Last year we wrote about the German police using malware to spy on members of the public. Now ASIO, Australia's national secret service, has come up with a new variant on the idea:

A spokesman for the Attorney-General's Department said it was proposing that ASIO be authorised to ''use a third party computer for the specific purpose of gaining access to a target computer''.

The problem seems to be that even suspected terrorists are getting the hang of this security stuff:

The department said technological advances had made it ''increasingly difficult'' for ASIO to execute search warrants directly on target computers, ''particularly where a person of interest is security conscious.''

So the idea seems to be to infect the computer of someone that the alleged terrorists know, and then use that trusted link to pass on malware:

Australians' personal computers might be used to send a malicious email with a virus attached, or to load ''malware'' onto a website frequently visited by the target.

That probably seemed like a really clever ruse to the people who thought it up, but it overlooks some basic flaws.

First, that once ASIO has taken control of an intermediary's computer it can do anything -- including poking around to see what's there. After all, if intermediaries are known to suspected terrorists, it's possible that they too might be terrorists.

The authorities are insisting that the warrant to break into somebody's computer would not authorize ASIO to obtain "intelligence material" from it. But you don't have to be clairvoyant to predict that at some point in the future, "exceptional" circumstances will be invoked to justify doing precisely that: once security services start down a slippery stop, they never seem to be able to stop.

Secondly, as the German experience shows, if a computer has been compromised by malware in this way, it's not just the government agencies that can take control: anyone who has obtained the malware and analyzed it will be able to look for ways to send their own instructions. That could leave innocent members of the public vulnerable to privacy breaches and economic losses that would be directly attributable to the spy agency's digital break-in.

Finally, this approach seems to overlook the fact that presumed terrorists are unlikely to be best pleased with any person that unwittingly sends them government malware. If they notice and really are ruthless terrorists, they might decide to take revenge on that person and his or her immediate circle of family and friends. Either the Australian spy agency hasn't really thought this through, or it is being extremely cavalier with the lives of the members of the public it is supposed to protect.

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

This year's flu season seems to be unusually miserable and widespread. One of the flu strains getting passed around this year hasn't been seen for a few years, so people's immune system resistance to it may be weak. If you haven't caught the bug yet, here are just a few links that could help you avoid it -- or just tell you more about what the flu actually is.

• The Khan academy has a lesson on what the flu is, making sure everyone knows the difference between the flu and a cold. It'd be cool to see online classes for all kinds of medical information -- and maybe even medical degree badges....? [url]
• The 2013 flu vaccine wards against three strains: H3N2, H1N1 and Influenza B. However, the vaccine this year has been labeled only "moderately effective" by the CDC. [url]
• Flu season comes around during the winter generally and not spring, summer or fall. But why? It could be the humidity; the flu virus survives well in warm, low-humidity air -- just like the conditions in most homes in the winter. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Remember Brett Gibbs? The California-based lawyer, who is handling a bunch of Prenda Law cases, has been trying to avoid the inevitable in some cases in California. As you may recall, Prenda Law was formed, in part, by copyright troll John Steele. Recently, Prenda has been involved in a number of very fishy cases, including representing firms "AF Holdings" and "Ingenuity 13", which some have accused of being mere shells for Prenda or associated lawyers. Things got strange when a guy named Alan Cooper, who works as a caretaker for some John Steele properties in Minnesota, sought to intervene in some AF Holdings cases, after he realized that "Alan Cooper" was the name listed as CEO of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, and he feared that Steele had misused his identity.

A lawyer in California, Morgan Pietz, representing some of the defendants sued by Gibbs/Prenda, had brought Alan Cooper's claims to the attention of the judge in California, and sought to have Gibbs explain if the Alan Cooper listed as CEO of Ingenuity 13 was the same house caretaker complaining that he thought his name was being used without his permission. If, in fact, it was a different Alan Cooper, the simple response would be to show that there's another Alan Cooper and that person really is in charge of these companies. Instead, Gibbs threw something of a hissy fit, refusing to answer such a basic question.

Pietz then asked the court to compel Gibbs to answer some specific questions about the "Alan Cooper" named as CEO, as well as about Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings. The court agreed and gave Gibbs a short deadline. Rather than doing his homework, Gibbs threw another temper tantrum and made a motion to get rid of the judge, Otis Wright, making a bizarre and silly argument that the judge somehow hated copyright holders.

The court has reviewed Gibbs' request... and rejected it soundly, pointing out that there is no good reason to remove Judge Wright from the case, and that contrary to Gibbs' claims, there appeared to be no bias against him, his clients or copyright law.

Plaintiff's Motion for Disqualification is without merit. Plaintiff alleges no facts to suggest that Judge Wright is biased or prejudiced against it.

Plaintiff's argument boils down its disagreement with the merits of Judge Wright's discovery orders. This is not a cognizable basis for disqualification.

Furthermore, the court notes that it would appear that a much more logical explanation for Judge Wright's orders is not bias against copyright or porn copyright holders, as Gibbs had claimed, but rather "the potential for discovery abuse." In other words, not only does Judge Wright understand what Gibbs appears to be up to, but others at the court have quickly seen through his attack as well. So, the remaining question is what will Gibbs do next: will he actually answer the questions, or find another reason to throw a temper tantrum?

Attention readers of this article! This is important to realize: I do not hate guns, the NRA, or freedom. While this is not the forum for any of us to discuss our personal philosophy regarding firearms or the 2nd amendment, let's just say my views are nuanced and leave it at that. Again, I do not hate guns. What I do hate, however, is hypocrisy and stupidity, and the NRA has a habit of occasionally engaging in both. I mean, the idea that doctors should by law not be allowed to ask questions about gun safety in "well-child" visits is just stubborn silliness. That kind of paranoia should be reserved for the lunatic fringe, not the most powerful firearms lobbying group in the country. Likewise, the insane idea that the 2nd amendment should be protected by treading upon the 1st and 4th amendments isn't just hypocritical, it's multiplicatively hypocritical.

But if you thought that kind of PR mistake was the zenith for the NRA with regards to their anti-video game stance, prepare yourselves for liftoff, because the NRA has released several shooting games, the latest of which is targeted at elementary-aged school children.

There have been a lot of people blaming violent video games for gun violence in America, especially in the wake of the tragic Newtown, Connecticut shootings. Chief among them, of course, was the National Rifle Association. In his comments after the shootings, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre blamed several video games that featured guns, like Bulletstorm and Splatterhouse, but left off titles like NRA: Varmint Hunter and NRA: Gun Club. He also failed to mention the new NRA branded iOS game which must have been in development at the time, NRA: Practice Range. The new game is recommended for ages four and up, probably because they don't want kids younger than four to see how much fun super-cool guns can be.

Now, in the interest of being fair here, there's an obvious difference in content between games like Bulletstorm and Practice Range or Varmint Hunter. The NRA isn't putting out games in which human being are shot. But that's a rather weak distinction to draw when you've spoken out so radioactively against violence in gaming. The simple glorification of guns for 4 years olds is probably not the best move PR-wise in the current atmosphere, but even having an NRA sponsored game for shooting animals raises questions. The line on shooting living things is crossed and it would be quite easy to point to harming animals as a predictive sign of criminality, violence and sociopathy. Why is the NRA providing a gaming avenue for such behavior while decrying other/more violent games for providing a gaming avenue for that same behavior?

It should be pointed out that, true to their words, the NRA is littering these games with gun safety tips, but from the standpoint of public relations that doesn't really soften how dumb a move this is. To be clear, I don't think the stupidity is in releasing these games. I'm fine with them. The problem is when you seek to deflect criticism for gun violence by pointing to games, all while you're also releasing shooting games, you lose a great deal of credibility. But when you put forth a game that gives you "one minute to fire off as many rounds as possible" and aims it, by their own words, at children as young as four years old, you just look like jackasses.

Just recently, we learned that the EFF had been handed what appeared to be several pages of severe formatting errors and faulty Morse code in response to its FOIA request for the secret interpretation of the FISA spying law. There were also the "sobering findings" faux-released by the NSA, which left in only enough unredacted wording to open speculation on these "sobering findings," as well as to publicly lament the surely misguided public debate on the super-secret agency's actions. Now, the news comes to us that the FBI has handed the ACLU a stack of papers that would make any toner supplier very happy.

The ACLU filed a FOIA request last July in hopes of receiving some insight into the FBI's tracking of US citizens via GPS devices. Two months later, it filed a lawsuit against the FBI, forcing the issue. At long last, the FBI has responded... with 111 pages of black ink.

Two key memos outlining the Justice Department's views about when Americans can be surreptitiously tracked with GPS technology are being kept secret by the department despite a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU to force their release. The FBI’s general counsel discussed the existence of the two memos publicly last year, yet the Justice Department is refusing to release them without huge redactions. 

The word "see" is obviously some sort of joke because there's absolutely nothing to "see" here, unless you consider To, From and Subject fields to be the "smoking gun." Oh, and this one paragraph that leads into 56 straight pages of black ink.

In United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), the Supreme Court affirmed the suppression of location data generated by a GPS tracking device surreptitiously affixed to a car without court authorization and monitored continuously over a 28-day period.

Yep, that's the power of the FOIA. All the black ink (or blank pages) you could possibly want, delivered months after they're requested. The redactions on these two documents obviously goes far beyond simply protecting sensitive information that might jeopardize ongoing investigations. This is nothing more than the DOJ covering up unconstitutional practices.

The Justice Department's unfortunate decision leaves Americans with no clear understanding of when we will be subjected to tracking — possibly for months at a time — or whether the government will first get a warrant. This is yet another example of secret surveillance policies — like the Justice Department's secret opinions about the Patriot Act's Section 215 — that simply should not exist in a democratic society.

The ACLU is asking the court to order the DOJ to release these memos in full. The Fourth Amendment's reasonable expectation of privacy is undermined by these secret memos, which limit knowledge of law enforcement tracking efforts solely to the executive branch.

The implications of these withheld documents go even further than discussing GPS tracking. FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissman's explanation of the second memo ("Guidance Regarding the Application of United States v. Jones to Additional Investigative Techniques") leaves the door open for tracking via other technology.

[The] second memoranda [sic] is going to be about guidance about what this means for other types of techniques, beyond GPS, because there's no reason to think that this is going to just end with GPS and some of that is going to be very much a judgment call.

It's already common knowledge that law enforcement agencies are using cell phone tracking. As the ACLU points out, wireless carriers already receive 1.5 million requests for data every year, most of which is used for location tracking. Additional technology, such as drones or license plate readers, make endless surveillance a logistic reality, and all without a warrant.

A fully-redacted document doesn't seem to indicate that the FBI is operating within the constraints of United States v. Jones. It signals the very opposite and provides us with another example of how government agencies, when faced with constitutional limitations, are more than happy to simply "interpret" their way around them -- and keep these interpretations out of public view, perhaps indefinitely. It's extremely hypocritical for the FBI and DOJ to sit in a position of law enforcement when they clearly believe abiding by the law is optional.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We've been discussing the ridiculousness of the prosecution against Aaron Swartz, including the fact that if a federal prosecutor decides to take you down, it's not at all difficult to find something they can try to pin on you, especially when it comes to "computer" crimes. Law professor James Grimmelmann explains how it's quite possible that prosecutors could go after him under the same laws as it went after Swartz. He notes that he used to run the (excellent) blog LawMeme (which we used to link to frequently). After it died, he wanted to preserve many of the articles, and so he wrote a script to pull the articles off of the Internet Archive. While it all depends on your interpretation, he shows how a prosecutor could make the argument that he violated the Internet Arvchive's terms of service -- and that some of the decisions he made in writing the script could be taken out of context to be used against him.

And so I became a bulk downloader. I wrote a Perl script: a simple, 70-line program that exhaustively went through the Wayback Machine, looking for a copy of each LawMeme article. Just like Aaron's script, mine “discovered the URLs” of articles and then downloaded them. And just to show how mainstream this is, I'll add that I built my script around an elementary one that Paul Ohm published in “Computer Programming and the Law: A New Research Agenda,” his manifesto for why more law professors should write code. Paul's script downloaded and analyzed the comment counts on posts from the popular legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

[....] take the Internet Archive's terms of service. By using the site, I supposedly promised not "to copy offsite any part of the Collections without written permission." The site's FAQ qualifies this statement a bit, adding, "However, you may use the Internet Archive Wayback Machine to locate and access archived versions of a site to which you own the rights." Again, I was confident that this covered me. But confidence is not certainty. I assumed that no one would care to press the question. After Aaron, is that such a safe assumption?

I can't imagine that the Internet Archive would have a problem with what I did. Recreating lost websites for the sake of the public and posterity is completely consistent with Brewster Kahle's expansive humanist vision of digital archiving. But JSTOR quickly made its peace with Aaron, and that didn't save him. Would Brewster's blessing save me from the wrath of the feds?

As for how to take decisions out of context, how about these:

Indeed, my script waited a second between each download. I didn't want to put too much of a load on the Archive's servers. But a cyber-Javert could describe it as an attempt to evade detection. Then, to get the webpages to display right in the LawMeme archive, I wrote another script to delete the bits of HTML added by the Internet Archive to the pages in its archive. Was that an effort to hide my tracks?

And this, of course, is the crux of the problem. The laws are so broad, and written in such a way that makes so little sense, it's quite easy for a prosecutor who wants to bring someone down to figure out a way to make them look like a felon. That's a very dangerous system. As Grimmelmann notes, the problem won't be solved by a simple fix, but a massive overhaul.

Aaron's Law is a start, but the problems with our computer crime laws, and with criminal law in general, run much, much deeper. The Department of Justice thinks millions of parents who made Facebook accounts for their children are federal criminals. Read the majority opinion in United States v. Nosal and ask yourself whether you've fudged your age on a dating site, or let someone else use your account, or used a workplace computer to check the baseball scores. Judge Kozinski noted, skeptically, "The government assures us that, whatever the scope of the CFAA, it won't prosecute minor violations." Tell that to Aaron's family.

Painted in the worst light, our laws make it so that any of us can be made out to be felons. Off the top of my head, I can't think of how I, too, might be a felon, but I'm sure given some time I could cook up a story for myself as well. And so could pretty much any of you. When you reach such a point, we're no longer dealing with a sensible state and "the rule of law," but a world in which arbitrariness rules, and where a prosecutor with a chip on his or her shoulder can take down almost anyone.

The White House has just raised the signature threshold at the "We the People" website from 25,000 to 100,000, no doubt in an attempt to trim down the number of Death Star/deportation/secession/impeachment petitions it must respond to. (Why no one thought to kill two birds with one stone and exile Piers Morgan to the newly-seceded Republic of Texas is beyond me.) Of course, it's been very selective in answering petitions up to this point, making the signature threshold essentially meaningless, but let's try to view the positive aspects.

The new level will only apply to petitions going forward, meaning that those that met the previous threshold level will still be ignored/glad-handed in the administration's consistently arbitrary fashion. While this new level looks at first glance to be the sort of workload easing common to entrenched government entities, the fact is that We the People's traffic has doubled over the past two months. According to the numbers posted, petitions are passing the 25,000 signature threshold within five days, which is a bit of a problem when over 70,000 petitions get crafted in less than 60 days.

In fact, a petition to lower the count "for taking us seriously" back to the previous level has already gathered over 1,500 signatures (in less than a day), possibly sending the White House on a collision course with some sort of signature threshold loop. (Not that this system actually works like that, but it's fun to pretend...)


Unsurprisingly, the top three petition categories are Civil Rights, Government Reform and Human Rights, suggesting that the American people are very unhappy with the ongoing rights erosion in this country -- and that they know where to start fixing this. Of course, the administration has been more than willing to route around obstacles like the Bill of Rights, so several thousand e-signatures isn't exactly going to break it of this habit. But, if any politician is interested in catching up on the issues their constituents actually care about, they could do worse than taking a long, hard look at petitions from these three categories.

While it's far from a perfect system, it's the best we've got, as they say. Raising the threshold level should result in more petitions with broader support receiving responses, barring any sort of 4chan-esque ballot stuffing. Even if many of the responses tend to be talking-point heavy and come across as a bit "canned," at least some of those petitioning the government will be able to walk away (angrily, most likely) from the experience with some sort of closure. The administration does need to be more responsive -- both in number of petitions responded to and in the quality of the answers. Talking points may be great when delivering a "top down" stump speech, but they don't really stand up to the sort of scrutiny the internet can deliver.

I love luddites. They're just so damned consistent. I haven't completely worked out the details yet, but I'm positive there is a math equation out there that would accurately predict after what year a person thinks everything new sucks. Maybe it'd look something like: (year of current date) - (age of person) / (IQ) = (year after which everything sucks). Okay, that's clearly far from perfect (and I hear Douglas Adams may have done it better), but I would expect something along those lines could predict people like a DHS boss that doesn't use anything online ever. Or Andrew Keen and Sherry Turkle, who team up to claim that social media is making us less private, but more lonely, which seems to work at cross conclusions but the math formula is the math formula so screw social media.

Look how lonely all these people are together!
Image source: CC BY-SA 2.0

Those examples aside, I have to admit this is a new one for me. Apparently there once were radios that you had to wind up to use and Trevor Baylis, the guy that invented them, says Google is making younger generations brain dead.

"Children have got to be taught hands-on, and not to become mobile phone or computer dependent. They are dependent on Google searches. A lot of kids will become fairly brain-dead if they become so dependent on the internet, because they will not be able to do things in the old-fashioned way."

Let's see if I can break down the pure wrongness of this kind of thinking with a couple of fun little analogies.

1. Children have to be taught how to tend to their horses and not become dependent on automobiles or public transportation, otherwise they may not be able to ride horses any longer.
2. Children have to be taught how to use an abacus and not become dependent on calculators, otherwise they not be able to use abacuses in their adult daily lives.
3. Children have to be taught how to unhook a chastity belt, otherwise they may not be able to have sex once they are married and somehow chasisty belts come back into circulation because....yeah, because.

Get the point? Once the old way is no longer the way, we don't have to teach it any longer. I use Google searches every day, both for work (part numbers for technology parts) and for personal use (explicit search terms for naughty human parts). That's where that stuff exists, on the internet. In fact, learning how to properly use a search engine to get the most out of its results is probably one of the most worthwhile things you can teach a child today. There is nothing wrong with learning the old way of doing things, specifically if that old way builds a foundation for understanding the new way, but blaming Google for making children brain dead is just silly.

The back and forth between the DOJ and Megaupload continues. As you may recall, a key piece of evidence against Megaupload was the fact that it "knew" about certain infringing content on the site after being informed about it - and that Megaupload left that content in place. However, when the warrant was finally unsealed (over objections from the DOJ), it revealed that the "reason" that Megaupload "knew" about this content was because the DOJ had reached out to Megaupload's hosting partner, Carpathia, and told them about this content, seeking information about it for the purposes of a criminal investigation (likely Ninjavideo). Carpathia made all of this clear to Megaupload, and Megaupload cooperated entirely, and did not delete the content for fear of deleting evidence in a criminal investigation after it had been made aware of it.

Megaupload then pointed all of this out to the court, arguing that the DOJ misled the court in getting the warrant in the first place, since it didn't mention the specific circumstances for why Megaupload was aware of the content, but had kept it up. The DOJ's response, from earlier this week, was to argue that since the DOJ never contacted Megaupload directly, none of this matters.

Megaupload has wasted little time in hitting back hard, pointing out that (a) the DOJ was well aware that Carpathia had informed Megaupload of the investigation, (b) that, at the very least, Megaupload's actions in context show non-nefarious reasons for having left the content up (basically arguing the intent) and (c) that, no matter what, the DOJ needed to at least inform the court of these basic circumstances.

Third, the Government attempts to distance itself from what Megaupload was told about the 2010 warrant by emphasizing that it did not directly instruct Megaupload to preserve the allegedly infringing files. (Dkt. 155 at 3.) But it is well settled that a private party's actions are imputed to the Government when that party is enlisted by the Government and acts in accordance with the Government's instructions. Thus, courts confronting criminal searches and seizures have consistently found Fourth Amendment interests implicated where a private party acts as the Government's "instrument or agent." See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 614 (1989); United States v. Richardson, 607 F.3d 357, 364 (4th Cir. 2010). As the Fourth Circuit has indicated, "the key factors bearing upon the question of whether a search by a private person constitutes a Government search are: '(1) whether the Government knew of and acquiesced in the private search; and (2) whether the private individual intended to assist law enforcement or had some other independent motivation.'" ....

Here, Carpathia's communications with Megaupload satisfy both prongs. The Government not only knew of Carpathia's actions but orchestrated them. Indeed, the Government's affidavit in support of the June 24, 2010 search warrant expressly requested that "Carpathia and its customer MegaUpload be permitted to view the warrant and Attachments A and B to the warrant to assist them in executing the warrant." ... Correspondingly, the Order sealing that warrant, which "found that revealing the material sought to be sealed would jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation," authorized the Government to provide the warrant only to Carpathia, and authorized Carpathia to "provide a copy of the warrant with attachments and this sealing order to MegaUpload.".... In conveying the instructions to Megaupload, Carpathia noted that it had "attempted to convince the Government to work directly with Mega on this matter, but given the complex jurisdictional issues, they have been unwilling." .... It is equally clear that Carpathia's sole purpose in communicating with Megaupload on that date was to assist the Government in executing the June 24, 2010 warrant.

The key point is that even if the government believed Megaupload still could have deleted the evidence that it had explicitly sought from Megaupload (which would be quite surprising), it at least had the duty to make it clear why Megaupload was aware of this content, as that has a pretty direct implication on Megaupload's reasons for keeping the content around.

Even if the Government could somehow avoid responsibility for Carpathia's instructions and the Magistrate Court's sealing order, there would remain the undeniable fact that the Government failed to inform this Court of critical, exculpatory information about the circumstances under which Megaupload learned of the allegedly infringing files and subsequently cooperated with the Government's investigation. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 926 (1984) (material omissions that render search warrants misleading can be grounds for invalidating warrants);...

Once again, it seems like the government simply rushed through the Megaupload case, ignoring many, many important details, and basing its case on the theory that if the entertainment industry hates Kim Dotcom so much, he must be all bad. And, if you're dealing with someone "all bad" apparently the DOJ seems to think it can take a bunch of shortcuts.

In my recent post about the fragmentation of online television, there were a few aspects and details I left out because they seemed worthy of a separate, closer look. One is the oft-forgotten fact that HBO does indeed offer one lonely digital-only subscription service... to customers in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway. That program was announced last year and seemed like a promising step for the notoriously cable-dedicated HBO—but the customer feedback is coming in, and the results are not encouraging:

A list of complaints include HD content is (was?) only available on Samsung Smart TVs, meaning you were only given SD quality when streaming through your computer or any other device. Same goes for surround sound and 5.1, which are only available through the Samsung TV app. Other complaints I've heard includes buffering problems with the Widevine plugin (at standard definition), and lack of Apple Airplay support. The product is available as iOS and Android apps, but Xbox and Playstation apps are still said to be under development.

The online UI is nice to look at but was poorly designed; initially HBO only allowed you to search for TV shows by alphabetical letter. The results were underwhelming and exaggerated how little content HBO was offering.

...

It should be noted that you're not given access to the full back catalogue, several classics are not available such as Deadwood and Oz, which apparently have some copyright restrictions.

Some might claim it's still a good deal at €9.95/month, considering most people can't access any of these shows legally without a full cable package. Of course, Netflix only costs €7.99/month in the region, and has a larger selection, which makes the price a little less impressive. Then there's the fact that HBO initially promised much, much more:

• Every episode of all HBO series available online
• All new episodes available within 24 hours of the US premiere, with local subtitles (dubbing is rare in the Nordics, foreign TV shows and movies are usually subtitled in the local language)
• Works on practically all devices: smartphones, tablets (Android, iOS), computers (Windows, Linux, Mac), video game consoles (PS3, Xbox), Samsung Smart TVs and Blu-ray players, and Sonera IPTV service
• Full HD 1080p picture quality
• Surround sound

Compare that to the list of complaints, and you realize HBO isn't doing a great job of living up to the expectations it created. Then there's the other truly insane catch: customers are locked into a 12-month contract, after which they must give 3-month notice for cancellation. Yeah. Moreover, the terms stated that simply logging into the service once waives your ability to cancel it because you're not satisfied (despite using the service being the only way to know if you are satisfied). After facing significant criticism for this move, HBO backtracked and offered subscribers the chance to use the service until the end of this month without a longer commitment—but only those subscribers who also signed up for the HBO Nordic newsletter. Classy.

It's no real surprise that HBO's first attempt at a standalone online offering is a disaster. HBO approaches the internet with extreme trepidation, but revolution requires gusto. Digital distribution—especially when it comes to competing with piracy—is a go big or go home endeavor. Or... go halfway, and watch your customers go elsewhere.

After staying silent or issuing "no comments" for nearly a week, Carmen Ortiz, the US Attorney in charge of the prosecution against Aaron Swartz has finally released a statement about Swartz, his suicide, and her possible role in the suicide. As you might imagine, the statement is highly questionable. First, here's the statement:

January 16, 2013

STATEMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CARMEN M. ORTIZ
REGARDING THE DEATH OF AARON SWARTZ

As a parent and a sister, I can only imagine the pain felt by the family and friends of Aaron Swartz, and I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy to everyone who knew and loved this young man. I know that there is little I can say to abate the anger felt by those who believe that this office’s prosecution of Mr. Swartz was unwarranted and somehow led to the tragic result of him taking his own life.

I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. The career prosecutors handling this matter took on the difficult task of enforcing a law they had taken an oath to uphold, and did so reasonably. The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law.

As federal prosecutors, our mission includes protecting the use of computers and the Internet by enforcing the law as fairly and responsibly as possible. We strive to do our best to fulfill this mission every day.

The statement is complete hogwash, frankly. If what she claims is true -- that they recognized "his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases" then they would not have piled on more charges in the indictment in September. The original indictment, which had four charges against Swartz, had a maximum potential jail time of 35 years. And, Ortiz's own press release trumpeted that fact:

AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million.

And, then in September, nine more charges were added, which brought the total possible time up to 50 years.

If Ortiz truly believed that his conduct did not warrant such "severe punishment" then she would not have trumpeted the 35 years in the first place, nor would she have piled on more charges. That would serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever if her claim here was true.

Furthermore, as Swartz's lawyers have made clear, Ortiz and her assistant, Stephen Heymann were pretty explicit to Swartz's lawyers that if he did not take their plea bargain offer, the next offer would be for more jail time, and if he still chose not to accept the offer, they'd seek at least seven years for Swartz in court. Tossing out that six month claim as if it were proof of some sort of fair dealing on Ortiz's part is flat out insulting to the intelligence of any thinking person, and downright offensive to the memory of Aaron.

How would Ortiz like it if her own child was accused on trumped up charges and threatened with 35 or more years in prison in press releases -- and then told to "settle" for just six months. I doubt she would find that to be "fair."

As Tim Lee explains, the whole "plea bargain" system is a farce, allowing prosecutors to effectively bring forth these massive "possible" punishments to effectively force someone into pleading guilty without ever going to trial. Going to trial is dangerous, because the prosecutors effectively make sure that anyone who does exercise a right to a trial is likely to get much more time in jail:

If Ortiz thought Swartz only deserved to spend 6 months in jail, why did she charge him with crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 50 years? It’s a common way of gaining leverage during plea bargaining. Had Swartz chosen to plead not guilty, the offer of six months in jail would have evaporated. Upon conviction, prosecutors likely would have sought the maximum penalty available under the law. And while the judge would have been unlikely to sentence him to the full 50 years, it’s not hard to imagine him being sentenced to 10 years.

In this hypothetical scenario, those 10 years in prison would, practically speaking, have consisted of six months for his original crime (the sentence Ortiz actually thought he deserved) plus a nine-and-a-half-year prison term for exercising his constitutional right to a trial.

As he further notes, no judge would impose a harsher sentence on someone for exercising other rights -- such as taking the Fifth, hiring a lawyer or confronting an accuser. Yet, if you demand your right to a trial, the US Attorneys have effectively rigged the system so that defendants are punished. And that gives them immense power.

Thanks in part to this kind of coercion, more than 90 percent of defendants waive their right to a jury trial. For the majority of defendants, then, the plea bargaining process is the justice system. As a result, prosecutors wield an immense amount of power with very little accountability.

It’s not surprising that Ortiz doesn’t see anything wrong with this system. Powerful people rarely see their own power as problematic. But the rest of us should be outraged—not just by Ortiz’s conduct, but by a system that treats thousands of defendants less famous than Swartz the same way.

This is not a new problem. A year and a half ago, the NY Times had a feature article highlighting this very problem, which it calls "the trial penalty."

Also, while Ortiz claims that the final sentence "would have been up to the judge" and even suggests that since defense counsel could have recommended just probation, the judge might have been more lenient, she must know that it is quite rare for judges to issue sentences more lenient than what prosecutors put forth from a plea bargain. In fact, judges will often issue harsher sentences than what the prosecutors "agreed" to with the defendant, since the judge is not bound to the terms of the agreement specifically.

Many countries do not allow plea bargaining, because they recognize how it can be used for coercion. Meanwhile, studies have shown that plea bargains quite frequently can lead to innocent people accepting a deal recognizing that it's much better to do that than risk a trial where the punishment would be much, much higher. Yes, more innocent people do stand up against such offers than guilty ones (according to the same study), but a large number of innocent people feel compelled to just take the deal.

Basically, this whole system is wide open to abuse, and it's clear from Ortiz's actions that she, too, was abusing the system in this manner: pushing for super high possible jail time as a huge and scary weapon to try to pressure Swartz into accepting a lower rate -- but also making him a convicted felon. Using the plea offer as some sort of "proof" of reasonableness is really quite incredible and despicable. It's like pointing a gun at someone, telling them that you're planning to shoot them... and then saying that if they agree to confess to something they don't believe, you'll just pinch them instead. And then, when they complain, you say "well, clearly, I just thought the pinch was appropriate." That's clearly a bullshit explanation. Ortiz was better off with "no comment" than trying to pass this off as a reasonable claim.

In the wake of the suicide of Aaron Swartz, there have been many fine tributes to the man and his work. Another growing class of posts that have flowed from this unhappy event are people reflecting on the important lessons he taught them. Here, for instance, is Jeff Jarvis recounting his journey from a fairly traditional position on copyright to one that recognized how the Internet had reshaped that landscape.

Ten years ago, Jarvis appended this "mock copyright notice" to his blog posts:

It's mine, I tell you, mine! All mine! You can't have it because it's mine! You can read it (please); you can quote it (thanks); but I still own it because its mine! I own it and you don't. Nya-nya-nya. So there. COPYRIGHT ... by Jeff Jarvis.

But gradually, under the influence of key thinkers in this area, he came to see things differently:

Lessig and company have taught me that content's value can lie in what it spawns and inspires. Locked away, unseen, unused, not discussed, not linked, it might as well not exist.

...

And Aaron Swartz has taught me that content must not be the end game for knowledge. Why does knowledge become an article in a journal -- or that which fills a book or a publication -- except for people to use it? And only when they use it does content become the tool it should be. Not using knowledge is an offense to it. If it cannot fly free beyond the confines of content, knowledge cannot reach its full value through collaboration, correction, inspiration, and use.

The tension between knowledge and content is no mere abstraction. As well as lying behind some of the most problematic sections of SOPA, ACTA and TPP, and the larger war on digital sharing they are part of, it was almost certainly a contributory factor in the death of Aaron Swartz too.

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

Laws in general aren't known for their clarity, hence the need for lawyers to rack up billable hours searching for loopholes to exploit or to try to bend them to fit the case at hand. Copyright laws, while less tangled than the infamous "Patent Thicket, " are no straightforward walk in the park, either.

Eric Hellman tackles the ambiguous nature of copyright infringement, especially as it pertains to the "region-free" aspects of the internet, in a post amusingly titled, "Heisenberg's Uncertain Copyright." (via The Digital Reader)

Hellman turns his attention to F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby," and using his skills in the area of "Quantum Copyright" (a term he threw into his LinkedIn profile for a bit of fun), determines that the question of whether or not copyright infringement has occurred might depend on where the copying occurred, something that is even harder to define when the copying takes place via the internet.

It turns out that where a copy is made has consequences. Consider Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby...

The Great Gatsby already belongs to every Australian, in the sense that Australians have the right to read and copy it for free without anybody's permission. In the US, it belongs to the CBS Corporation, and if you want to read it on Kindle, it'll cost you $7.80.

If you copy Gatsby in Australia, no problem, it's cool, because Gatsby has entered the public domain. There's an excellent version available from Project Gutenberg Australia. If you do it in the US without permission from the CBS, it constitutes copyright infringement and is punishable with jail time and statutory damages up to $150,000 per incidence of infringement. So it really matters where the copying occurs.

While Hellman exaggerates the repercussions of making a hypothetical copy (the highest statutory claims would apply only to willful infringement [which this could be, especially when infringing in order to prove a hypothesis] and the jail time only applies to criminal infringement -- which this almost certainly would not be), the fact remains that one deterrent of infringement is the underlying threat of legal action (whether civil or criminal). No doubt F. Scott Fitzgerald's estate is in no hurry to give up the American rights (and the attendant enforcement of those rights), seeing as "The Great Gatsby" earned its author all of $8,400 during his lifetime -- but generates $500,000 per year for his daughter. This secondhand largesse enjoyed by many heirs is one of the motivators behind the ever-extending copyright lengths here in this country.

Hellman posits this not-so-hypothetical situation:

Suppose you have a book sitting on a computer in Australia. The computer breaks the book into thousands of UDP packets and sends them into the Internet. Copying can't have occurred yet, because the packets aren't fixed in any form. For copyright purposes,

"Copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "copies" includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Now suppose the packets are reassembled on my hard drive in New Jersey. A copy of "The Great Gatsby" has materialized. Has a copyright been infringed? If I was in Australia and the source of the packets was in the US, would the answer be different?

In this case, the copying process originates in a country where no copyright protection covers Fitzgerald's book. Its "assembly" in the US suddenly makes it an infringing copy. Does this make sense? More importantly, does it even matter? According to rights holders, the copy would still be infringing, simply because it was copied, at least according to the section of copyright law cited by Hellman, which states that only the owner of the copyright has the "exclusive right... to reproduce the copyrighted work."

But even that doesn't entirely clear up the situation. If no rights holder can claim this "exclusive right to reproduce" in Australia, then it would seem that "shipping" copies from Australia would be a legal act, right up until the copy "hits" the US border. Exploring this hypothetical situation further, Hellman comes up with a list of "quantum copyright" possibilities.

So we have 8 different quantum copyright location scenarios; 6 have uncertainty as to the fact of infringement:

1. Person copying, copy source, and copy destination all in US. (US law controls!)
2. Person copying, copy source, and copy destination all in Australia. (Australia law controls!)
3. Person copying and copy source in US, copy destination in Australia.
4. Person copying and copy source in Australia, copy destination in US.
5. Person copying and copy destination in US, copy source in Australia.
6. Person copying and copy destination in Australia, copy source in US.
7. Person copying in US, copy source and copy destination in Australia.
8. Person copying in Australia, copy source and copy destination in US.

So, to sum it all up, magic 8-ball style: "Answer unclear. Ask again later." More narrowly, however, the exclusive rights granted to copyright holders would find most of these situations infringing. Any copy originating in the US would violate the reproduction right as Hellman points out. Any action initiating in the US would very likely violate the holder's distribution rights. For all intents and purposes, the hypothetical copier is only 100% in the clear in instance #2, where all copying starts and stops in Australia where Fitzgerald's book is public domain. In cases where the copy is "sent" to the US from Australia, it could very well fall under the the "right to reproduce," as US consumers would be limited to "authorized" copies from the rights holders. If some Australian set up a site offering downloads of public domain books that were still under copyright in the US, the rights to reproduce and distribute would likely be pointed out as the reason any US users availing themselves of this service are actually guilty of copyright infringement. If it's under copyright in the US, then the copyright owner's rights must be respected... at $7.80 a copy.

Certainly, copyright-centered entities like the MPAA would prefer to simply have our copyright laws exported to other countries with less stringent laws, especially any sections that extend the length of copyright protection and weaken fair use/fair dealing exceptions. Getting other nations to sync up with our copyright lengths would certainly eliminate these hypothetical discussions, along with many items in the public domain. Many aspects of current copyright laws were written years ago, long before the internet made "country of origin" a meaningless term and reproductions as simple as a right-click on a mouse. What it usually boils down to, after all the discussion, is this:

You could also be a cynic and say the only thing that matters is where the judge is sitting.

Much like fair use is often determined by a courtroom appearance, the "quantum" aspects of copyright are largely theoretical -- right up to the point that someone finds themselves at the other end of an infringement lawsuit.