Julian Sanchez has put forth an interesting and compelling proposal: if Google really wanted to take a stand in favor of user privacy, it should encrypt all our emails.

Google is in an ideal position to overcome these difficulties, and finally make strong e-mail encryption a mass phenomenon. Their Gmail service—the one David Petraeus was using to exchange steamy messages with his biographer and lover, Paula Broadwell—has some 425 million active users by last count. Many of those users access the service through a Web interface, which Google can change and update for all users simultaneously. That means we could all wake up tomorrow to find a handy new “Encrypt Message” button included in the familiar Gmail interface we're already using. Meanwhile, Google (along with Facebook) has rapidly become a kind of universal Internet identity provider, with the Google Account used as a key not only to access Google’s own myriad offerings, but many other independent online services as well.

Because truly strong encryption is “end to end”—meaning the end-users generate, store, and have sole access to their own private encryption keys—a robust content encryption system may require users to have appropriate client software installed on their own machines. Here, too, Google is well positioned to provide a solution: They already make a widely-used browser, Chrome, and a popular operating system for mobile devices, Android, which could be updated with the necessary functionality built-in, eliminating the need for a separate browser plug-in.

Of course, as Julian notes, one reason why Google is resisting this is that it would make it more difficult to scan your emails and offer contextual advertising based on what's in those emails. He notes that Vint Cerf more or less admitted this last year, in noting that it would be a challenge to their business model. But Julian notes that there are other ways to target advertisements (some of which might be more effective) than keying them directly off each email -- for example, it can still use your search history, social profiles, Youtube videos, etc. For what it's worth, in all the years I've used Gmail, I don't recall ever looking at the ads they display -- though, obviously, some people out there must click. Also, a point worth noting: Microsoft's new Outlook.com email system does not scan each email for contextual advertising purposes. If they can do it, it seems silly to argue that Google needs to scan each email. More importantly, Julian isn't saying that every email should be encrypted -- so plenty of messages will still be sent in the clear, and those can be used for contextual ads. And the benefits may outweigh the negatives:

Meanwhile, Google would garner enormous goodwill from privacy advocates, reams of free press coverage, and an attractive new selling point, not only for Gmail but for Chrome and Android as well. Encryption would likely be a particularly appealing feature for Google's paying enterprise customers, whose messages may contain information that is not only private but highly valuable. At the very least, it's worth running the numbers again to see whether offering strong encryption might now be a net boon to the company's bottom line.

Furthermore, he notes that Google can use this to take a real stand against efforts by law enforcement to build wiretapping into email. Those efforts have been going on for a long time, and Google has fought against them in the past. But, he notes, getting people up in arms about the feds taking away something that people already have is a much more powerful motivator than getting them worked up about the feds making it impossible for Google to offer that feature in the future.

Because people are loss-averse, taking away something people already have and value can be all but impossible—while preventing them from getting it in the first place is far easier. By rolling out e-mail encryption now, Google can ensure that ordinary users see myopic efforts to regulate secure communications infrastructure as something that affects all of our privacy and security—not just that of faceless crooks or terrorists.

For what it's worth, Ed Felten responded to Julian's proposal by noting a few potential issues with it: (1) managing the crypto keys and cyrpto code would be an issue (would Google also store your key? if so, many of the benefits go away) and (2) there are features that rely on Google being able to see your email. For that latter issue, he notes that beyond just the question of contextual advertising, it could make things like filtering messages more difficult -- and that includes for more important filters like spam.

Julian responds by noting that these are not insurmountable issues. The management of the crypto keys could be handled by Google if people are okay with it, or they could offer up third party options (whether local, or some other "cloud" provider, such as Dropbox).

...lots of cloud services that offer encryption let the user choose whether or not to let the provider keep a backup copy of the user's keys. The more paranoid could sacrifice some mobility and convenience—and risk losing access to some of their messages if their local copies of the key are destroyed—by opting not to let Google keep even an encrypted copy of their key. Or, as a middle ground, a user could always store an encrypted backup copy of her key with a different cloud provider, like Dropbox, which need not even be known to Google. That provides all of the advantages of storing the key with Google at a relatively minor cost in added hassle, but substantially raises costs for any attacker, who now must not only crack the passphrase protecting the key, but figure out where in the cloud that key is located. Assuming it's accessed relatively infrequently (most of us read our e-mail on the same handful of devices most of the time) even a governmental attacker with subpoena power and access to IP logs is likely to be stymied, especially if the user is also employing traffic-masking tools like Tor

As for the filtering option, he notes that you can still filter based on other metadata, and that most of the encrypted notes are less likely to be spam, since they're more likely to be used between people who know each other. To avoid the problem of spammers suddenly jumping on the encryption bandwagon, he suggests an option where you might only accept encrypted mail from white-listed addresses.

Some Google haters will insist that Google will never do this because it might diminish the contextual ad business, but as Julian explains (in both links!) that's not necessarily the case. Furthermore, Google has, in the past, shown that it recognizes that making a goodwill gesture in terms of increasing privacy or better protecting its users can often pay off in much more usage and public goodwill in the long run. As Julian notes: it seems that it's at least worth running some numbers to see how it might make financial sense to better protect user emails.

We've written a few times about Prenda Law and John Steele lately -- including some of the trouble that Prenda is running into for doing things like being accused of fraud on the court after a crazy hearing in which Prenda denied being associated with the case, despite hiring lawyers and having John Steele present (while trying to deny any role). And then, of course, there are the still open questions about whether or not Prenda set up a shell company by signing, as CEO, the name of a guy who John Steele hired to take care of some property.

For those who have been following these cases, you know that Prenda Law was actually John Steele's "new" firm, after his previous firm Steele Hansmeier was dissolved. Of course, that happened soon after a judge told Steele to stop filing copyright trolling lawsuits.

Given the increasing hot water that Prenda looks to be in, along with the fact that lawyers in other Prenda cases across the country are now alerting judges to Prenda's questionable behavior, the site FightCopyrightTrolls is suggesting that Steele and his crew of copyright trolling lawyers are trying to set up yet another new firm, called the Anti Piracy Law Group. The evidence is compelling. The group has put up a website at "wefightpiracy.org" -- quite similar to Prenda's existing "wefightpiracy.com." And, that new page, in the fine print, admits that it's Prenda. It also includes a page of sample cases that are Prenda cases -- including the now infamous Tuan Nguyen in Florida, which resulted in that "fraud on the court" issue. FightCopyrightTrolls notes that this new "Anti Piracy Law Group" is already sending out "settlement" letters, using the same address as Prenda Law. Once again, watching Steele and his friends do what they do, you get the feeling that they think they're smarter than everyone else, and one step ahead of everyone else. Given the events of the last few months, it seems that he's getting closer and closer to being informed that his theory is incorrect.

Biotech hasn't quite advanced as far as some science fiction stories might depict, but a few amazing genetically-modified organisms look like they're just around the corner, with scientists making biofuels or reviving dinosaurs in the near future. While we should be careful messing with Mother Nature, here are just a few developments to watch out for.

• A transgenic Christmas tree could be engineered to produce green fluorescent protein and glow in the dark (and during the day) without electricity. This idea is over a decade old, so these genetically engineered pine trees should be a reality any time now. [url]
• Some genetic researchers have grown a fish with legs, creating tetrapods that look like the precursors to amphibians. A fish drumstick sounds like it'd be part of a pretty tasty entree. [url]
• Stingray leather could be a fashionable way to make really expensive custom sneakers. Rayfish claims to be able to make stingray leather shoes with custom patterns, but this is probably all a hoax (for now). [url]

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

So, as the deluge of hate towards Instagram got louder and louder concerning its terms of service change, the company has now come out and said that it will change the terms and, of course, that it never meant them to be read the way people were interpreting them, and that it plans to adjust the terms so that people aren't so damn angry at them. On the question of "advertising on Instagram" they note:

From the start, Instagram was created to become a business. Advertising is one of many ways that Instagram can become a self-sustaining business, but not the only one. Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we'd like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear.

To provide context, we envision a future where both users and brands alike may promote their photos & accounts to increase engagement and to build a more meaningful following. Let's say a business wanted to promote their account to gain more followers and Instagram was able to feature them in some way. In order to help make a more relevant and useful promotion, it would be helpful to see which of the people you follow also follow this business. In this way, some of the data you produce — like the actions you take (eg, following the account) and your profile photo — might show up if you are following this business.

The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we're going to remove the language that raised the question. Our main goal is to avoid things likes advertising banners you see in other apps that would hurt the Instagram user experience. Instead, we want to create meaningful ways to help you discover new and interesting accounts and content while building a self-sustaining business at the same time.

I'm sure this won't mollify some, but it is more or less what we had assumed they were trying to do in the first place. The blog post similarly notes that they're not claiming copyright on your images, nor are they mucking with your privacy settings.

In the end, we stand by our initial analysis: almost all of the complaints against Instagram's new terms of service were quite similar to complaints made against other terms of service in the past few years when someone got around to reading the details, which are hard to understand because of the annoying legalese that the lawyers want you to put in. Instagram -- and especially its new owners at Facebook -- should have realized ahead of time what was about to happen. They could have cut off an awful lot of this mess if they had posted a similar blog post before the new terms were released, or with the new terms explaining what they were really trying to do and why. When you let people imagine the worst, they will do so.

What has been somewhat forgotten in the ensuing situation that resulted in General David Petraeus stepping down from his post at the top of the CIA, is that the whole thing started when his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell was accused of "cyberstalking" by another woman, Jill Kelley. That led to a chain of events, including having the FBI go through various email accounts, exposing the affair and some other soap opera-y stuff involving generals. And, in the end, the original cyberstalking charge, that kicked it all off, is being dropped. Of course, that only raises even more questions about why the FBI went snooping through everyone's emails in the first place.

It was always questionable for the FBI to pursue a cyberstalking investigation against Broadwell, who used an anonymous email account, “kelleypatrol,” to tell Florida-based military officers like Marine Gen. John Allen that socialite Kelley was bad news. One former federal prosecutor told Danger Room that it was “highly irregular” for the FBI to take up such cases.

While some insist that it's fine for the FBI to snoop through Petraeus' emails given his position, it seems like they should have had much more of a reason than "hey, someone's bothering someone else online."

In this edition of "Real Life Soap Operas, as Seen Via Court Filings," we have a case involving someone putting a severed horse head into a pool, anonymous accusations, family members accusing family members, blog comments calling someone a terrorist and... wait... a severed horse head in a pool? Yup. From the ruling in LeBlanc v. Skinner at the New York State Supreme Court:

The defendant Wayne Skinner, a former Town Supervisor of the Town of Wawayanda, and his wife, the defendant Karen Skinner (hereinafter together the Skinner defendants), were involved in a number of Town policy disagreements with the plaintiff, David LeBlanc. Wayne Skinner was elected to his position as a Democrat. The plaintiff, a Wawayanda businessman, attended numerous Town Board meetings, voicing his concerns over a variety of issues, including property taxes, and donated money to one of Wayne Skinner's Republican political rivals.

Nonparty Gail Soro was one of Wayne Skinner's colleagues, and a Wawayanda Town Board member. Soro likewise was an elected Democrat. In July 2006, Soro discovered a severed horse head in her swimming pool. It was never determined who was responsible for the incident. Nonetheless, as could be expected after any incident with such cinematic bravado, public comment ensued. Of relevance here were a number of blog entries posted on a web site allegedly dedicated to community issues and local government, and a number of comments on the local newspaper's web site. These blog entries and comments accused the plaintiff of being responsible for the horse head incident.

Yes, this obvious reference to that classic scene from The Godfather caught some attention from the wider community, and the court. As the ruling notes in a footnote:

While the discovery of any deliberately placed mutilated animal carcass in a family swimming pool would be shocking and noteworthy, the choice of a severed horse head immediately evokes to many the infamous scene from Mario Puzo's novel, "The Godfather," as immortalized in the film directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The scene, probably one of the most iconic in cinematic history, has come to exemplify an act of intimidation through violence, a reminder of power, and a warning that a request or "offer" from a Godfather or leader of an organized crime family should not be "refused."

That said, the case has little to do with the actual severed horse head, but rather the many, many accusations that flew around following its discovery:

In the amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged that, with the assistance of Hawkins, the Skinner defendants posted several defamatory statements on the Internet regarding the plaintiff. More specifically, the first and second causes of action in the amended verified complaint alleged that Hawkins, at the request and direction of the Skinner defendants, posted two allegedly defamatory statements regarding the plaintiff on August 29, 2007, and October 6, 2007, respectively, on the now-defunct web site www.wawayandafirst.blogspot.com (hereinafter the Wawayandafirst blogspot). In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had posted the following comment on October 30, 2007, at www.forums.recordonline.com, a site run by the area newspaper (hereinafter the newspaper site): "We all know who was behind the Horse Head . . . there is only one man around town dumb enough, violent enough and with a vendetta to do that . . . Dave LeBlanc . . . I hope all this negative publicity on him destroys his business." The fourth cause of action alleged that the defendants posted the following comments on the newspaper site on October 30, 2007: "Dave LeBlanc is a terrorist" and "Who was the one who threw the horse head in Gail's pool . . . check it out: . . . wawayandafirstblogspot.com."

The case gets even more complicated when it is explained that "Hawkins" is the nephew of the "Skinner defendants" named above -- and while they were all named as defendants, they quickly turned on each other, with Hawkins claiming he posted stuff online, but entirely at the direction of his aunt and uncle. The Skinners hit back with a variety of claims as well.

But the two key points are that the court noted:

1. Calling someone a "terrorist" online isn't defamation.
2. Accusing someone of severing a horse's head and dumping it in a pool, however, could be defamation.

It's really the first one that's important -- as that scenario is somewhat more likely to repeat itself than the second issue:

Internet forums are venues where citizens may participate and be heard in free debate involving civic concerns. It may be said that such forums are the newest form of the town meeting. We recognize that, although they are engaging in debate, persons posting to these sites assume aliases that conceal their identities or "blog profiles." Nonetheless, falsity remains a necessary element in a defamation claim and, accordingly, "only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action" (600 W. 115th St. Corp. v Von Gutfeld, 80 NY2d 130, 139, cert denied 508 US 910; see Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146, 153). Within this ambit, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the accusation on the newspaper site that the plaintiff was a "terrorist" was not actionable. Such a statement was likely to be perceived as "rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet" (Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v Bresler, 398 US 6, 14; see Milkovich v Lorain Journal Co., 497 US 1; Immuno AG. v Moor—Jankowski, 77 NY2d 235, 254, cert denied 500 US 954). This conclusion is especially apt in the digital age, where it has been commented that readers give less credence to allegedly defamatory Internet communications than they would to statements made in other milieus (see Sandals Resorts Intl., Ltd. v Google, Inc., 86 AD3d 32, 43-44, quoting Jennifer O'Brien, Note, Putting a Face to a [Screen] Name: The First Amendment Implications of Compelling ISPS to Reveal the Identities of Anonymous Internet Speakers in Online Defamation Cases, 70 Fordham L. Rev. 2745 [2002]). Accordingly, we conclude that this statement constitued an expression of opinion, and, as such, is nonactionable.

As Eric Goldman highlights, it's good to see more and more courts recognizing that random insults thrown out in online forums shouldn't be treated the same way as, say, a formal accusation in the press. Context matters:

...there is now an impressive body of precedent holding that people don't interpret online name-calling literally. See, e.g., Seldon v. Compass Restaurant, Chaker v. Mateo, Sandals v. Google (cited here), DiMeo v. Max, Finkel v. Dauber and others. I wish this meant that plaintiffs will think twice about suing over online name-calling, but I doubt it.

Of course, name calling is one thing. Accusing someone of dumping a severed horse's head in a pool -- if the horse's head really did show up in a pool -- people might take that accusation a bit more seriously. And, as in this case, it could lead to a defamation claim not getting tossed out so easily.

It's no secret that I don't think much of the TSA. In addition to a long list of pieces we've done on what I consider one of the most useless government agencies, there's also the more recent story I covered discussing whether or not the agency's operations have resulted in more deaths in the past decade than all the terrorism against American's combined. Still, there is some discussion over whether all of this freedom-taking and death is worth the fuzzy feeling we all suposedly get when boarding a plane, knowing that at least all of this asshat-ery is making us safer.

But then you hear the story of someone like Shelbi Walser, a twelve year old girl from Texas who suffers brittle bone disease and also apparently has to suffer with over-zealous federal employees that don't have enough common sense to fill a thimble.

Shelbi Walser, 12, has brittle bone disease, and was flying to Tampa, Fla., to receive treatment on Sunday when she was randomly selected for an explosives screening on her way through security. Tammy Daniels, Walser's mother, said that her daughter tested positive for explosives when a screener swabbed Walser's palms and fingers.

Speaking with ABC affiliate WFAA, Walser said that she has no idea how the traces of explosive got on her. "It could have come off fertilizer, because we have chickens. I could have run through something from them," she said. "It could have just come off the ground, because I roll through everything."

Here's the thing. Even if you believe that the threat of terrorism via explosives on airplanes is everything that the government would have you believe (and I don't), and even if you think that the methods used by the TSA can help make us safer (and I don't), we're still left with a federal agency that is given so much leeway in curtailing our liberty that they at least should get their damned jobs right. There can be such a thing as common sense in airport security, where you understand that the 12 year old Texan with brittle bone disease probably isn't going 'splode a jetliner. Certainly it seems unlikely that it would take an hour for the TSA to come to this determination.

"I am by no means undermining our safety in the air. After 9/11, by no means am I doing that," Daniels told WFAA. "But when it comes to children, common sense is not in a textbook."

This has always been the problem with the TSA: in the absence of common sense there is such a thing as the paralysis of bureaucracy, and when that paralysis comes to the people in the form of handbook-style security, then that's a win for the very people we're supposed to be protected against.

It never fails. No one actually reads the various terms of service for the different online services you use, but when someone finally does -- out of boredom or (more likely) because the terms are changing (yet again!) -- it's not uncommon to see sudden mass outrage. It seems to flare up every few months. Last time around it was Pinterest and this time it's Instagram, based on the claim that the company (now owned by Facebook) will have new terms that allow it to sell your photos to the highest bidder, for which you will get nothing. There is some outrage over that (selling my work!), but the thing that seems to be upsetting people the most is the fact that the company is reserving the right to have your images be used in advertisements. Here's the part in the new terms:

Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

This has created quite a bit of general outrage, though I'd argue that most (though, not all) of it is misplaced. There are some extreme arguments on both sides -- from Sam Biddle at Gizmodo telling everyone to "shut up" because they're acting like a "little whiny baby" to David Meyer at ZDNet insisting this is a move too far, and is totally unacceptable. Others are pulling out the "it's a business, what did you expect" line.

The most reasonable take I've seen so far comes from Kash Hill at Forbes, who goes through the new terms methodically, explaining what they mean. The whole "use in advertising" thing sounds basically like they're going to integrate Instagram images into Facebook's existing efforts for things like "Sponsored Stories." If that doesn't creep you out, then perhaps you shouldn't be too worried about this new thing:

If this sounds familiar, it's because it's a page from the Facebook book. It sounds like Instagram is planning something along the lines of "Sponsored Stories." So if you go into a business and gram your experience, the business can use the gram in ads, probably targeted at your friends to encourage them to do the same. The fact that Instagram grants itself the right to use metadata is significant — that means it knows the exact location where a photo was taken, making it easy for businesses to know a photo was taken inside one of their fine establishments. A big question here is whether these ad campaigns will be limited to Instagram's (and Facebook's) platforms or if they will migrate outside of the Instabook ecosystem.

Le's be honest: Many of the photos on Instagram are perfect for this. A sample gram from my weekend: "Best bloody mary in D.C. At the Pig;" that's a Pig ad waiting to happen. Actually it's a Pig ad that already happened, but no one got paid for it. Most of us are already essentially packaging and advertising our experiences to our friends (as Joe Brown at Gizmodo makes clear); Instagram is wisely trying to make money off of it.

When pitched that way, it doesn't sound nearly as bad. After all, if you were talking about how awesome the burgers at your favorite burger joint are, is it so crazy to think that the burger place might want to repeat your enthusiasm as part of their push to get more customers? Furthermore, even if the terms are worded poorly (it's mostly boilerplate, and you'll find somewhat similar terms in lots of places) if Instagram really went out and started selling your photos to appear in, say, a big magazine or TV ad, there would be significant public backlash over that, such that it's probably in their own best interest not to do that without direct permission.

That said, there are a few questionable things in the terms that may lead to legal trouble. When they say: "You acknowledge that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such" they're asking for a beatdown from the FTC (though, the current Facebook terms include an almost-identical item).

The thing that really surprises me in all of this is that Facebook/Instagram didn't see this coming. Perhaps it's because Facebook seems to do this kind of thing every few months -- in which they change their terms or launch a new feature that has a surprising impact on some element of privacy -- leading to mass complaints and outrage... which all gradually fade away. So maybe Facebook just figures to weather the storm -- and, chances are, for all the people complaining, very few will actually leave Instagram.

Still, earlier this year, Tumblr finally realized that it makes sense to put up plain language terms of service that isn't chock full of legalese (beyond what's necessary) and which include straightforward explanations for what the different clauses mean and how they impact you. It seems like Facebook/Instagram could have cut off a significant amount of criticism of this move if they'd simply done that: better explain in plain language what they're doing and why they're doing it. Instead, just flipping the switch on new terms is bound to set off this kind of firestorm of anger.

As Mike covered earlier, politicians are particularly opportunistic beasts, willing to turn any tragedy into a soapbox and a chance to push through pet legislation. Even if the politicians aren't particularly wed to gun control or censorship, they're more than willing to get on the bandwagon if it will net them a little facetime with the press or the appearance of "doing something."

The latest addition to the list of opportunists is Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who states that something needs to be done about violent video games and movies, whether or not they had anything to do with last week's tragedy.

“We also need to look at the violence our kids see every day starting at a young age. By the time children reach 18 years old, they have seen tens of thousands of violent images – on television, the internet, or video games. As parents, research confirms what we already know – these violent images have a negative impact on our children’s wellbeing. While we don’t know if such images impacted the killer in Newtown, the issue of violent content is serious and must be addressed.

Rockefeller doesn't specify any particular research, but then, this is a press release, not an editorial. And despite admitting that everything he's worried about may not have affected the Newtown killer, something must still be done because... well, because this is Rockefeller's pet issue.

Back in 2007, Rockefeller led a push to grant the FCC "explicit authority" over violent and indecent programming, including the assessment of heftier fines for violators. Back then, he used his "tens of thousands of violent images" scare quote as well, and mentioned a wealth of research that backed up his assertions... but failed to name a single study in his press release.

Having failed with this initial push, Rockefeller saddled up the hobby horse again in 2009, revisiting the Children's Television Act. He claimed this was just a fact-finding mission and not another attempt to push the FCC to clean up television to his exacting specifications. One is almost tempted to believe him, right up until he details his frustration with the reactions of his fellow senators to his FCC-related effort.

He said he had not been deterred by the reactions of his fellow Senators to a hearing last year at which he featured a clip reel of violent programming. He said he was shot down, mostly by members of his own party, because of concerns over the First Amendment. "There was an automatic mindset that because the First Amendment exists, you cannot even be talking about this so don't waste my time. I was furious, and I was undeterred."

As everyone knows, the First Amendment only protects speech you 100% approve of.* How dare these so-called Senators express concerns about turning the FCC into a tool of censorship! It's refreshing that Rockefeller remains "undeterred" in his efforts to sacrifice the First Amendment on the altar of "protecting the children."

*100% not a fact.

He's a few years behind his biannual schedule, but Rockefeller is riding high in the hobby horse saddle yet again, thanks to America's rather more frequent delivery of exploitable tragedies. He may have made a few points on gun control and mental health in this release, but he undoes any forward momentum by opportunistically exhuming his "violent media" platform.

It's really amazing how various governments around the globe fall sway to the bogus Hollywood talking points about how much copyright infringement is "harming" their business. Rather than recognizing that the situation is one where Hollywood's failure to adapt a modern business model is the biggest issue, or that (at best) this should be a civil issue, law enforcement groups have had no problem doing Hollywood's work for them. The latest? The City of London police are setting up their own "intellectual property crime unit" to deal with copyright infringement -- specifically looking to go after dowloaders. In other words, something straight out of Cory Doctorow's Pirate Cinema book, which happens to be our book club book this month.

The effort is being led by business secretary Vince Cable, who has sounded more reasonable on the subject in the past. But now he's setting up a private police force for Hollywood right inside the London police? And, even worse, he's pretending that this somehow encourages more creativity?

"Our creativity, our openness to and talent for innovation, is a key pillar of our return to robust growth. So it is right we work to create the environment in which creative, innovative businesses of all shapes and sizes flourish," Cable said in a speech at The Big Innovation Centre in London.

"A vital part of this is making sure the intellectual property landscape encourages and cements success and growth. The new vision for how we support businesses and consumers is central to achieving this."

Openness to talent and innovation isn't spurred along by giving one industry the ability to use the police to stop people from making mashups and being creative. It does the opposite. It creates fear among creative types and drives them further underground, rather than helping to add to creativity and culture. This seems like a big step backward for a group that had promised to take a more evidence-based approach to copyright reform.

We've talked in the past about the US State Department's horrific IP Attache program. These are US government "diplomats" whose sole job is to go around the world spreading copyright and patent maximalist propaganda based on the interests of a few large US companies. There's been an effort underway to expand this group -- and, in fact, one of the many clauses hidden in SOPA was a plan to do so, massively. After SOPA failed, Lamar Smith actually tried to pass a bill that focused just on expanding the IP Attache group, but thanks to a quick outcry, that seemed to get shelved too.

Nearly four years ago, we wrote about the IP Attaches getting together to whine about all of those darn "anti-IP activists" making their lives difficult -- and apparently they're still at it. The US Chamber of Commerce -- a giant lobbying group who was one of the major backers of SOPA -- apparently hosted the IP Attache annual gathering recently, allowing for more rants about people making their lives difficult by actually telling people that maybe, just maybe, expanding copyright and patent law isn't such a good thing. And, can we just note how odd it is that no one thinks there's any conflict of interest at all in a lobbying group hosting an event for these US government employees?

The main target of derision among IP Attaches? NGOs, or non-governmental organizations -- who are normally focused on pesky things like the well-being of the public. But, according to the IP Attaches, these darn NGOs and their do-gooding is getting in the way of them getting to spread their Hollywood and US Chamber of Commerce-backed maximalist propaganda:

Karin Ferriter, the IP attache to the World Trade Organization, had particularly sharp words for non-governmental organisations operating in Geneva, where she said there a “number of people working to undermine IP.”

Such opponents are “heavily populated” in Geneva but not typically found in the capitals, she said. She referred to a recent trip she had to Cameroon, where, she said, government officials were “true believers” and want better quality products through IP rights.

“People in Geneva are misinformed by the NGO community to devalue IP,” Ferriter said. And the job of the IP attaches is to remind them of the importance of IP and a strong IP system.

“Unfortunately,” she said, NGOs “are working just as much as possible to weaken the IP system.” There is a disconnect, Ferriter said, “but that’s where we come in, to help them see the value of it.”

Others noted similar issues, even calling such NGOs "the wrong people" spreading "the wrong message."

Todd Reves, the IP attache to the UN in Geneva, particularly the World Intellectual Property Organization, concurred with Ferriter. He said in Geneva, it is often a case of “the wrong people talking to the right people.” Some diplomats there are not IP experts, and some are given more flexibility to act on their government’s behalf, so they are “more susceptible” to the messages of the NGOs. “They may be hearing the wrong message,” he said.

Notice the tricky use of words here: anyone who looks at the mountains of evidence that show stricter IP laws can have serious limiting impacts on innovation and economic growth isn't just "wrong" but they're "not IP experts." We see this all the time in the comments here. In the maximalist world, your opinion doesn't matter if you don't have a history of profiting off of the IP system. That makes you an expert. Those who actually understand, say, the economic, cultural or health impacts of expanded IP programs... they're just not experts.

Some of the specifics they talked about show how these folks are all about massively increasing patents and copyrights around the globe, no matter what the consequences. One attache complains about how Brazil has all sorts of well educated people, but they're just not getting enough patents. As if more patents is the end goal. Similarly, another person complains that experts in Southeast Asia have accurately pointed out that patent and copyrights "are equated with products being more expensive." He seems horrified by this bit of factual information getting out into the world, and suggests that IP Attaches in the area need to focus more on "the positive benefits of IP" and push that. The idea that the people he denigrates are actually right, and perhaps the people in those countries are better served with more affordable products, does not seem to occur to him. That's not his job, of course. He's not there to make things better in the world. He's there to make things more expensive, so big US companies can profit -- and he's getting paid with American taxpayer money to do so.

Not surprisingly, the same guy is really excited about the "ripple effects" the TPP and its ridiculous language on copyrights and patents will have on the region -- hopefully forcing many countries to sign onto legislation favored by US corporate interests.

Then there's this:

Reves summed up: “We’re trying to change the view that IP is bad to IP is good.” He mentioned an enterprise forum that is in the works for the 2013 WIPO General Assembly next October, at which companies will highlight the advantages of IP rights. He said that while “the jury is still out,” he is optimistic that five years from now the debate in Geneva will turn more pro-IP.

The idea that WIPO has not been pro-IP enough is hilarious to anyone who's actually followed WIPO over the years. The organization has always been ridiculously pro-IP. And, yes, it's true that in the past few years, they've finally (grudgingly) acknowledged claims from some developing countries that expanded patent laws (mainly) have the ability to cause more harm than good, but the organization is now and has always been ridiculously "pro-IP."

Either way, it's really ridiculous that the US government employs these people, who so blatantly represent the interests of a very small sliver of corporate America, rather than what's actually best for innovation, culture, health and economic growth.

With the BPI (the UK equivalent of the RIAA) successfully getting access to The Pirate Bay blocked via many UK ISPs, it's apparently turned its quixotic sights to the UK Pirate Party for daring to set up a proxy -- as if there aren't hundreds, if not thousands, of other existing proxies out there, and plenty of ways for people to get to the site if they really want to. And, rather than just threaten legal action against the Pirate Party UK (PPUK), the BPI has lovingly sent threat letters to six members of the PPUK National Executive, suggesting that it is ready to sue each of them personally. The BPI is claiming that it has to do this, since it can't sue the party directly, and apparently takes offense at some claims that this is an attempt to bankrupt the leaders of the PPUK. Of course, that's hogwash. Being threatened with a personal lawsuit -- especially by an organization that represents a group of multinational, multibillion dollar companies -- is, without question, a threat of being bankrupted. The BPI does have another choice: give up this silly game of whac-a-mole, stop trying to censor the internet, and teach its member companies how to adapt with new and smarter business models. But, apparently, it's easier to bankrupt your critics.

Last week, the University of Chicago got some attention for posting to its admissions Tumblr page a story about how a package addressed to one "Henry Walton Jones Jr." had appeared in the mail. It apparently took them a little while to realize (a) that this was the "real name" of Indiana Jones in the famous movie series, and (b) that the package was an amazing replica of the journal Jones uses in the first of the movies, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Everyone started to speculate what the deal was, with the UChicago folks wondering if it was an elaborate and creative attempt at getting admitted.

If you're an applicant and sent this to us: Why? How? Did you make it? Why so awesome? If you're a member of the University community and this belongs to you or you've gotten one like it before, PLEASE tell us how you acquired it, and whether or not yours came with a description — or if we're making a big deal out of the fact that you accidentally slipped a gift for a friend in to the inter-university mail system. If you are an Indiana Jones enthusiast and have any idea who may have sent this to us or who made it, let us know that, too.

I love that "why so awesome" question slipped in there... There was also speculation that it might be part of a viral marketing campaign or alternative reality game. But, in the end, the answer was really quite mundane. This was really about... the US Postal Service being helpful (or trying to be). There's a guy named Paul Charfauros, who makes such replicas and sells them on eBay. He told the University of Chicago that the USPS had contacted him recently to inform him that it had lost one of his packages, as it had slipped out of an envelope.

"Somewhere between Guam and Italy the replica fell out of its original external package and was lost in Honolulu, Hawaii," Garrett Brinker, director of undergraduate outreach for the university, said in an interview with Wired. "Then for some reason, with fake postage, no tracking, not even a zip code — it looks like the Postal Service had to manually write in a zip code on the package — somehow without all of that the package landed in our laps in Chicago, Illinois."

Basically, the package above was in another envelope address to the real buyer -- but when the inner package slipped out, the USPS assumed that it was an accurate package, and shipped it on to the address at the University, even without the postage (and, apparently, they didn't even ask for the proper postage from the recipient, which is a little odd). Either way, the seller has agreed to let the University keep the copy in exchange for some UChicago swag. And, back at the University "multiple departments" are now fighting over the journal. Perhaps they should consider buying a few more from Charfauros...

Earlier this year, we noted that a court in Iceland had ordered Visa to start accepting donations to Wikileaks again. There's been some cat and mouse games as the various payment processors, under pressure from US officials, cut off the site a while back. The latest, however is that the Swedish Pirate Party itself has pressed charges against Swedish banks for discriminating against Wikileaks.

The charges were filed eariler today with the Swedish Finansinspektionen, the authority which oversees bank licenses and abuse of position. This follows an earlier initiative from the Pirate Party to regulate credit card companies on the European level in order to deny them the ability to determine who gets to trade and who doesn’t.

“The blockade is a serious threat against the freedoms of opinion and expression”, says the Pirate Party’s Erik Lönroth, who has been preparing the formal charges. “It must not be up to the individual payment provider to determine which organizations are eligible for donations. At the same time, these charges will bring clarity as to whether the bank regulations of today are sufficient, or if regulations need to be tightened to protect freedom of expression.”

I don't quite understand Swedish law, so it's not entirely clear to me how the Swedish Pirate Party has standing in which to bring these charges. However, it looks like "charges" basically mean asking the relevant regulatory body to investigate whether the actions are legal. Given how much power a very small number of payment companies have over what can and cannot accept money online, it would be nice for there to be some rules against discrimination. Of course, an even better answer would be to create more services that can accept payment...

After Huffington Post was sold to AOL for $315 million, there was a really, really silly discussion among a small group of the volunteers who blogged on the site for free (again, voluntarily), who whined about how this was somehow unfair. They ignored the fact that they took none of the risk, spent none of the money, had no obligations to provide content and clearly agreed to receive no money for their actions -- but still, they whined. Some then went even further and filed a very silly lawsuit, led by Jonathan Tasini. Tasini, previously, had successfully sued the NY Times concerning that company's handling of freelance works. Of course, given that he's now sued two major publications which he freelanced for, what publication would ever allow him to write freelance pieces again? It seemed that his success in the NYT suit led him to be over confident with this lawsuit. There was simply no basis for it: he blogged on the site voluntarily, knowing that he'd receive no compensation for it. To then whine that the investors, who took all the risk, made some money selling the site when he had no equity stake in the site, isn't just sour grapes, it's legally ridiculous.

Thankfully, the district court smacked the case down pretty hard, and did so with prejudice, denying him the ability to refile an amended complaint. However, Tasini wasn't ready to give up, and appealed the original ruling. The appeals court has now taken its turn in smacking down the lawsuit, noting that Tasini's argument is simply ridiculous, as you can see in the full filing (also embedded below):

The problem with plaintiffs' argument is that it has no basis in their Amended Complaint. Nowhere in the Amended Complaint do plaintiffs allege that The Huffington Post represented that their work was purely for public service or that The Huffington Post would not subsequently be sold to another company. To the contrary, plaintiffs were perfectly aware that The Huffington Post was a forprofit enterprise, which derived revenues from their submissions through advertising. Perhaps most importantly, at all times prior to the merger when they submitted their work to The Huffington Post, plaintiffs understood that they would receive compensation only in the form of exposure and promotion. Indeed, these arrangements have never changed.

Though it is no doubt a great disappointment to find that The Huffington Post did not live up to the ideals plaintiffs ascribed to it, plaintiffs have made no factual allegations that, if taken as true, would permit the inference that The Huffington Post deceived the plaintiffs or otherwise received a benefit at the expense of the plaintiffs such that equity and good conscience require restitution.

In other words, Tasini's inability to accept the deal he made, and the fact that he apparently got jealous of Huffington's ability to sell the site, is not a legal issue at all. The court also re-affirms that the dismissal with prejudice was entirely proper. Maybe, instead of spending all this time on lawsuits, Tasini would be better served trying to build his own site. Of course, as was ironically noted after he filed his lawsuit, Tasini actually did that once and didn't pay the bloggers who blogged for him...