easily.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

I commented in this article on the repeal of the transparency provisions of the STOCK Act:

Passed in 2012 after a 60 Minutes report on insider trading practices in Congress, the STOCK Act banned members of Congress and senior executive and legislative branch officials from trading based on government knowledge. To give the ban teeth, the law directed that many of these officials' financial disclosure forms be posted online and their contents placed into public databases. However, in March, a report ordered by Congress found that airing this information on the Internet could put public servants and national security at risk. The report urged that the database, and the public disclosure for everyone but members of Congress and the highest-ranking executive branch officials -- measures that had never been implemented -- be thrown out.

The government sprang into action: last week, both chambers of Congress unanimously agreed to adopt the report's recommendations. Days later, Obama signed the changes into law.

The article went on to talk to four cybersecurity experts, all of whom basically said the same thing:

Bluntest of all was Bruce Schneier, a leading security technologist and cryptographer. "They put them personally at risk by holding them accountable," Schneier said of the impact of disclosure rules on Congress members and DC staffers. "That's why they repealed it. The national security bit is bullshit you're supposed to repeat." (Three of the four experts we consulted opted for the same term of choice.)

There was a security risk, but it was not a national security risk. It was a personal Congressperson risk.

EDITED TO ADD (4/25): Jon Stewart quoted my "the national security bit is bullshit" line.

As someone who looks to humor to get through news items I don't like, it's been difficult to find much laughter in China's use of it's so-called "Great Firewall". Censorship being as awful as it is, the resulting stories about it tend to be sober attempts by American companies to nudge the country towards the right side of history, or the hypocrisy of those committing the censorship. It's difficult to find much humor there.

But then, as it always seems to happen, those committing the bad acts come to the rescue. Censorship via automation can only go so far, after all, a fact which gives us what is quite possibly the greatest open job listing of all time. The listing identifies the role to be filled as the "Chief Pornographic Identification Officer" for the "League of Security."

Job Title: Chief Pornographic Identification Officer
Work Location: Beijing
Compensation: 200,000 RMB (US$32,300) yearly
Job Description: Rapid Determination of Adult Sites

Requirements:
1)   Must be familiar with the standard of adult content from around the world
2)   Must be familiar with China’s law standards regarding adult content, familiar with documented regulations
3)   Must be familiar with the standards for adult content on China’s internet and it’s service providers
4)   Regardless of gender, must be college graduate from 25-35 years old
5)   Must have a strong sense of responsibility and work well in a team

Read it, learn it, love it: the Chinese want to pay someone $32k a year to surf for porn on the internet and have the greatest job title in the history of labor. Even better are the benefits, which include full insurance, communication expenses, daily fruit and yogurt, and bonuses on birthdays and weddings. That last one immediately poses the question of who could possibly have time for love with all that porn to be surfed? Regardless, interest in the job post has been...severe.

The security company who put this job advert out, Anquan Lianmeng (League of Security) said that they received thousands of applications within two days of posting. Many of which had come in from outside of the country. It’s no surprise considering the description.

Shocking indeed. Or China could, you know, just pocket their $32k and all that yogurt and start treating their citizens like adults.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

There's been a push in recent years to open access to publicly funded research. The reasoning behind the push is solid: the public is paying for this research via federal funding, therefore it should have access to what it's paid for. The resistance usually comes from journal publishers who are very concerned about their main source of revenue -- access fees (usually on the "exorbitant" side) charged to university libraries. (Most publishers also charge writers a submission fee and grant themselves control of the copyright.)

Current law says that, for NIH funded research, there's a requirement for public access once the journals have been properly "windowed" by the publishers. After 12 months of publisher exclusivity, the publications are unlocked. A few recent bills have attempted to roll this back to six months, something the publishers have greeted with cries of dismay, including the hilarious assertion that opening public access six months early would "waste taxpayers' money."

California is another state exploring cutting the current window in half and, like every other attempt, it's been greeted by opposition from publishers uninterested in a 50% gravy train reduction. This is the expected response. What's completely unexpected is hearing a university side with the publishers against its own cash-strapped libraries.

The University of California system spends nearly $40 million every year to buy access to academic journals, even though many of the articles are written, reviewed, and edited by UC professors. So you’d think the cash-strapped UC system would leap to back any effort to undermine the absurd science publishing system.

You’d think. But you’d be wrong.

Hearings into the bill were scheduled for last week, but were delayed so that the bill could be modified in order to earn the support of the University of California – the flagship higher education system in the state, and the host of millions of dollars in state-funded research.

When I first heard this I was excited. “Finally,” I thought, “UC is stepping up to the plate and taking a strong stance in support of open access.” Then I read the letter UC had sent.

Adrian Diaz, the University of California’s Legislative Director, wrote that UC was “supportive of the legislation’s intent” but would only support it if the embargo period were extended to one year, and if its own grant programs were exempted from the bill’s requirements.

UC's letter seems to have the guiding hand of a concerned publisher behind it. It asks for the "embargo" to be set at the federal level -- 12 months -- expressing "concern" about a shorter time frame and saying that matching California's with the federal standard would "help avoid confusion and promote compliance with the law."

Oddly, the thought never occurred to UC to throw its support behind the bill seeking to set the national standard to 6 months in order to "avoid confusion." In other words, UC supports what's already in place and, if things do change, it should be exempt from the requirements. The letter also expresses a more real concern.

A twelve month embargo period will also allow publishers, including small publishers and scholarly societies, to meet their needs for revenue while ensuring long-term public access to published research.

That's all well and good -- for the publishers. And this letter sides completely with the publishers, even adding a vague threat/warning that some journals may reject submissions coming from a state with only a 6-month "embargo" period. That's a rather stunning statement. It suggests that journal publishers will be more than willing to compile only the most profitable research, rather than the most pertinent or accurate.

On top of that, UC is siding against its own library system in its support of publishers.

[I]t is even more troubling that a university whose libraries are facing budget cuts every year while they try to keep up with the ever-increasing cost of journal subscriptions would cite publishers’ need for revenue as their guiding principle when judging policies related to scholarly publishing.

How can Diaz DEFEND this system?? A system in which universities fork over billions of dollars of public money every year in order to buy back access to papers researchers gave to publishers for free? A system that is bankrupting our libraries? A system that denies people access to research their tax dollars paid for?

UC's letter of support for a system that extracts $40M in fees annually from the university system for research the government paid for (and authors paid to submit) is as baffling as it is infuriating. As it stands now, the system is unsustainable for the university and yet, it makes a statement asking for the status to remain firmly quo, even as its own librarians are cutting subscriptions to keep costs manageable.

This research was paid for by the public but the publishers are primarily concerned with keeping knowledge locked up and the public at arm's length. It's disappointing (and alarming) that a major university would sympathize and support the expected publisher behavior.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

There's many reasons to password-protect -- or encrypt -- one's digital data. Foremost among them is to protect it during a security breach. Another top reason to encrypt is to keep the government out of your hard drive.

The dream of one day completely doing away with frustratingly long transplant lists in favor of made to order, 3D-printed organs is closer to becoming a reality. Scientists at Organovo in San Diego have, for the very first time, been able to 3D print tiny replicas of human livers. More »

On Friday, while he hunt for Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was still going on (and after his bother, the other main suspect, had already been killed), Senator Lindsey Graham took to Twitter to argue that the US government, if it captures him while he's still alive, shouldn't read Dzokhar his Miranda rights. As you hopefully already know, the Miranda rights are the famous "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in court, and you have a right to an attorney" etc. The requirement for a statement along those lines (and the name of the "Miranda rights") came from a 1960s case, Miranda v. Arizona, and has since been considered a core part of American due process for those being arrested. And this is a good thing.

When Graham made his statement, many got up in arms, and argued that Graham was unfamiliar with the Constitution. While I more or less agree with the basics of that, much of that anger probably should have been directed at the Obama administration, which officially created an exception to the Miranda rules (unilaterally, without court approval) a few years back (apparently in October of 2010, though news about it only came out in March 2011).

And, indeed, after Dzhokhar was apprehended, the DOJ said that it was not reading him his Miranda Rights because it was invoking a "public safety exception" with the argument being that they needed to get him to talk to make sure the public wasn't in danger. As others have pointed out, this is a horrifically short sighted decision that can only backfire.

1. Suspending basic rights and due process out of fear is exactly the kind of thing that people attacking the US want to see. Showing that we can't live up to our most basic rights and principles in the face of a terrorist attack gives those who hate us that much more incentive to keep going. It's not just a sign of weakness, but an encouragement for those who seek to undermine our society. In fact, it takes a step in that very direction by showing that the government is willing to throw out the rules and principles when it gets a little scared by a teenager.
2. The slippery slope here is steep and extremely slick. There are no rules on when the DOJ can suddenly ignore Miranda. It gets to decide by itself. This is an organization with a long history of abusing its power, now allowed to wipe out one of the key protections for those they're arresting, whenever it sees fit. The whole point of the ruling in Miranda is that it should not be up to law enforcement. A person's rights are their rights.
3. The part that really gets me: if anything, this opens up a really, really stupid line of defense for Dzokhar Tsarnaev if he ever faces a criminal trial. His lawyers will undoubtedly claim that the arrest and interrogation was unconstitutional due to the lack of (or delay in) Miranda rights. Why even open up that possibility of a defense for him?
4. The guy has lived in the US for many years -- chances are he actually knows the fact that he has the right to refuse to speak. So, we're violating our principles, basic Constitutional due process, and opening up a massive opening for a defense, to avoid telling him something he likely already knows.

It's been said before and it'll be said again, but turning ourselves into a paranoid police state without basic rights means that those who attack us are winning. We should be better than that, and it's a shame that our leaders have no problem confirming for the rest of the world that we're not. What a shame.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

In case you were wondering why so many Democrats switched sides during the most recent CISPA vote, the answer is exactly what you think it is: $$$. And lots of it. Last year's CISPA vote only managed to secure 40 Democrat supporters. This time around, the number leapt to 92.

[A] new coalition of special interests, which include America's two largest cellular service providers AT&T, Inc. and Verizon Wireless -- jointly owned by Verizon Communications Inc. and Vodafone Group Plc. -- as well as two of the nation's largest software firms Microsoft Corp. and Intel Corp., came together to create a similar data grab bill (Microsoft has since renounced its support). Security firms like Symantec Corp. also backed the bill.

Pushing the bill through was $84M USD in funding from special interest backers.

$84 million is change-of-heart money, although one imagines those contributing checked and double-checked their "sponsored" representatives to make sure they were all on the same page. As DailyTech points out, nearly $86 million went into the SOPA push and most of that turned out to be wasted money.

Last Monday, two hundred IBM executives visited the White House to make a last minute push for CISPA. Whatever they said or did must have been very persuasive. By the end of the day, 36 new sponsors had signed on to the bill, up from a very lonely two previous to IBM's visit. Unsurprisingly, financial motivation was involved, according to numbers gathered by Maplight.

New co-sponsors have received 38 times as much money ($7,626,081) from interests supporting CISPA than from interests opposing ($200,362).

Members of the House in total have received 16 times as much money ($67,665,694) from interests supporting CISPA than from interests opposing ($4,164,596).

Now, it's up to Senate to come up with some sort of cyber-security bill that has a chance to get passed and dodge a Presidential veto. Fortunately, there's no clear favorite at the moment (although Lieberman's bill seems to have the President's blessing) and with the limited number of voters, the Senate is much more prone to be gridlocked by partisan politics. Of course, a daylong visit by a few lobbyists could win over just enough hearts and minds to be dangerous. In the meantime, it would probably do these senators a world of good to hear from their constituents, if only to remind them that there are plenty of actual people out there who have to live with the consequences of bad legislation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

If you’re still fuming over taxes this year, take a look at Mike Duncan and Jason Novak‘s (slightly biased) cartoon explanation of the history of taxes. The income tax really got its start in 1913:

Congress immediately passes the Revenue Act of 1913, creating the first permanent income tax.  No one really notices because the vast majority of incomes are taxed at just 1%.  The mustache twirling robber barons get pretty grumpy, though.  Then Wilson plunges us into WWI and unleashes the awesome potential of the new income tax.  The top end rate jumps to 77% and revenue increases 635%.

(HT: The Big Picture)

This is a video of Redditor Aussie50 tossing some piece of heavy machinery into a front-load washer and watching it shake itself to pieces on the spin cycle. It will never top the anthropomorphic dryer eating a brick video, although this one is pretty action-packed. It's a shame though because it seemed like a fine washer. I would kill to have my own washer and dryer in my apartment, but instead I have to use the pubey community ones in the basement. Destroying perfectly fine washing machines while some people don't even have one -- I've never felt more like a starving kid in Africa. Unless that's insensitive, in which case I feel like something else. Maybe an airplane. Hit the jump for the destruction in progress. Thanks to Arman, who would never do that to a washing machine because he knows that washing machines have feelings. Oooooor he just needs to do a load of whites.

We've seen several times before the reticence (a fancy $20 word for "antipathy") many law enforcement officers have towards being recorded while on the job. They don't seem to mind cameras they control (even though those too have proven problematic -- but fixable), but if the average citizen starts "taping" an encounter, much ado is made about the impropriety (or illegal-ness) of the citizen's actions.

We've seen all of this before. But this one tops those stories. This is one of those has-to-be-seen-to-be-believed events. Fortunately, it involves a functioning camera installed in a surprisingly dangerous cell phone.

San Diegan Adam Pringle was minding his own business illegally smoking a cigarette in a public area (I know -- this falls under the "California Is Ridiculous" heading) when he was approached by Officer Reinhold, who then proceeded to cite him for outdoor smoking.

Pringle decided to whip out his Samsung and record the encounter. At that point, things went from bad to worse to surreal.

It all seemed pretty civil until the cop writing the citation told him to stop recording, which Pringle refused to do.

"Phones can be converted into weapons …. look it up online," the cop told him.

When Pringle tried to talk sense into the cop, the cop slapped the phone out of his hand where it fell onto the boardwalk and broke apart.

The other cop then pounced on him, slamming him down on the boardwalk where he ended up with a laceration on his chin.

Read that again. (Or watch the video.) Officer Reinhold wants Pringle to shut off the camera in his phone because, no shit, a cell phone can be turned into a gun. Apparently, the internet says so. Yes, this would be the same internet that declared the unusual popping noise in your knees to be "AIDS." And, yes, it is possible to turn a camera/cell phone into a gun. It's just very unlikely this is happening with any frequency.

Despite this very "real" danger, Reinhold allows a gun camera to be trained on him for the next few minutes as Pringle's friends continue to record the arrest. Not only that, but he continues to write the ticket for smoking outdoors, oblivious to multiple passersby that are carrying their phoneguns out in the open or concealed in pockets/purses.

Let's hope this little bit of misinformation doesn't become the next "Stop resisting." Officer Reinhold seems remarkably calm for a man with a gun pointed directly at his face. If I was in his position, I'd, at the very least, have my taser aimed directly back at the gunman cameraman threatening my life.

It gets even better/worse. Reinhold, while being filmed by the non-arrestees, makes a statement even bolder/more ridiculous than his "Don't literally shoot me with your phone!" claim. (Second recording over at Photography Is Not A Crime.)

He also said that "officer safety" trumps the Constitution, meaning they can claim they are fear for their lives while they throw you in jail for any lame excuse.

So, we're to believe that if an officer is in danger, the entire rulebook can just be tossed out the proverbial window? I mean, if you're already going to negate the Constitution when staring down the barrel of a Samsung, what's stopping you from scrapping the local codes and policies governing police work when in danger? Hours and hours of training in order to prep officers for dealing with the potentially dangerous public but when it all comes down to it, law enforcement is "authorized" to succumb to "fight or flight?" That makes no sense.

Pringle, double-threat that he is (smoker and gun camera owner), was hauled away after sustaining enough injuries from the arrest that an ambulance was called. He then spent a night in jail after being charged with obstruction for failing to immediately turn over his weapon cell phone.

Fortunately for all of us, Pringle didn't. This is why we should record police activity. Without record of statements like these, it's nearly impossible to convince anyone that some members of law enforcement carry around an imaginary rulebook, one that can be rewritten on the fly to suit the situation at hand, or thrown out completely if the officers feel threatened. Reinhold is now infamous and will likely be confronted with many more dangerous would-be guns provided to the populace by notorious weapons dealers like T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T.



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

There have been a lot of kneejerk reactions to the Boston Marathon bombing. Between certain politicians and pundits quickly turning the horrific event into makeshift planks to support their pet legislation/conspiracy theories and the New York Post cranking out reports so "exclusive" they weren't even true, the internet and airwaves have been filled with the sort of stupidity we've sadly come to expect when tragedy strikes.

Then something comes along that swaggers right up to you and punches you in the face with its breathtaking imbecility. This is Stewart Baker's "contribution" to the national discussion, filed over at the otherwise esteemed Volokh Conspiracy under the heading "Fool Me Once..."

When people say, "The stupid! It burns!" they're usually referring to garden variety stupidity or the occasional bit of advanced moronics that momentarily derails entire comment threads. This thing that Baker has cobbled together out of the stuff he likes best -- surveillance and more surveillance -- towers over other moments of burning stupid like a Wicker Man made entirely from straw. The stupid here doesn't simply burn. It immolates the rational person's mind, replacing coherent arguments with searing, nightmarish pain that reduces responses to stunted internet-native declarations like "wat."

Baker wants us to believe that the EFF and the ACLU are wrong... in both instances. What it actually shows is the EFF/ACLU's consistency on these issues. Unless Baker has heard otherwise, the EFF and ACLU are still against widespread surveillance (along with CISPA). This event, as terrible as it was, doesn't change that stance.

Only someone like Baker, a former DHS "company man" and freelance contributor to the underdeveloped "TSA porn" genre, would take the stance that the FBI's release of camera footage capturing the two bombing suspects' images justifies the massive amount of surveillance many in this country are subjected to in nearly every public space. (His take conveniently ignores the fact that the stills posted by the FBI appear to have been captured by cameras deployed by private businesses.)

Only someone who seems to detest the actions of privacy advocates would insinuate through a disingenuous headline ("What they said about street cameras before the bombing") that the EFF and ACLU would change their views on surveillance after an event like this. They won't. Only fair-weather friends of Constitutional rights and civil liberties change their stances after a tragedy like this. (See also: EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT HAS ENACTED SINCE SEPT. 11, 2001 THAT DEALS WITH NATIONAL "SAFETY" OR "SECURITY.")

And only someone who knows CISPA is a purposely flawed bill aimed at giving the government even more control and surveillance powers would have the gall to cheapen this tragedy by attempting to equate the two using a bullshit "conclusion" hastily MS Painted together and dropped unceremoniously into the blogosphere like a flaming bag of foul-smelling rhetoric on the doormat.

One question, though, Stewart, tied into Boston Marathon as you've done with yours: all of this surveillance, all these increased security measures, all this warrantless wiretapping, all these pat downs and scans at the airport, all of these drones flying all over the world, all these double-secret interpretations of super-secret laws, all of these redacted FOIA responses, all of this Cyber Pearl Harbor hand wringing, all of encroachment of the government into every aspect of American existence?

What did it prevent?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The National Police Agency in Japan is apparently asking ISPs in that country to "voluntarily" block the use of Tor, the well-known and widely used system for anonymously surfing the internet.

An expert panel to the NPA, which was looking into measures to combat crimes abusing the Tor system, compiled a report on April 18 stating that blocking online communications at the discretion of site administrators will be effective in preventing such crimes. Based on the recommendation, the NPA will urge the Internet provider industry and other entities to make voluntary efforts to that effect.

This is an extreme and dangerous overreaction. Yes, some people abuse the anonymity of Tor to do illegal things. Just as some people abuse the anonymity of cash to do bad things. But we don't then outlaw cash because of this. There are many, many reasons why people have good reason to seek out an anonymizing tool like Tor to protect their identity. What if they're whistle blowing on organized crime or corruption (say) in the police force? As for the fear that it's being used for criminal activity, that doesn't mean that police cannot identify them through other means. We've seen time and time again people leave digital tracks in other ways when they're committing crimes. Yes, it makes life more difficult for police, and it means they have to do actual detective work, but that's what their job is.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

It would appear that Rep. Mike Rogers, the main person in Congress pushing for CISPA, has kept rather quiet about a very direct conflict of interest that calls into serious question the entire bill. It would appear that Rogers' wife stands to benefit quite a lot from the passage of CISPA, and has helped in the push to get the bill passed. It's somewhat amazing that no one has really covered this part of the story, but it highlights, yet again, the kind of activities by folks in Congress that make the public trust Congress less and less.

It has seemed quite strange to see how strongly Rogers has been fighting for CISPA, refusing to even acknowledge the seriousness of the privacy concerns. At other times, he can't even keep his own story straight about whether or not CISPA is about giving information to the NSA (hint: it is). And then there was the recent ridiculousness with him insisting that the only opposition to CISPA came from 14-year-old kids in their basement. Wrong and insulting.

Of course, as we've noted all along, all attempts at cybersecurity legislation have always been about money. Mainly, money to big defense contractors aiming to provide the government with lots of very expensive "solutions" to the cybersecurity "problem" -- a problem that still has not been adequately defined beyond fake scare stories. Just last month, Rogers accidentally tweeted (and then deleted) a story about how CISPA supporters, like himself, had received 15 times more money from pro-CISPA group that the opposition had received from anti-CISPA groups.

So it seems rather interesting to note that Rogers' wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers, was, until recently, the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a "security" defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department. The company describes itself as "a leading private security company, provides government and corporate clients with a full spectrum of intelligence-led, culturally-sensitive security solutions to operational and development challenges around the world."

Hmm. Sounds like a company like that would benefit greatly to seeing a big ramp up in cybersecurity FUD around the globe, and, with it, big budgets by various government agencies to spend on such things. Indeed, just a few months ago, Rogers penned an article for Washington Life Magazine all about evil hackers trying to "steal information." In it, there's a line that might sound a wee-bit familiar, referring to the impression of hackers as being "the teenager in his or her parent's basement with bunny slippers and a Mountain Dew." Apparently, both of the Rogers really have a thing about teens in basements. The article is typical FUD, making statements with no proof, including repeating the NSA's ridiculous allegation that hackers have led to the "greatest transfer of wealth in American history." It's such a good line, except that it's completely untrue. The top US companies have recently admitted to absolutely no damage from such attacks. The article also lumps in "hacktivists" like Anonymous, as if they're a part of this grand conspiracy that needs new laws.

Tellingly, in the print version of Washington Life that this article appeared in, which you can see embedded below, you'll note that there's a side bar right next to her article about the importance of passing cybersecurity legislation in Congress. Guess what's not mentioned anywhere at all? The fact that Kristi Rogers, author of the fear-mongering article, happens to be married to Rep. Mike Rogers, the guy in charge of pushing through cybersecurity legislation. That sure seems like a rather key point, and a major conflict of interest that neither seemed interested in disclosing. Oh, and Kristi Rogers recently changed jobs as well, such that she's now the "managing director of federal government affairs and public policies" at Manatt a big lobbying firm, where (surprise, surprise) she's apparently focused on "executive-level problem solving in the defense and homeland security sectors." I'm sure having CISPA in place will suddenly create plenty of demand for such problem solving.

A few months ago, on one of his FUD-filled talks about why we need cybersecurity, Rogers claimed that it was all so scary that he literally couldn't sleep at night until CISPA was passed due to an "unusual source" threatening us. The whole statement seemed odd, until you realize that his statement came out at basically the same time as his wife's fear-mongering article about cybersecurity. I guess when your pillow talk is made up boogeyman stories about threats that don't actually exist, it might make it difficult to fall asleep.

Either way, even if we assume that everything here was done aboveboard -- and we're not suggesting it wasn't -- this is exactly the kind of situation that Larry Lessig has referred to as soft corruption. It's not bags of money shifting hands, but it appears highly questionable to the public, leading the public to trust Congress a lot less. At the very least, in discussing all of this stuff, when Mrs. Rogers is writing articles that help the push for CISPA, it seems only fair to disclose that she's married to the guy pushing for the bill. And when Mr. Rogers is pushing for the bill, it seems only right to disclose that his wife almost certainly would benefit from the bill passing. And yet, that doesn't seem to have happened... anywhere.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We've talked about various tech companies supporting CISPA, which is really shameful and short-sighted. Yes, it protects them from liability if they trample all over your privacy and provide your private info to the government -- which is why they support it. But if they were truly customer focused companies, they would know that violating your privacy is no way to build a loyal customer base. And, apparently, the right to violate your privacy and hand that info to the government is so important to IBM that it has sent 200 executives to Capital Hill today to lobby in favor of passing CISPA. CISPA is expected to go to a floor vote in the House either this Wednesday or Thursday.

Nearly 200 senior IBM executives are flying into Washington to press for the passage of a controversial cybersecurity bill that will come up for a vote in the House this week.

The IBM executives will pound the pavement on Capitol Hill Monday and Tuesday, holding nearly 300 meetings with lawmakers and staff. Over the course of those two days, their mission is to convince lawmakers to back a bill that’s intended to make it easier for industry and government to share information about cyber threats with each other in real time.

What they still can't explain is what laws currently get in the way of this information sharing? We've been asking for years and no one has answered. Everyone agrees that information sharing around an attack can be useful in stopping it, but no one has explained why that information sharing (a) requires a new law or (b) can't be done without wiping out all basic privacy protections for personal info currently provided under existing law.

Even more ridiculous is that IBM flat out admits that they want to be able to send your info to the NSA. We've pointed out for a while that one of the major concerns with CISPA is that the NSA -- a military agency -- would get access to your info, despite the general prohibition on spying on Americans. Of course, the NSA has twisted that mandate ridiculously, such that it believes it can now spy on anything so long as they claim it may help them in finding a foreign threat. Technically, the law is about the "target" of the information, and the NSA (and potentially the secret ruling from the FISA Court) has interpreted this to mean that as long as the target of the investigation is as foreign threat, then the NSA can snoop through anything in pursuit of that target.

Of course, most folks have been trying to play down the fact that the NSA would get the info. But not IBM. Nope, they're thrilled to send your private info right to the NSA:

[IBM VP of government affairs Chris] Padilla, however, says companies need to be able to share threat data directly with the NSA “because that’s where the expertise is.”

“It really is a simple matter. The expertise in the U.S. government on cybersecurity largely rests in one place, and that's the National Security Agency,” he said. “They tend to know the most, the soonest about cyber threats and I think, frankly, there is a certain amount of feeling in the business community that you should be able to work directly and share information directly with the agency that has the most expertise.”

While the NSA does have some knowledge on cybersecurity, it's an exaggeration to suggest that they have "the expertise" on the subject. It also does nothing to explain why your private info should be included.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

In November of 2011, the TV show 60 Minutes did a big expose on insider trading within Congress. While everyone else is subject to basic insider trading rules, it turned out that members of Congress were exempt from the rules. And, as you would imagine, many in Congress have access to market-moving, non-public information. And they made use of it. To make lots and lots of money. Of course, after that report came out and got lots of attention, Congress had to act, and within months they had passed the STOCK Act with overwhelming support in Congress to make insider trading laws that apply to everyone else finally apply to Congress and Congressional staffers as well. As that link notes:

The lopsided votes showed lawmakers desperate to regain public trust in an election year, when the public approval rating of Congress has sunk below 15 percent.

Of course, here we are in 2013 and, lo and behold, it is no longer an election year. And apparently some of the details of the ban on insider trading were beginning to chafe Congressional staffers, who found it hard to pad their income with some friendly trades on insider knowledge.

So... with very little fanfare, Congress quietly rolled back a big part of the law late last week. Specifically the part that required staffers to post disclosures about their financial transactions, so that the public could make sure there was no insider trading going on. Congress tried to cover up this fairly significant change because they, themselves, claimed that it would pose a "national risk" to have this information public. A national risk to their bank accounts.

It was such a national risk that Congress did the whole thing quietly, with no debate. The bill was introduced in the Senate on Thursday and quickly voted on late that night when no one was paying attention. Friday afternoon (the best time to sneak through news), the House picked it up by unanimous consent. The House ignored its own promise to give Congress three days to read a bill before holding a vote, because this kind of thing is too important to let anyone read the bill before Congress had to pass it.

And, of course, yesterday, President Obama signed it into law. Because the best way to rebuild trust in Congress, apparently, is to roll back the fact that people there need to obey the same laws as everyone else. That won't lead the public to think that Congress is corrupt. No, not at all.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UPDATE APRIL 22:

1-800-CONTACTS contacted us, through their lawyer, to complain about this post. The company complains that we incorrectly stated that it does not provide a virtual try-on system. Well, it turns out that the company (which owns Glasses.com) intends to launch a virtual try-on iPad app. We weren't aware of this app. And this is not surprising, since it is not yet available and was publicized on April 17, 2013, the same day as our post. In contrast, Ditto's competing product was launched back in April last year.

1-800-CONTACTS also protests that there is nothing "scandalous" about its CEO visiting Ditto's site to check out its product. We agree. There is certainly nothing wrong with keeping tabs on the competition. What we do think is scandalous, however, is what the company did next. After checking out Ditto's product, 1-800-CONTACTS apparently went out and purchased a patent in order to sue its competitor. This is the key fact and one the company's response to us carefully avoids mentioning. Indeed, 1-800-CONTACTS claims that its CEO is the "inventor" of its own app. But the company's lawsuit is based on U.S. Patent 7,016,824, a patent that has nothing whatsoever to do with its CEO, that is, until his company purchased it.

1-800-CONTACTS says it is not a patent troll. Sure, the company is not a classic patent troll—a shell company that does nothing but buy patents and sue—but it's little better. Patent trolls generally want to use the club of litigation to extort licensing fees. But all indications are that 1-800-CONTACTS isn't interested in a license from Ditto. Rather, it wants to destroy the competition.

You can read 1-800-CONTACTS' complaint here and decide for yourself if we are being too hard on the company. One thing to consider, however, is that 1-800-CONTACTS has a long record of using the courts to bully its competitors. It is a serial trademark bully and has pushed for terrible laws in its home state. When companies like 1-800-CONTACTS compete in the courts instead of the marketplace, lawyers win but innovation and consumers lose.

Here at EFF, we've recently been talking a lot about how the flood of bad software patents has led to an explosion in abusive patent troll litigation. But patent trolls are not the only problem with the patent system. Companies are increasingly using software patents to compete in the courts instead of the marketplace. Sometimes, as in the smartphone wars, these fights are between industry giants. In other cases, established players can leverage the massive expense of patent litigation to squelch the competition.

Take, for instance, the story of Ditto. Ditto is a two-year old company that employs 15 people. Its founders started it to address a problem they had found trying to buy eyeglasses on the Internet, specifically that existing ways to virtually try before you buy were awkward. So they spent many long days and late nights developing a pretty cool technology: one where users record a video of their face using their webcam and then allows them to see how eyeglasses look on their face through 180 degree views.

The folks at Ditto focused their energy on building and launching a product that would appeal to consumers. And their hard work was paying off: they received funding to grow the business, money they used to improve the technology, to hire employees, and to market the product.

Then, as we hear all too often, along came the claims of patent infringement. We often talk of trolls as companies who neither make nor sell anything, but in this case Ditto was threatened by 1-800-CONTACTS, a company who sells glasses online but does not provide the kind of technology that Ditto had painstakingly developed.

It appears that 1-800-CONTACTS' CEO went onto Ditto's website the very day it launched, presumably to investigate the upstart competitor's new technology. Having seen Ditto's product, 1-800-CONTACTS then went out and purchased a patent from a defunct company that claims to cover selling eyeglasses over a network using a 3D model of a user's face.

But here's the thing: 1-800-CONTACTS does not appear at all interested in licensing the patent to Ditto. Rather, it seems determined to put Ditto out of business. Period. So it's suing Ditto in federal court in Utah, hundreds of miles from Ditto’s headquarters in California.

Ditto's CEO Kate Endress calls the 1-800-CONTACTS suit "devastating." As opposed to reinvesting money in growing the business, DITTO now has to spend money on litigation. As Kate put it, "It's really disheartening. How can any company innovate in this atmosphere?"

One of the many problems facing Ditto right now is that, according to Kate, it may not even be able to afford to win. Patent litigation is expensive and takes years. (This is the problem that the pending SHIELD Act will help fix, which is one of the reasons we support it.)

We'd like to help Kate and her company Ditto, and are asking you to join us. We have published a call for prior art at Ask Patents. Please read the call and share any prior art you might know about. We also hope you'll further join in the conversation at Ask Patents by upvoting the submissions from others you think are best (and by sharing information you have on even more patent applications).

Files:  1-800_contacts_response_to_eff.pdf Related Issues:  Patents
Share this:   ||  Join EFF

Note: Video does contain some brief bare boobie action so make sure to call everybody in the office over before you start it. This is an interactive music video for the band Light Light's song 'Kilo'. You just follow the instructions on the screen as the song plays, then they add your cursor to a new composite video every hour. Whee, you're in a music video! It's easy to recognize me because when they ask you to not hover over the nude model I was the one circling the left nip. I'm basically famous now. Want an autograph? "No." TAKE MY AUTOGRAPH. "This says 'Give me all your money, I have a knife.'" Haha! I said I'm famous, not rich. Thanks to Fitz, who has been in numerous music videos before as a backup dancer. So jealous right now.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Monday appealed a judge's ruling allowing the President Barack Obama administration to keep mum on its legal basis for its drone targeted killing program of Americans.

Over two years ago, we wrote about an absolutely insane proposal in Florida that sought to make it a felony to photograph farms without permission. The bill tried to position it as "protecting farm intellectual property," but everyone knew the real reason: farmers were upset about animal rights activists photographing and videotaping animal cruelty and revealing it to the world. We hadn't heard much more about that until just recently. A month and a half ago, On the Media had a segment about how these kinds of bills were showing up in more states, and now the NY Times has done a big article on how these "ag-gag" laws are being pushed by lobbyists heavily influenced by big farm groups.

It appears that the positioning of these bills has moved away from "protecting farmer IP" and over to claiming that animal rights activists are involved in terrorism for exposing animal cruelty. Now, we certainly believe that some animal rights groups go way overboard in their campaigns, though they often just make themselves look silly when they do so. But these laws just seem crazy, and a clear restriction on First Amendment rights.

But a dozen or so state legislatures have had a different reaction: They proposed or enacted bills that would make it illegal to covertly videotape livestock farms, or apply for a job at one without disclosing ties to animal rights groups. They have also drafted measures to require such videos to be given to the authorities almost immediately, which activists say would thwart any meaningful undercover investigation of large factory farms.

ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council), a group famous for writing legislation for members of Congress, has a "draft bill" along these lines, which argues that the effort is to prevent attempts to use images and video to "defame the facility or its owner." That's insulting. First off, we already have defamation laws. If farm owners are defamed, let them use those laws. Second, truth is an absolute defense to defamation, and if they're taking a picture that accurately represents what's going on, it's difficult to see how that could, in any way, be any form of defamation. Third, and most importantly, just because one might use some tactic to defame someone (even if it's highly unlikely) that's no excuse, at all, for seeking to ban the activity entirely.

In the end, it's legal efforts like this that make people especially cynical about the political process. It's pretty clear that there's no good reason for such laws. Rather, the entire purpose is to protect some farmers who don't want their practices exposed.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The EFF alerts us to the news that oil giant Exxon hasn't quite figured out how this whole internet thing works, and is trying to stop TV stations from running a satirical ad mocking Exxon by claiming that Exxon Hates Your Children. It's completely over the top, not unlike the spoof video we recently talked about Time Warner Customer Service. The people behind the ad had run a successful crowdfunding campaign to put the ad on TV in a few markets. Rather than just letting the activists who put this together get their ad on TV in a few small markets and let it go, Exxon decided to make it a big story by sending threat letters to various TV stations, arguing that the ad is "defamatory"

The letter is somewhat amusingly serious in its response to obviously ridiculous statements that no one could possibly take seriously.

“Here at Exxon we hate your children.” – Factually incorrect and cannot be substantiated.

Also could be written "Here at Exxon we don't understand satire." No one looks at that ad and thinks that it's a legitimate ad supporting Exxon. No one looks at that ad and says "oh yeah, Exxon hates children, now it's official!"

Exxon then goes on for seven whole paragraphs giving explanations for why they really don't hate your children. Seriously. Seven paragraphs. Because they think someone out there really thought that the ad was telling the truth? And, of course, all this silly censorship campaign has created is a hell of a lot more (global and domestic) interest into what's effectively a story that's mostly dead on arrival for most publications. But now that it's a story about censorship, it's already getting more press attention and views on the campaign... making sure a lot more people see this fake ad about Exxon hating children.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story