<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;policies&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 03:27:55 PST</pubDate>
<title>Mesa County Police Have Been Using Drones For Years, Still Coming Up With Rules On Use</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121213/16422521381/mesa-county-police-have-been-using-drones-years-still-coming-up-with-rules-use.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121213/16422521381/mesa-county-police-have-been-using-drones-years-still-coming-up-with-rules-use.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The march towards drones becoming a common tool for domestic law enforcement agencies seems inevitable and some people aren't happy about it. We've already covered the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-artists-satirizes-law-enforcement-drone-program-gets-book-thrown-him-nypd.shtml">backlash</a> against one artist who satarized New York City's drone program. San Diego, for their part, valiantly refused to honor an FOIA request on their domestic UAV program because they determined on their own that there wouldn't be a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121119/13591421096/san-diego-refuses-to-answer-foia-requests-about-drones-because-there-is-very-little-public-benefit.shtml">public benefit</a> to the disclosure. MuckRock thought that was a dodge not afforded San Diego under FOIA rules, but San Diego again declined to say anything at all about the program.
<center>
<p>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/stefansundkvist/4697864162/" title="SUAV Falken by Stefan Sundkvist, on Flickr"><img alt="SUAV Falken" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4041/4697864162_18fd35f0d5.jpg" width="400" /></a><br />
<span style="font-size:10px;">"Sorry, citizen, but Detective Iron Death-Spy is very, very shy."<br />
Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/stefansundkvist/4697864162/">source</a>: CC BY 2.0</span></p>
</center>
<p>
But one thing that has generally been accepted is that law enforcement agencies were required to operate these drones under very strict guidelines and within very strict geographic boundaries. It would appear, for Mesa County, Colorado at least, <a href="https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2012/dec/13/mesa-county-co-sheriff-authorized-use-drones-simil/">that may not be universally true</a>. The EFF&#39;s Drone Census project has uncovered that Mesa County has two UAVs and can operate them without many of the restrictions in place elsewhere.
<blockquote>
<i>The MCSO must abide by standard FAA restrictions on domestic UAV flights, which cap flights to below 400 feet and preclude night flights or operating over "populated areas, heavily trafficked roads, or an open-air assembly of people." But MCSO's drone authorization includes no geographic restrictions: effectively, the agency can fly its UAVs anywhere in Mesa County. This freedom has allowed the agency to log dozens of operational missions since fall 2010. MCSO flight logs indicate that its UAV team has logged more than 160 flight hours on its drones since January 2011.</i>
</blockquote>
So, whereas other UAV programs are restricted to flying over areas where they could chiefly assist in locating missing people in difficult to surveil areas, Mesa County can fly them anywhere within their jurisdiction without any limitations beyond the somewhat vague-sounding "populated areas, heavily trafficked roads" or the open air above a large assembly of people. That can leave a great deal of sky to buzz around with less of the oversight I think is desperately needed in programs like this.
<br /><br />
Now, just to be clear, these drones do not carry arms. They are used for imaging. Then again, as the creep continues, the rules keep shifting towards greater use and application, so it wouldn't be fair to slam anyone concerned that someday we may indeed see armed UAVs over our skies. Equally worrying is this:
<blockquote>
<i>MCSO has been using drones operationally for two years, but the department has no written drone policy outlining the uses for which its officers may deploy UAVs. Ms. Barnes writes that MCSO is "currently in the process of drafting a written policy for the use of our unmanned aircraft."</i>
</blockquote>
Well, that's just peaches. Military-style technology deployed domestically without any official policy for its use. I feel so warm and fuzzy inside.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121213/16422521381/mesa-county-police-have-been-using-drones-years-still-coming-up-with-rules-use.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121213/16422521381/mesa-county-police-have-been-using-drones-years-still-coming-up-with-rules-use.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121213/16422521381/mesa-county-police-have-been-using-drones-years-still-coming-up-with-rules-use.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>spy-games</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121213/16422521381</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:17:08 PDT</pubDate>
<title>One Day After DC Police Told Not To Interfere With Citizens Recording Them... Police Seize Man's Phone</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12443919846/one-day-after-dc-police-told-not-to-interfere-with-citizens-recording-them-police-seize-mans-phone.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12443919846/one-day-after-dc-police-told-not-to-interfere-with-citizens-recording-them-police-seize-mans-phone.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ So, yesterday, everyone was feeling warm and fuzzy about the very clear statement by Washington DC's police chief Cathy Lanier pushing out a very explicit <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/15385919815/dc-police-chief-lays-down-new-cellcamera-policy-dont-seize-dont-delete-dont-interfere.shtml">policy</a> to all DC police concerning mobile phone cameras.  The policy was straightforward: police cannot interfere with someone recording them.  They cannot demand to know why they're recording them.  And they cannot seize the phone.
<br /><br />
It appears that some police officers didn't read the memo.
<br /><br />
As noted by <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/one-day-after-dc-polices-reasonable-camera-policy-phones-still-taken/" target="_blank">Ars Technica</a>, the day after the policy was announced, a police officer <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/one-day-after-dc-polices-reasonable-camera-policy-phones-still-taken/" target="_blank">seized a guy's camera for recording police activities</a>.  They did eventually give the phone back but kept the memory card and the guy is pissed off because the card supposedly has hundreds of photos of his daughter on there.
<br /><br />
The DC police say that they're "looking into" the report.  It would be nice to see them follow up on their original policy statement with a clear rebuke of the officers involved.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12443919846/one-day-after-dc-police-told-not-to-interfere-with-citizens-recording-them-police-seize-mans-phone.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12443919846/one-day-after-dc-police-told-not-to-interfere-with-citizens-recording-them-police-seize-mans-phone.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12443919846/one-day-after-dc-police-told-not-to-interfere-with-citizens-recording-them-police-seize-mans-phone.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-of-course</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120726/12443919846</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 5 Dec 2011 11:57:04 PST</pubDate>
<title>Kaspersky Dumps BSA For Its Support Of SOPA; Says SOPA Hurts Consumers &#038; Innovation</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111205/03583916970/kaspersky-dumps-bsa-its-support-sopa-says-sopa-hurts-consumers-innovation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111205/03583916970/kaspersky-dumps-bsa-its-support-sopa-says-sopa-hurts-consumers-innovation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember last month, when some SOPA supporters were pretending that because the Business Software Alliance (BSA) supported SOPA, it meant that all of its member companies supported SOPA too?  Yeah, well, that resulted in the BSA <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/12585716869/bsa-changes-its-mind-sopa-unintended-consequences-too-big.shtml">backing down</a>, after it realized (with some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/11042416888/microsofts-cold-feet-over-sopa-behind-bsas-rethinking-its-views.shtml">prompting from Microsoft</a>) that perhaps SOPA wasn't such a good thing.  It appears that that's not enough for some tech companies.  Anti-virus firm Kaspersky has announced that it's <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/kaspersky-dumps-anti-piracy-group-in-sopa-protest-111205/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed: Torrentfreak (Torrentfreak)&#038;utm_content=Google Reader" target="_blank">dumping its association with the BSA</a> because of its support for SOPA.  The company says that it "does not support this initiative," explaining:
<blockquote><i>
We believe that such measures will be used contrary to the modern advances in technology and the needs of consumers.
</i></blockquote>
Perhaps the BSA will learn to not be so quick on the draw in the future to support every single idea to make copyright more and more draconian.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111205/03583916970/kaspersky-dumps-bsa-its-support-sopa-says-sopa-hurts-consumers-innovation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111205/03583916970/kaspersky-dumps-bsa-its-support-sopa-says-sopa-hurts-consumers-innovation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111205/03583916970/kaspersky-dumps-bsa-its-support-sopa-says-sopa-hurts-consumers-innovation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>can't-support-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111205/03583916970</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 1 Jul 2011 04:17:35 PDT</pubDate>
<title>If The Gov't Wants To Stop Hactivists, It Should Look At Its Policy Choices First</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/15552514891/if-govt-wants-to-stop-hactivists-it-should-look-its-policy-choices-first.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/15552514891/if-govt-wants-to-stop-hactivists-it-should-look-its-policy-choices-first.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As law enforcement continue to try to chase down every lead to figure out who was <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/lulzraid/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired27b+%28Blog+-+27B+Stroke+6+%28Threat+Level%29%29">behind LulzSec</a>, a bit of wisdom from Loz Kaye in the UK. He notes that efforts like LulzSec, Wikileaks, Anonymous and others are <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/28/radical-hackers-lulzsec-governments" target="_blank">being driven by bad government policies</a>, in which governments look to clamp down on free speech and shut down technologies they don't understand, just because some people might use them for things the government doesn't like.  The end effect is actually driving more people to demonstrate just what the technology can be used for in protest.
<blockquote><i>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/lulzsec" title="Guardian: LulzSec">LulzSec</a> wasn't an isolated or unique phenomenon. People with passionate beliefs have been using new technological tools to effect change out of a sense of powerlessness. In the last year, I've watched <a href="http://38degrees.org.uk/" title="38 Degrees">38 Degrees</a> using the strength of association online to change government policy, WikiLeaks force transparency on those who'd rather run from it, even the amorphous mass that is Anonymous taking a stand on whatever issue they feel deserves their attention.</p><p></p><p>These tools are now themselves under attack. Lord Mandelson's last gift to us, the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/contents" title="Legislation.gov: Digital Economy Act">Digital Economy Act</a>, is just one of a raft of "three strikes laws" worldwide that threaten to cut off households from the web. Buried in the coalition's Prevent strategy is the assertion that "<a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/prevent-strategy-claims:-internet-filtering-is-essential" title="Open Rights Group: Home Office claims 'internet filtering is essential'">internet filtering across the public estate is essential</a>". Nor is it solely a British issue; Nicolas Sarkozy called for global online governance at the eG8 in his attempt to civilise the "wild west" of the web.</p>
</i></blockquote>
I don't think very many people in the government recognize this simple fact.  They continue to treat these web-native movements as if they can be dealt with in the same manner as criminal operations.  They may arrest a few people here or there, but that's not going to have the desired impact.  If anything, it's only going to drive even more people to join the fray.
<blockquote><i>
We've reached a critical juncture: either we sail headlong into escalating confrontation, or we attempt to change tack and reduce the tension by finding a democratic way forward, one that preserves our right to free association. From anonymous bloggers in Iran, to those using Twitter and Facebook in Tahrir Square and even teenagers in the bedrooms of Essex, there is a common thread. A feeling of persecution and dismay that our freedoms are being suppressed.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, I can't see any government today smart enough to recognize this.  It seems that they're going to continue down this path that they've chosen, and then act surprised when it fails to have much of an impact, other than to escalate the problems.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/15552514891/if-govt-wants-to-stop-hactivists-it-should-look-its-policy-choices-first.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/15552514891/if-govt-wants-to-stop-hactivists-it-should-look-its-policy-choices-first.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/15552514891/if-govt-wants-to-stop-hactivists-it-should-look-its-policy-choices-first.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-right-way-and-the-wrong-way</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110628/15552514891</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 01:16:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Walmart Employees Fired For Disarming Gun-Toting Robber</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110214/16295313090/walmart-employees-fired-disarming-gun-toting-robber.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110214/16295313090/walmart-employees-fired-disarming-gun-toting-robber.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Walmart has pretty specific rules for how employees are supposed to deal with shoplifters, however, it does seem a bit bizarre that the company would go so far as to <a href="http://consumerist.com/2011/02/walmart-employees-fired-for-stopping-armed-robber.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">fire some employees who disarmed a gun-toting thief</a>.  Obviously, the idea is that they don't want to encourage other employees to do the same thing, but does it really reach up to the level of firing the employees?  At some point you have to wonder if there's a middle ground that makes sense.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110214/16295313090/walmart-employees-fired-disarming-gun-toting-robber.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110214/16295313090/walmart-employees-fired-disarming-gun-toting-robber.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110214/16295313090/walmart-employees-fired-disarming-gun-toting-robber.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no-good-deed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110214/16295313090</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 01:13:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>City Paper Mocks Competitors For 'Policies' Over Stewart/Colbert Rallies</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/17031311597/city-paper-mocks-competitors-for-policies-over-stewart-colbert-rallies.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/17031311597/city-paper-mocks-competitors-for-policies-over-stewart-colbert-rallies.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's been pretty amusing watching various journalism outfits issue official "rules" to their journalists about this weekend's "Rally to Restore Sanity/March to Keep Fear Alive" put on by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.  NPR specifically <a href="http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=192569" target="_blank">banned journalists from participating</a> while the Washington Post similarly <a href="http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-arts/2010/10/washington-post-newsroom-bans-stewart-colbert-rally-participation-3121.html" target="_blank">warned reporters</a>, that they could "observe," but "cannot in any way put themselves in a position that could be construed as supporting (or opposing) that cause."  Yes, how dare reporters be seen supporting sanity!  
<br><br>
Now, as a bunch of folks have sent in, the much smaller Washington City Paper has issued an amusing <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2010/10/26/washington-city-paper-staff-memo-on-stewartcolbert-rallies/" target="_blank">satirical memo to its own staff</a>, mocking the leaked memos from those other news organizations:
<ol><i>
<li>You may attend the rallies in a non-participatory fashion.</li>
<li>However, because the rallies are comic events, you may not laugh.</li>
<li>The act of <em>not</em> laughing, though, can be just as politically loaded as the act of laughing. Therefore, staffers are advised to politely chuckle, in a non-genuine manner, after each joke.</li>
<li>To avoid any perception of bias, please make sure to chuckle at <em>all</em> jokes, whether or not you find them funny. As journalists, we must make sure to not allow our personal views of "humorous" or "non-humorous" to affect our public demeanor.<span id="more-63757"></span></li>
<li>Likewise, it could be devastating to our impartial reputation if our staffers were seen laughing at something that was not intended as a joke, thereby appearing to mock the entire event. If we are lucky, the comedians will have a drummer on hand whose rim-shots may be used as a cue for when to politely chuckle.</li>

<li>If no non-verbal cues for laughter are available, please observe audience members around you. If they are laughing, imitate their laughter with a non-genuine polite chuckle. If they are not laughing, remain stone-faced. Whatever you do, do not apply your own personal cognitive skills to determining the humorousness of any particular clip. Such an approach exposes us to charges of bias.</li>
<li>On the other hand, a situation could arise where partisan foes of the Comedy Central hosts laugh at them in a derisive manner unrelated to the timing of their on-stage jokes. In this case, your failure to join in the mockery could potentially be interpreted as a sign that you disagree with the derision--an equally distasteful indication of bias. Please follow the above guidelines and also chuckle politely, but not genuinely, at any instances of counter-comedy.</li>
<li>In our experience, public appearances by comedy figures also draw audiences whose members frequently make jokes amongst themselves. These attempts at humor might not necessarily fit into the rational example of protesters versus counter-protesters outlined in the guidelines above. However, you could nonetheless indicate a great deal about your personal biases via your decision as to whether or not you laugh along when the person next to you riffs about, say, marginal tax rates. Please make sure to follow the above guidelines and respond via polite, non-genuine, mild guffaws to the jibes of amateur comics in the audience.</li>
<li>We're also aware that the large crowds expected at the rallies could produce a cacophonous din, one in which you are unable to discern which jokes are being made by audience members, counter-protestors, or the day's main attractions--and, worse still, where observers may think you are laughing at an anti-Republican joke when you are actually laughing at an anti-Democrat joke. To protect our cherished reputation against such a danger, I have arranged for each of you to be issued a pair of earplugs. Should the event grow too raucous, please insert these earplugs immediately. Once you have inserted the earplugs, please chuckle politely, and non-genuinely, every 74 seconds, to maintain the appearance of non-biased and appropriate responses to the event.</li>
<li>You are free to laugh heartily and genuinely at any jokes that target the terrorists.</li>
</i></ol>
Separately, it should be noted that the Washington City Paper was kind enough to publish this memo itself.  The similar memos from NPR and the Washington Post were, instead, published by competing outfits that had the memos "leaked."  Kinda makes you wonder why those news outfits leak internal emails for others to report, rather than reporting on such things themselves...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/17031311597/city-paper-mocks-competitors-for-policies-over-stewart-colbert-rallies.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/17031311597/city-paper-mocks-competitors-for-policies-over-stewart-colbert-rallies.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/17031311597/city-paper-mocks-competitors-for-policies-over-stewart-colbert-rallies.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>restoring-sanity</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101026/17031311597</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 7 Jul 2010 07:24:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>AP's New Policy: If They Speak To You, They Can Reprint Anything For Free?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100706/14435410084.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100706/14435410084.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ So, you may have noticed the amusing little story we had on Woot's <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20100706/01260510077.shtml">response to the AP</a> for quoting Woot's blog post.  The Woot blog post did a tongue-in-cheek mocking of the AP for copying its text, when the AP made a huge deal of bloggers doing that to the AP a few years ago.  It was a fun post to kick off the week, and we figured everyone would take it in good fun.  However, as you can see on the "update" to that post, we got a slightly peeved email from the AP's "Director of Media Relations" (who's been sending us a lot of peeved emails lately), Paul Colford, which started off with the classic trollbait comment that haters love to post as blog comments: "Slow news day?"  Then he mentions that the AP INTERVIEWED (yes, he used all caps) Woot's CEO Matt Rutledge, as if that makes things okay.  Of course, the "interview" (sorry, INTERVIEW) is at the end of article and consists of: "I'm really excited."
<br /><br />
Apparently, in the world of the AP, if they get you to say three words to them, then it's now okay to copy content from the source.  Even more odd, the email then said "Meanwhile, AP staffers across the Gulf region and in Washington continue to provide comprehensive coverage of the oil spill."  I have no idea what this non sequitur is supposed to mean, but it appears that I'm not the only one who got a version of this email.  MG Siegler at TechCrunch <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/06/ap-woot-oil-spill/" target="_blank">got something similar</a> as did Rutledge himself.  Tragically, it looks like I was the only one to get the "slow news day" snark.
<br /><br />
MG took the email to its logical conclusion.  Reading between the lines of Colford's email, he appears to be saying that if you get someone to say three words to you, then it's suddenly okay to quote their site without payment.  As Siegler then notes, since he exchanged a couple of emails with Colford on this topic, he's now "interviewed" him, and thus, according to Colford and the AP's own internal logic, it's okay to copy text of of the AP's site, which Siegler does -- picking a recent story about the oil spill in the gulf, since Colford was so quick to point that out.  I think Siegler's on to something.  What I thought was a total non sequitur apparently is really a sign that we should now repost AP stories, since we've "spoken with" Colford and the AP.  I mean, that's the most logical explanation, right?
<br /><br />
Why do I get the feeling that I'll soon be receiving another email from Colford "clarifying" the AP's position?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100706/14435410084.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100706/14435410084.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100706/14435410084.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>am-I-reading-that-right?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100706/14435410084</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:17:26 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How The Entertainment Industry 'Launders' Policy Pronouncements</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090624/1217025350.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090624/1217025350.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's no secret that a great deal of regulations and policies are really written and pushed by lobbyists, and politicians just put their own names on it.  We've seen it quite <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090423/1415514627.shtml">blatantly</a> at times, such as the case where a politician being quizzed about legislation he introduced deferred questions to the industry lobbyist in the room.  However, Michael Geist has done an amazing job taking the recent <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090525/1359354994.shtml">plagiarized and deceptive</a> report from The Conference Board of Canada, which had been totally rewritten due to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090603/0733135109.shtml">complaints from lobbyists</a> and has used it to demonstrate exactly <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4079/125/" target="_new">how this "policy laundering" process works</a>.  Policy laundering is such a great and accurate term.  The industry basically comes up with some totally bogus numbers and keeps pushing them over and over again, trying to get other sources to cite them.  Then, once that happens, the numbers are now backed up as "fact" by some other citation, and things get even more involved.  It's a neat little trick.   When people actually go back and look for the specifics (like Julian Sanchez <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081007/2155422486.shtml">did recently</a>) they discover a mess of smoke and mirrors and nothing whatsoever at the foundation.  But because the numbers have been quoted so widely, often by "legitimate" third parties, they're suddenly taken as fact.  Policy laundering indeed.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090624/1217025350.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090624/1217025350.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090624/1217025350.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>policy-laundering</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090624/1217025350</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 15:19:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why Is Google Changing Its AdWords Trademark Policy Now?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090515/0336134898.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090515/0336134898.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I was quite surprised last week to find out that <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/05/googles_interna.htm" target="_new">Google has changed its rules on trademarks and AdWords</a> in many countries around the world.  In the past, it had limited the use of trademarks both in the ads and (more importantly) as keyword triggers.  In the US it had allowed trademarks as keyword triggers (in most cases), but in other countries, where the laws and the courts more heavily favored trademark holders, the company had been much more strict.
<br /><br />
Now, I think Google is absolutely right to take this stance, as I don't see why it should be a problem at all to advertise on trademarked keywords, so long as the ads aren't confusing to the users.  Trademark is not about ultimate control over the mark, but has always been designed for the sake of consumer protection, to avoid having someone buying Bob's Cola thinking it's Coca-Cola.  It was never designed to give total control to one company and allow them to prevent anyone else from making use of the trademark.  Yet, over the years, trademark law has drifted further and further from those origins, and today many people falsely believe that it's just like a patent or a copyright.
<br /><br />
And, of course, even if you grant the (false) premise that trademarked terms shouldn't be used as keywords to trigger advertising, it's doubly ridiculous that Google should be liable.  Google is just the platform provider, and if there needs to be any liability, then it should be on the advertiser, not Google itself.
<br /><br />
So while I'm quite happy that Google is taking this stance, I'm really surprised (and somewhat confused) as to why it's doing so.  It will almost certainly lead to a lot of expensive lawsuits around the globe -- and given how some other countries interpret trademark law these days, Google stands a decent chance of losing in some of those locations.  Even in the US, the issue still comes up quite often... and, in fact, just as this change was being announced, a <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/05/google_hit_with.htm" target="_new">class action lawsuit was filed against the company in the US</a> over the issue.  Hopefully this case goes nowhere fast, because it seems to be repeating all the mistakes of earlier cases, misunderstanding the purpose of trademarks and falsely blaming Google rather than the actual advertisers.  However, it's noteworthy in that it's the first <i>class action</i> suit of this nature, rather than just a single company.  That means there will likely be more such suits on the way... and we'll start to see them internationally as well, thanks to the policy change.
<br /><br />
In a NY Times article about both the change and the lawsuit, a representative from Google is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/technology/internet/15google.html?_r=1&#038;partner=rss&#038;emc=rss" target="_new">quoted as saying</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"I think that there will be trademark owners that do not like this policy," said Terri Chen, senior trademark counsel at Google. "But trademark law allows for that. It is a pretty well-established principle in the offline world and in the online world."
</i></blockquote>
Again, while I agree, I find Google's somewhat cavalier attitude towards the lawsuits that are certainly on the way surprising.  It's not just that trademark owners won't like the policy.  Many of them are going to sue -- and trademark law around the world (unfortunately) is not as "well-established" as Chen seems to make out.  All in all, it seems a bit surprising that Google would go out of its way to attract new lawsuits.  Could it be that the company is back to fighting certain lawsuits <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20061023/080823.shtml">for principle</a>?  This was something the company had done years ago, but had largely <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081028/1218012674.shtml">abandoned</a> of late.  Or is there some other reason?  Some might argue that it's a pure money grab, as this will allow more (and potentially more lucrative) advertising to run on the site, but the cost of lawsuits and the uncertainty of those lawsuits could be quite expensive.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090515/0336134898.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090515/0336134898.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090515/0336134898.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>confidence-in-its-lawyers?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090515/0336134898</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>