When The FBI Shows Up At Your Door About Your Reporting, That's Intimidation

from the yikes dept

Having the government show up at your door to ask some questions about your reporting can be extremely unnerving. Zack Whittaker, the top notch cybersecurity reporter for TechCrunch got to experience the fun of that when the FBI showed up at his door over a year after he had published a story about a hacker dumping thousands of Mexican embassy documents from Guatemala after the Mexican embassy left the data exposed online.

As with many situations involving reporting on hacks and leaks, rather than focus on those actually responsible (often those who left the information exposed), law enforcement and the powers that be... often target the journalists. We saw that recently in Missouri where the governor called reporters hackers (and "fake news") for ethically disclosing that the state's elementary school agency had left teacher and administrator social security numbers exposed -- something the Department of Elementary and Secondary Educationapologized for weeks later (though it didn't apologize to the journalists).

For Whittaker, the experience was reasonably concerning:

I contacted Mexico’s consulate in New York for comment, as is standard practice when reporting a story. A spokesperson said the Mexican government took the matter “very seriously.” We published our story, and that seemed to be the end of it.

The FBI knock at my door a year later suggested it wasn’t. I declined to speak with the agents and closed the door.

After we published our story the Mexican government requested the help of the U.S. Department of Justice through diplomatic channels to investigate the hack and presumably try to identify the hacker. Because I had contact with the hacker, that must have made me a subject of interest to the Mexican authorities, hence the visit a year on.

A month after the house call, the Mexican government provided the FBI with a list of written questions it wanted us to answer, many of which were already answered in the story. Our response to the DOJ declined to provide anything more than what we had already published.

However, as Zack notes, even if he knew he hadn't done anything wrong, all of this is incredibly unnerving. Legal threats (unfortunately, and often ridiculously) now come with the territory of being a journalist, but the intimidation factor is very real -- and that can be super damaging for better informing the public. Indeed, it's often why the powerful -- be they governments or just wealthy people and companies -- make use of such intimidation tactics all the time:

We’ve rebuffed spurious legal demands before, but having federal agents on your doorstep simply for doing your job is certainly a new one for me. There has been no suggestion of wrongdoing, though it’s unsettling not knowing what view Mexico would take if I ever stepped foot on its soil.

But it’s the legal threats and demands that don’t make it to print that can have the most damage. Legal demands inherently have a silencing effect. Sometimes they succeed. Journalism can be risky and the newsrooms don’t always win. Left unchecked, legal threats can have a chilling effect that stifles both security research and journalism by making it legally toxic to work. That means the world is less informed and sometimes less secure.

Filed Under: fbi, intimidation, journalism, mexico, reporting, zack whittaker
Companies: techcrunch

Apple Sues NSO Group For Targeting IPhone Users With Powerful Exploits

from the [applauds-super-cautiously] dept

NSO Group's year from hell continues. Apple is now suing the Israeli exploit hawker for hacking its customers' iPhones -- customers who include not only the supposed terrorists and dangerous criminals NSO claims its customers target with malware, but also journalists, activists, lawyers, ex-wives, religious leaders, US citizens, and government officials NSO claims its customers don't target.

Apple isn't the first major tech company to sue NSO over its malware. Facebook and WhatsApp sued NSO in 2019, alleging that the use of WhatsApp to deploy powerful exploits violated WhatsApp's terms of use. While this is almost certainly true (deploying malware via WhatsApp is definitely not allowed), WhatsApp appears to want a ruling that would expand the definition of "unauthorized access" under the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) that's already been stretched several times by DOJ prosecutors.

On one hand, it would be undeniably enjoyable see NSO get slapped with an order denying it access to WhatsApp and its users, on the other, it wouldn't be helpful at all to turn research (security and otherwise) that violates sites' terms of use into a federal crime.

Unfortunately, Apple's lawsuit [PDF] appears to be asking for something along the same lines. It also stretches the definition of legal standing, alleging it has the right to sue on the behalf of its users because reacting to the deployment of NSO malware has caused it to spend a bit of its billions closing security holes.

That being said, Apple's legal reps sure know how to open a lawsuit. Here's the first paragraph of the suit's introduction:

Defendants are notorious hackers—amoral 21st century mercenaries who have created highly sophisticated cyber-surveillance machinery that invites routine and flagrant abuse. They design, develop, sell, deliver, deploy, operate, and maintain offensive and destructive malware and spyware products and services that have been used to target, attack, and harm Apple users, Apple products, and Apple. For their own commercial gain, they enable their customers to abuse those products and services to target individuals including government officials, journalists, businesspeople, activists, academics, and even U.S. citizens.

Welp. That's not going to help NSO's presumably permanently damaged SEO. The next paragraph builds on NSO's "amoral mercenary" reputation by pointing to the US Commerce Department's recent blacklisting of the company -- an act that almost never targets companies operating in countries the US considers to be close allies.

It follows these accusations with NSO's own admissions of malfeasance.

NSO admits that its destructive products have led to violations of “fundamental human rights,” which have been widely recognized and condemned by human rights groups and governments, including the U.S. Government. To ensure that their products can be used by others to maximum effect, NSO reportedly provides ongoing technical support and other services to their clients as they deploy NSO’s spyware against Apple’s products and users, including journalists, human rights activists, dissidents, public officials, and others. Most recently, the Guardian reported that six Palestinian human rights defenders—one of whom is also a U.S. citizen—were attacked and surveilled using NSO’s spyware. Although NSO claims that its spyware “cannot be used to conduct cybersurveillance within the United States,” U.S. citizens have been surveilled by NSO’s spyware on mobile devices that can and do cross international borders.

Then it starts talking about the damage Apple itself has suffered as a result of NSO customers targeting iPhone users.

Defendants force Apple to engage in a continual arms race: Even as Apple develops solutions and enhances the security of its devices, Defendants are constantly updating their malware and exploits to overcome Apple’s own security upgrades.

These constant recovery and prevention efforts require significant resources and impose huge costs on Apple. Defendants’ unlawful malware activities have caused and continue to cause Apple significant damages in excess of $75,000 and in an amount to be proven at trial.

That's the amount of damages needed to keep a lawsuit in federal court. But further into the lawsuit, Apple specifically cites the law amended by the CFAA and quotes a much lower price for actual monetary damages.

Defendants’ actions caused Apple to incur a loss as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11), in an amount in excess of $5,000 during a one-year period, including the expenditure of resources to investigate and remediate Defendants’ conduct.

That puts the CFAA in play as Apple advocates on behalf of its users and its own defensive efforts. But standing is a tricky thing, as is attempting to hold NSO directly responsible for the activities of its customers.

Apple attempts to show standing by claiming end users are only borrowing the software it creates, so iPhone users targeted by NSO malware are, in effect, having their rented homes damaged by home invaders. Apple is the landlord, so to speak, so it believes it is due direct compensation for something that happened to its tenants. This is a dangerous argument to make, considering its the same one the DOJ deployed when it was trying to force Apple to break encryption on the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone.

Defendants violated and attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) because they intentionally accessed and attempted to access the iOS operating system on Apple’s users’ devices without authorization and, on information and belief, obtained information from Apple’s users’ devices.

Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) because they knowingly and with the intent to defraud accessed the operating system on Apple’s users’ devices without authorization using information from Apple’s servers and then installed highly invasive spyware on those Apple users’ devices, and by means of such conduct furthered the intended fraud and obtained something of value.

[...]

Apple retains ownership of its operating-system software pursuant to its Software License Agreements.

We'll see whose stretching works better. Apple wants to be able to represent users who've been targeted, citing its licensing and its own (apparently minimal) expenses related to patching security holes. NSO, on the other hand, will want out of this suit and has deployed some creative arguments of its own defending itself against WhatsApp's litigation.

It remains to be seen whether its argument that it can't be sued directly for the actions of its customers will convince the court WhatsApp's lawsuit should be dismissed. But it has already seen another of its defenses shot down at the appellate level, which refused to extend sovereign immunity to the private company that sold exploits to government agencies. The Ninth Circuit refused to buy the argument that selling stuff to government agencies makes one an extension of that government agency for immunity purposes.

We'll see what the court makes of this one. We already know at least one of NSO's defenses is foreclosed by precedent. But we shouldn't necessarily cheer Apple on just because the target of its suit is reprehensible. A ruling in favor of Apple's CFAA allegations could prove disastrous for researchers and others who bypass terms of service restrictions for far less malignant reasons.

On the bright side, Apple is handing out a lot of money to researchers who've exposed plenty of malfeasance by NSO Group's customers.

Apple commends groups like the Citizen Lab and Amnesty Tech for their groundbreaking work to identify cybersurveillance abuses and help protect victims. To further strengthen efforts like these, Apple will be contributing $10 million, as well as any damages from the lawsuit, to organizations pursuing cybersurveillance research and advocacy.

Apple will also support the accomplished researchers at the Citizen Lab with pro-bono technical, threat intelligence, and engineering assistance to aid their independent research mission, and where appropriate, will offer the same assistance to other organizations doing critical work in this space.

On top of this, Apple will continue notifying users it believes have been targeted by NSO malware, which is only going to result in more negative press for the malware purveyor. If NSO wanted to be perceived as a skilled warrior in the fight against international crime and terrorism, it blew that chance when it decided to sell to notorious human rights abusers and engage in zero oversight of the use of its products. It earned the reputation it now has and will carry with it forever, no matter how this lawsuit plays out.

Filed Under: cfaa, exploits, iphones, license, malware, ownership, research, spyware
Companies: apple, nso group

Facebook (Again) Tells Law Enforcement That Setting Up Fake Accounts Violates Its Terms Of Use

from the LAPD-teaching-respect-for-the-law-by-playing-by-its-own-rules-wtaf dept

Law enforcement agencies routinely engage in surveillance of social media accounts. Some of this is accomplished with third-party tools that use keywords and geofences to give cops info that may be relevant to investigations. These tools also give cops a lot of garbage data that law enforcement is free to sift through for officers' own entertainment or to bypass constitutional protections surrounding speech and warrantless searches.

Does it actually help combat crime? The jury (if a court would ever allow one to consider these issues…) is still out on that. But social media surveillance continues under the theory that anything someone published publicly should be accessible by cops since it's accessible by everyone else.

But the constitutional metric changes (or at least should) when cops set up fake accounts to engage in surveillance of suspected criminals. In these cases, cops may be welcomed into more private circles where information can't be accessed unless a person has been given access.

This isn't a new problem. It dates back to 2009, when Facebook was gaining critical mass and Twitter was just starting to generate enough interest to become (very eventually) sustainable. Twitter's account verification process allows users to engage without turning over much personal info. The same can't be said for Facebook, which would prefer to have its user base verified with as much personal info as possible -- something that was supposed to limit abusive behavior but just ended up giving the platform plenty of actionable (and sellable) demographic info. Facebook insisted on real people and real names and altered its policy to inform users that setting up bogus accounts was something that could result in account termination.

Cops didn't care. They had online lurking to do in hopes of finding something prosecutable without ever leaving the office. Facebook warned law enforcement that setting up fake accounts wasn't permissible in 2018 after news surfaced showing cops were bypassing these rules to do a little online fishing for potential criminals.

Facebook is now Meta. It is also still Facebook, albeit under a new umbrella corporation. The rules about "real names" still apply to Facebook account creation. And law enforcement officers are still continuing to ignore this rule. Three years after its last letter addressed to cops about terms of service violation Meta is sending out another one [PDF]. It reiterates what officers already know but are apparently of the belief Facebook/Meta won't actually do much to enforce.

The letter references Los Angeles Police Department activities exposed by the Brennan Center. The LAPD apparently encourages officers to set up fake accounts to locate and surveil criminal suspects. The practice is common enough that the LAPD actually has policies governing the use of social media surveillance via dummy accounts. But the policies ignore Facebook's rules, which take precedence over the LAPD's rules. After all, it's Facebook's platform, not the LAPD's playground.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice and media reports the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) has been instructing its officers to create fake (or “dummy”) Facebook accounts and impersonate legitimate users. Not only do LAPD instructional documents use Facebook as an explicit example in advising officers to set up fake social media accounts, but documents also indicate that LAPD policies simply allow officers to create fake accounts for “online investigative activity.” To the extent these practices are ongoing they violate our terms of service. While the legitimacy of such policies may be up to the LAPD, officers must abide by Facebook’s policies when creating accounts on our services. The Police Department should cease all activities on Facebook that involve the use of fake accounts, impersonation of others, and collection of data for surveillance purposes.

This alone won't prevent the LAPD from violating Facebook's terms of service to engage in online surveillance. Facebook will have to determine which accounts are fake and terminate them. But this letter gives the LAPD notice that when its bogus accounts are terminated, it will have zero recourse.

The letter also says the LAPD is violating other Facebook rules, albeit indirectly.

It has also come to our attention that the LAPD has used a third-party vendor to collect data on our platforms regarding our users. Under our policies, developers are prohibited from using data obtained on our platforms for surveillance, including the processing of platform data about people, groups, or events for law enforcement or national security purposes (https://developers.facebook.com/terms/#control).

Again, this won't stop the LAPD from utilizing services it's paid for. But it does make it clear that if Facebook ever decides to terminate access to this firehose being abused by third parties, neither the third parties or their LAPD beneficiaries will be able to do anything but bitch ineffectively about the loss of access to a surveillance tool.

Subterfuge is often essential to law enforcement investigations. But that doesn't mean private companies are obliged to provide cover for undercover surveillance. Law enforcement has been told (at least twice) that govern regular people also govern government employees -- people who often seem to believe they're above rules, laws, and even the rule of law.

Filed Under: fake accounts, impersonation, lapd, law enforcement, police
Companies: facebook, meta

Daily Deal: Cyber Monday Roundup

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

It's Cyber Monday and we have some special coupon codes you can use on the following deals and throughout the store. Coupon code CMSAVE20 gets you 20% off anything that is NOT a digital product, CMSAVE40 gets you 40% off apps and software, and CMSAVE70 gets you 70% off e-learning deals.

The AirBlast Pro Earbuds are the newest version of the best-selling earbuds that comes at an unbeatable price point. Featuring top-notch sound quality, wireless charging, and advanced Bluetooth 5.1 technology, the AirBlast Pro is what you need. With an hour of charging time, you get to enjoy up to 3 hours of playtime for up to 49 ft operating distance. Use the earbuds with their charging case, and you get to experience up to 8 hours of non-stop music/talk time. They're waterproof and can withstand water, sweat, or rain. A single pair is on sale for $40, 2 pairs for $55, or 3 pairs for $75.

The Dragon Alpha Z PRO Dual Camera Drone is equipped with a powerful wide angle 4K camera on the front and a 720p on the bottom. The front camera, with 90 degrees ESC adjustment, can help you to film and capture all the beautiful scenes you encounter. It has a companion app so you can view real-time images and not miss out at any moment. With an altitude hold mode function that stabilizes its flight, you do not have to constantly worry about the drone's stability and can concentrate on capturing your image better. The headless mode eliminates the need to adjust the position of aircraft before flying. The drone will return to its original point with one click, no matter where it was flying. It's on sale for $100.

The HumBird Speaker is the world’s smallest and most versatile bone conduction speaker that allows you to have a different but always spectacular listening experience anywhere. Using cutting-edge bone conduction technology, it delivers a high sound volume, being 4 to 5 times louder than the average cell phone speakers' volume, reaching up to 115dB, and it allows you to personalize the tone quality. HumBird turns sound into a mechanic vibration of different frequencies, leveraging the effects of the different materials on top of which it is placed and used. Put HumBird anywhere and experience a DIY customizable experience of sound. It's on sale for $26.95.

This Smart Keychain replaces the typical charging cable and uses the microcomputer electronic system to wirelessly charge the touch-sensitive Apple Watch by simply placing the watch on a black magnetic charger. It's easy to use. This charger with a built-in 950mAh lithium-ion battery can charge all iWatch series. Portable, pocket-size when you're outdoors, the pocket size of the portable charger will be carried around and it's easy to put in your pocket and bag while you're exercising. A single charger is on sale for $20, 2 for $39, or 4 for $77.

There are over a dozen different features now on the C-MAX Chrono-Max Smartwatch 1.69” full-color touchscreen display. Never miss a call, chat, or text when you get the alert right to your watch. See what the weather is like with one quick swipe. Control your music or audiobook playback, and track your sleep, fitness, and health vitals all on your wrist. The soft, flexible silicone band makes C-MAX comfortable to wear all day, every day. It's available in 4 colors and on sale for $60.

Don't forget to use those coupons!

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Washington Post Forgets It Fought (And Won) Legal Battle Against Mandatory Transparency; Now Demands Internet Co's Face The Same

from the psst,-editorial-board,-speak-to-your-lawyers dept

A few years ago the Washington Post (and a bunch of other newspapers) fought and won a fairly important 1st Amendment lawsuit to strike down as unconstitutional a Maryland law that required news organizations to publicly post information about the political ads they chose to carry. The district court and then the appeals court found that the law was pretty clearly unconstitutional:

As the district court noted in a lengthy and thoughtful opinion, Washington Post, 355 F. Supp.3d at 272-306, the Act is a content-based law that targets political speech and compels newspapers, among other platforms, to carry certain messages on their websites. In other words, Maryland's law is a compendium of traditional First Amendment infirmities.

Specifically, the court found that the compelled speech aspect of the law was particularly problematic:

Taken together, the Act's publication and inspection requirements ultimately present compelled speech problems twice over. For one, they force elements of civil society to speak when they otherwise would have refrained. Time and again, the Supreme Court has made clear that it makes little difference for First Amendment 515*515 purposes whether the government acts as censor or conductor. Indeed, the "freedom of speech `includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.'" Janus v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cty. & Mun. Emps. Council 31, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2463, 201 L.Ed.2d 924 (2018) (quoting Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977) (internal quotation omitted)). It is the presence of compulsion from the state itself that compromises the First Amendment. The Amendment extends "not only to expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid." Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 573, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995).

What's more, the fact that the Act compels third parties to disclose certain identifying information regarding political speakers implicates protections for anonymous speech. Requiring the press itself to disclose the identity or characteristics of political speakers is a problematic step. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 709, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (Powell, J., concurring) (noting that newsmen faced with a grand jury subpoena are not "without constitutional rights with respect to the gathering of news or in safeguarding their sources"); id. at 725, 92 S.Ct. 2646 (Stewart, J., dissenting) (requiring the press to disclose its sources risks "annex[ing] the journalistic profession as an investigative arm of government"). This country, moreover, has "a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes." McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 343, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995). Much as our forebears elected to hash out the architecture of this nation under the pseudonyms of "Publius" and "Agrippa," many political advocates today also opt for anonymity in hopes their arguments will be debated on their merits rather than their makers. See id. at 343, 343 n.6, 115 S.Ct. 1511. To be sure, this tradition of anonymity is anything but absolute. But revelations of executive misconduct throughout our history have often been anonymously sourced. And when the government enlists the press to disclose the sources of political speech, thus potentially exposing those speakers to identification and harassment, First Amendment protections and values come into play. See Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, 14-15, 106 S.Ct. 903, 89 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (plurality opinion).

Apparently, the editorial board of the Washington Post is wholly unfamiliar with this lawsuit and the fact that its own publication won this lawsuit just two years ago. Because in a new opinion piece, the Editorial Board of the Washington Post calls for nearly identical requirements for internet companies. Really.

Specifically, the Washington Post endorses the extremely problematic recommendations from the Aspen Institute's Commission on Information Disorder:

The report starts, as any study aimed at restoring trust and truth ought to, by acknowledging reality: “In a free society, a certain amount of misinformation will always exist.” The hope isn’t to punish every exaggeration, piece of propaganda or flat-out lie but to home in on the most egregious damage caused by specific types of mis- and disinformation — by discouraging people from spreading falsehoods and minimizing the fallout when they do. This is easiest in “empirically grounded” areas, in which facts can most clearly be found: public health and election integrity foremost among them.

How do we do it? Some steps are obvious, such as mandating more transparency from technology companies. Platforms should be required, for instance, to publish data about the content, source, targeting and reach of posts seen by large audiences, as well as produce standardized archives of the material they remove or otherwise moderate.

That "obvious" step is exactly what the Washington Post fought in court against and won just two years ago. And, it should be noted that in fighting that Maryland law, the Washington Post trotted out Section 230 as a reason that the law should be pre-empted, but the court went past that and didn't even bother with the 230 issues, noting that the 1st Amendment was the issue, and it didn't even need to bother with Section 230.

In some ways, this isn't surprising. For reasons I don't fully understand, newspapers seem to have a weird blindspot for the very laws and constitutional rights that protect themselves when there are attacks on those rights on internet companies. The more conspiratorial will insist that this is because news organizations are jealous of the success of internet companies -- with whom they often compete for ad dollars. But I think it's likely to be somewhat more fundamental than that. Institutionally, too many news organizations take such a dismissive view of the internet and the communities created on it, and look at themselves as the "defenders of truth" (hell, the Washington Post's own bizarre slogan, "Democracy Dies in Darkness" is trumpeted on every damn page). To them, the internet and social media are riff raff -- enabling the people who are too stupid for their own good to wallow in disinformation.

And, thus, the only answer must be to mandate these kinds of rules that could and should never apply to the pure giant news orgs. It's disappointing and hypocritical, but hardly surprising.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, compelled speech, disinformation, editorial independence, section 230, transparency
Companies: aspen institute, washington post

Cable Giant Spectrum Endangered Its Employees And Screwed Its Technicians During COVID

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

Most broadband providers saw a major uptick in both subscribers and revenue during the COVID crisis, as working and schooling at home exploded. But at the regional monopolies that dominate the U.S. telecom sector, revenue most assuredly didn't go to employees at most of these major companies. In fact, Gizmodo has a new report highlighting how cable giant Charter (whose broadband and TV services are sold under the Spectrum brand) doubled its revenues last year thanks to COVID, yet found a way to dramatically reduce pay for its field technicians:

"Like countless other corporations, Charter amassed new pandemic-era wealth— $3.2 billion, nearly double the previous year. Charter did so, in part, by widely expanding its “self-install” program, which it touted as a major “cost-saving” measure. But contract workers say the “savings” came straight out of their pockets through a systematic scheme to mislabel their jobs as lower-paying emergency fixes."

Charter was widely criticized for putting both the public and its own employees at risk in the early months of the pandemic. Workers whose jobs could be done remotely were blocked completely from being able to work at home -- despite repeated instances of positive COVID tests at the office (a stark contrast from Comcast). Meanwhile subcontractors complained consistently they weren't being given the PPE necessary to enter consumer homes safely. The company has also come under fire for exploiting an FCC COVID broadband discount program to drive customers to more expensive tiers.

At the same time, pay dropped significantly thanks to a procedural classification trick. During COVID, Charter's new self-install option reduced the need for an on sight technician visit, allowing the customer to connect and install the cable modem themselves. Inevitably cable technicians have to visit these homes anyway, either because the user screwed something up, or because there were inherent problems in the local building or block wiring that the customer couldn't fix. But Charter used this opportunity to classify these visits as somehow less important than traditional installs, reducing subcontractor pay significantly:

"Under William’s contract company, a TV, phone, and wireless hookup for Spectrum would normally pay a contractor about $64. But the same job reclassified as a self-install pays around $35 through his contract company. He and fellow contractors sent their managers emails with photos showing that they’d done four or five hour jobs for only $35, but it didn’t change a thing. William said that he’s lost 60% of his pay since Spectrum took over his local market five years ago."

For many years cable and broadband companies have distanced themselves from a lot of dodgy dysfunction by outsourcing work to third-party contractors. These companies are often dodgy as hell, and the employees are treated even worse than traditional contract employees, Gizmodo notes:

"Rob claimed that he lost his house and can’t afford to date because he can’t pay for dinner. He has to cover all of his own work expenses, which include surprises like a $2,000 meter that his company, which has a contract with Spectrum, forced him to buy, only driving him deeper into debt. That’s on top of the $300 per month for required liability insurance and the $8,000 to $10,000 in annual fuel costs. This summer, he couldn’t go to the hospital when he suffered heat stroke, a potentially fatal illness that can lead to organ failure. He worries that he’s one accident away from breaking down. “I feel brittle,” he said."

Most regional broadband monopolies don't see enough real competition for the "free market" (which U.S. telecom decidedly isn't) to apply any real pressure to do better. Charter union employees have been boxed out and are currently engaged in the longest strike in US history because they wanted better pay and health care. And because for the last 30 years the U.S. has generally operated under the idea that mindlessly deregulating U.S. telecom somehow produces near Utopian outcomes (it's abundantly clear this isn't true), regulators have largely become defanged and feckless. Then there's Congress, which is so slathered with telecom campaign contributions as to be largely useless.

As a result, nothing meaningfully changes, and it's not that hard to exploit a pandemic to grab more revenue without ever seeing regulatory or policy accountability.

Filed Under: covid, employees
Companies: charter

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the whatcha-talkin-about dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Upstream with a comment building on the assertion that some Minneapolis cops should have been fired:

Yeah, and then they should have been charged with a litany of crimes, like assault (possibly with a deadly weapon), battery, reckless endangerment, etc, and maybe even attempted murder.

Remember, these weapons they used are considered less -lethal. They are NOT non-lethal.

In second place, it's an anonymous response to a Trump lawyer's theories about collusion on the Steele Dossier:

Interesting. Especially when Trump also said this:

Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion
DJT - via Twitter

This was also parroted by his "crack legal team" of Guiliani and Dershowitz.

Tell me again why anyone should give anything even remotely resembling a fuck about some collusion going on? Something like this requires one of those attorney responses that go along the lines of 'OK, so fucking what?'

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from Ben about the lawsuit against the Baltimore Police Department over abuse of seizures:

I think it's pretty clear by now that some police departments are simply the best armed and most predatory of street gangs in their respectively localities.

And they want our respect without question?

Next, it's Stephen T. Stone with a comment about the many complaints that Hertz falsely reported rented vehicles as stolen:

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Thrice is a pattern. Four times or more, it’s an institution. But when a thing happens more than 100 times, it’s practically standard operating procecdure.

Over on the funny side, both winning comments come in response to Ridley Scott blaming everything but poor marketing for his latest movie bombing. First, it's an anonymous comment:

The Last Whatnow?

Techdirt. Literally putting more effort into making the general public aware of this film's existence than the studio's own marketing department ever did.

In second place, it's Norahc with another reaction:

Another old guy raging at the internet? Must be a day ending in a 'y'.

For editor's choice on the funny side, we've got a pair of comments from the Hertz story. First, it's David with a joke about screen refresh rates:

Oddly European headline

"More Than 100 Hertz Customers": shouldn't that be "More than 120 Hertz Customers" in the United States?

Finally, it's an anonymous response to that comment, riffing on the joke:

Hertz does call the cops on vehicle renters with frequency...

That's all for this week, folks!

This Week In Techdirt History: November 21st - 27th

from the as-it-was dept

Five Years Ago

This week in 2016, we learned more about the disturbing scope of the NSA's leaks of hacking tools, the IRS decided to demand information on Coinbase customers, and one federal judge was taking a closer look at "reputation management" libel lawsuits. Trump picked two net neutrality opponents to head the FCC transition, while cable's broadband monopoly was becoming stronger than ever and AT&T was singing the supposed benefits of zero rating. As expected, China was using America's concern about fake news to push for more control of the internet, and we we looked at the slippery slope caused by that and Facebook's efforts to comply with China's demands. Also, we saw an especially ridiculous hot news and copyright battle over chess moves.

Ten Years Ago

This week in 2011, we took a look at how the rest of the world viewed SOPA, and how the bill wasn't actually about copyright but rather about regulating the internet. Even the copyright-happy BSA backed down from supporting the bill, apparently in large part because of Microsoft's cold feet (and they weren't the only strong copyright defenders who had issues with the bill). We applauded the senators who were willing to stand against PROTECT IP/PIPA (the Senate version of the bill) while Ron Wyden promised to read the names of public opponents as part of a filibuster if need be. We rounded out the week with a long, definitive post on how bad SOPA was.

Fifteen Years Ago

This week in 2006, Universal Music decided to threaten Bank of America over a parody song, while EMI did the same thing over a parody lyric booklet created by some sports fans. Perhaps it's unsurprising that trying to play nice with labels like these was hamstringing Microsoft's Zune device too. Despite the hype around mobile video, the iPod was still primarily a music device for most people — though that didn't stop Steven Spielberg from worrying about people watching movies on iPod screens. An important ruling in California upheld Section 230's protections, though it did not (as some believed) make it impossible to sue bloggers. And the latest round of DMCA anti-circumvention exceptions was announced, with nothing much that benefited consumers.

Filed Under: history, look back

Non-Fungible T-Shirts, And Other New Gear From Techdirt

from the right-clicker-mentality dept

Get your Non-Fungible T-Shirt and Right Click gear on Threadless »

Just in time for the holiday season, we've got a pair of new designs in the Techdirt Gear store on Threadless — both inspired by the ongoing conversation around (and our own experiments with) NFTs:

For those who want to celebrate and defend the ability to Right Click -> Save As, there's the I Right Click And I'm Proud design, which is available on t-shirts as well as hoodies, sweatshirts, face masks, stickers, mugs, and more. For those who want something that doesn't need the blockchain to be scarce and rivalrous, there's the Non-Fungible T-Shirt (which is available only as, well, a t-shirt).

Visit the Techdirt Gear store on Threadless to get yours today! And if you're doing some holiday shopping, also check out these academic galaxy map posters from Open Syllabus Project.

Filed Under: nfts, techdirt gear

Daily Deal: Black Friday Roundup

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

It's Black Friday and we have specials coupons you can use on the following deals and throughout the store. Coupon code BFSAVE20 gets you 20% off anything that is NOT a digital product, BFSAVE40 gets you 40% off apps and software, and BFSAVE70 gets you 70% off e-learning deals.

The Unity Game Developer and Player Bundle featuring PlayStation Plus will help you learn how to create your own amazing games. Courses include how to use AI to create games, how to create a 2D RPG, how to use Photon to build a 3D multiplayer game, and much more. The bundle also includes a one year subscription to PlayStation Plus. Connect with an enormous online community via PlayStation Plus to compete in PS classics like Star Wars: Battlefront, Uncharted, and many more. If that's not reason enough to pull the trigger, the subscription also delivers an epic monthly collection of free games, in a library that is constantly expanding. The bundle is on sale for $70.

The 2021 CompTIA Security Infrastructure Expert Bundle has 4 courses to help you learn how to mitigate attacks and vulnerabilities. The courses will help prepare you to sit for exams on CompTIA CASP, PenTest, CySA, and Security. It's on sale for $30.

Learn Unreal, C++, and game development. Want to level up your game development skill? The 2022 Ultimate Learn Unreal Game Development Bundle, created in collaboration with Epic Games, can help. Anyone who wants to learn to create games: Unreal Engine is a fantastic platform that enables you to make AAA-quality games. You'll get full lifetime access for a single one-off fee. The creators are qualified and experienced coders and avid gamers, so are able to explain complex concepts clearly, as well as entertain along the way. You will have access to a course forum where you can discuss topics on a course-wide basis, or down to the individual video. It's on sale for $35.

PDF Expert is the best PDF writer for Mac. You can easily edit text, images, and links. It will automatically detect the font, size, and opacity of the original text, so you can make edits easily. It’s fast, intuitive, and powerful to let you effortlessly complete literally any PDF task. Need to rework a complete section of a document? No problem. PDF Expert provides a series of essential functions that will transform the way you work with documents on your Mac. It's on sale for $30.

Don't forget to use those coupons!

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: black friday, daily deal