Supporters Of Article 13, After Denying It's About Filters, Now Say It's About Regulating Filters Which They Admit Don't Work

from the get-your-freaking-story-straight dept

As the EU Parliament gets ready to vote on the EU Copyright Directive and Articles 11 and 13, the desperation from the supporters of these laws is reaching a fever pitch. It's gotten to the point that their own arguments no longer make any sense and are totally inconsistent with what they've been saying for months. Late last week, a new group sprung up with a website called Manifesto4copyright.eu. It is an astounding document in so many ways, not the least of which is it admits that Article 13 is about filters, while also admitting that filters don't work.

It starts off with a huge misrepresentation: that the authors supporting it are for an "open and fair internet without censorship." Except that's belied by the rest of the "manifesto," which makes about as much sense as any other ranting internet manifesto:

We all live among the digital revolution. We want to shape it, not prevent it. Authors must be paid. Therefore, the internet needs good rules. There is no freedom without rules! Otherwise, only the strongest will prevail as has happened with the internet-giants. We are no technophobes. We want good governance for the digital world. We want an open and fair internet.

Authors are paid. If they sell their works to willing customers, they get paid. Nothing has changed. Indeed, artists are making more money than ever before. Also, what's with the Orwellian "there is no freedom without rules" line in there?

Of course, the next paragraph suggests who might actually be behind this particular manifesto. See if you can figure it out by looking at the "myths" they claim they are busting:

The criticism we have is merely of the myths and fighting talk, which are poisoning the current debate: A free internet at no charge, publishers as evil exploiters, authors ripped off by collecting societies, the enforcement of copyright as censorship.

Wait, who's asking for an internet free of charge? No one that I know of. And also, if you don't believe that copyright is frequently and regularly used for censorship, you simply have not been paying attention and have no place in this debate. You are ignorant.

But, let's focus in on the other one: complaining that it's a myth that publishers and collection societies rip off those they supposedly represent. I'm guessing that this manifesto was put together by those very collection societies. And since they insist this is a myth, let's go for a little walk down memory lane about collection societies.

• There was the Spanish collection society, SGAE who was raided by the police after its top execs were accused of stealing $550 million from artists.
• A UK government-backed inquiry into abuse by collection societies received so many entries from people so angry that it felt it needed to block their release.
• In the US, ASCAP both announced that it was taking in more money than ever and that it was cutting payments to artists on the same day.
• In India, courts had to step in to block collection societies from collecting money from concerts they had no right to collect money over.
• In Germany, GEMA told musicians that they were simply not allowed to offer music for free as it would violate GEMA's rules.
• In Peru, another corruption scandal found that a collection society there was diverting revenue from artists to friends.
• In Kenya, a collection society was found to be paying less than one-third of the money it was supposed to be giving out. That resulted in a court having to step in and bar the collection society from continuing to collect.
• In France, the local collection society made bands pay the collection society in order to make their own albums, and again in order to get paid the money they are owed.

And those are just a few quick examples from Techdirt in doing a quick search. There are many, many, many more such stories. In 2012 there was an entire paper detailing many more examples. And, since that was 7 years ago, last year, a second version of the paper was published with even more examples.

So, gee, I wonder where we get the idea that collection societies rip off creators?

And, from there, things get even weirder in the manifesto:

Google and Facebook are already using filter algorithms. They filter not only – as intended – illegal content (e.g. pornographic or terrorist content), but also completely legal content (e.g. photos of naked bodies). They do so arbitrarily and without democratic regulation. The new directive, however, will regulate filters. At the same time, the platforms currently earn their money by making third parties’ content accessible and advertising it, without paying appropriate fees to the creators of this content – photographers, musicians, authors, graphic artists. This is where the new directive on European copyright law comes in: Article 13 regulates how licensing works for platforms. Platforms should pay creatives fair and reasonable remuneration by obtaining licences for the global repertoire. If they have such flat-rate licences from collecting societies, they do not need to filter content.

Um, what?

Google and Facebook are already using filters. We agree. But then... it admits that the filters don't work, because they work "arbitrarily." And then they admit that Article 13 will "regulate filters" which apparently no one told them they're not supposed to admit until after Article 13 becomes law. Indeed, every time we mention that Article 13 will require filters, someone shows up in our comments with some demand about how the law says nothing anywhere about filters. Yet here, whoever is behind this manifesto appears to be arguing the following:

1. Google and Facebook already use filters.
2. Those filters are arbitrary and block legal content
3. Article 13 will "regulate filters"
4. And then they don't need to use filters any more.

I'm honestly stumped. It's true that filters don't work very well. But nothing in Article 13 fixes that. I think they're trying to say that if companies just pay to license up every bit of content (i.e., throw lots of money at collection societies described above) then they won't need to use filters any more, but that is not what Article 13 says by any stretch of the imagination. First, for that to be true, it would only apply if a site could be guaranteed that it was even possible to license every possible bit of content ever. Which it is not. And thus, they would still need to use filters. Which lead to mass, automated censorship.

The manifesto goes on from there, with some other nonsense -- such insisting that "Memes are safe!" but it's really not worth spending more time on it, other than to suggest that if this is truly the best that collection societies could do with their propaganda, perhaps next time they should pay their writers more to write something coherent, and which doesn't disagree with basically all the other lobbying messaging about Article 13.

Filed Under: article 13, censorship, copyright, eu copyright directive, filters, manifesto, upload filters

Huge Protests Across Europe Protest Article 13; Politician Lies And Claims They Were Paid To Be There

from the not-bots dept

As expected, people took to the streets in the EU this week to protest the EU Copyright Directive and the censorship filters of Article 13 and the snippet tax in Article 11. Most of the protests took place in Germany, where reports are that over 150,000 protesters showed up to let their elected officials know that this law is a disaster (other reports put the number closer to 200,000 protesters).

Indeed, things got so crazy, that the Berlin police announced that there were way more people than expected, and protesters needed to change their planned route to roads that could better accommodate such a large crowd.

Many of the signs included memes, or the statement "we are not bots," which appears to have confused some in the media, such as DW.com, which claimed people said: "banners included the phrase "We are not bots," a reference to robotic-like social media posts." Uh, no. The reference to "we are not bots" is in direct response to supporters of Article 13 lying and claiming that all of the arguments against Article 13 were simply coming from internet bots as a way to discount the concerns of millions of EU residents as well as those of use around the world.

Of course, what happens when the politicians who insisted it was "just bots" arguing against Article 13 have to contend with the fact that at least 150,000 real live humans showed up on their doorstep to protest? They just keep lying. German MEP Daniel Caspary, who chairs the large CDU/CSU group in the EU Parliament told a German publication a completely made up lie -- reminiscent of the kind of "fake news" propaganda that has been used elsewhere, that all of the protesters were actually paid to be there. He literally called them "bought protesters" and said that a non-profit organization offered protesters €450 to show up at the protest. And then insisted that this was all a threat to democracy (per the translation):

"Now it is obviously being attempted to prevent the adoption of copyright even with bought protesters. Up to 450 euros are offered by a so-called NGO for the demonstrators. The money seems to come, at least partially, from major American Internet corporations. When American corporations with massive use of disinformation and bought protesters try to prevent laws, our democracy is under threat. "

Think about that for a second. A major political leader is so infatuated with his false belief that real people couldn't possibly be upset about the plan to fundamentally move away from an open internet, that he insists Google must have paid the protesters €450 each to show up. That's insane, and nothing that any elected official should be saying. Journalist Emanuel Karlsten looked into the details of this and found that Caspary had taken a completely different bit of information and used it to attack the integrity of all the protesters. What had really happened was a few weeks earlier, the digital rights organization EDRi had offered to cover travel costs for a small number of activists to come talk to MEPs. It was not for the demonstrations, but for a small group of activists, who otherwise could not afford to meet the MEPs in person, to travel. Somewhere around a dozen such grants were made and it allowed this small group of folks to meet with MEPs last week, totally unrelated to the protests.

As more and more people started calling out Caspary, he refused to correct his misleading statement for an entire day, before insisting that everyone misunderstood him and he never really mean that all demonstrators got paid. However, the "statement" he links to is simply more pro-Article 13 propaganda, insisting that the protesters cannot be taken seriously because some idiot sent Axel Voss a death threat. Meanwhile, Caspary's own thread that he insists is clarifying his position then immediately says we should still criticize financial support for those seeking to lobby politicians. He says that as if the lobbyists in favor of Article 13 didn't also provide "financial support" for some musicians and creators to go lobby them as well. It is standard practice for NGOs to pay travel costs for activists to present their position before elected officials, because otherwise politicians would only hear from lobbyists, and not from the actual people. This happens on all sides of every issue -- and it's not paying them for their testimony, but for their travel expenses to get somewhere they couldn't otherwise go.

So I'm curious if Caspary will now agree to discount any lobbying he heard in favor of Article 13 from artists who received travel support to go see him too? Or does his position only cover the other side?

Meanwhile, as Communia noted, in quite a contrast, at the same time as these protests were happening across Germany and elsewhere, in France, supporters of Article 13 -- the execs from collection societies who stand to profit (literally) the most from the passage of Article 13 -- gathered to drink champagne and hold up little yellow pieces of paper in support of the law:

You really should click to open the images and to see the contrast. Thousands upon thousands of people take to the streets to protest against a law that will close off the open internet, while those who will profit from such a closed internet sip champagne at a private party and smile meekly while holding up pieces of paper in support of screwing over the public. How nice.

Either way, no matter what lies politicians tell themselves, they might want to think about so many people coming out to protest over this issue, especially given that the next EU Parliamentary elections are in just a few months. Or will they just claim that Google paid them to vote, too?

All images in this post come from Netzpolitik, which says they are free for anyone to use -- which may only be true until Article 13 is enacted into law, at which point, it would be an impossible liability risk to continue posting them on most sites.

Filed Under: article 11, article 13, bots, copyright, daniel caspary, eu, eu copyright directive, filters, germany, protests

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the speak-now dept

We've got a double-winner this week with one comment taking first place for insightful and second place for funny. Even more unusually, it's from fairly deep into a thread, and most of its meaning relies on that context — but nevertheless, Thad racked up the votes with a response to someone who claimed to have strong evidence of conservative censorship on social media:

Citing a reference is an improvement over not citing a reference, but what exactly are you citing? You've vaguely handwaved toward a Joe Rogan video (which you haven't linked) and said that there is content somewhere in it that supports your claim. You haven't said what that content is, where it appears in the video, or how it supports your claim.

It's like Mark Twain said:

In second place on the insightful side, we've got a response from Natalie Hill to one commenter's assertion (which he's hardly the only one making) about the state of music:

John, when pro-label rats like you start talking about how "music is dying" because of piracy and streaming rates, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

"In the last 5 years the number of working musicians has dropped to less than 50%. Over half the major studios have closed, to be torn down for condos." Well, there's hundreds of thousands of artists on BandCamp, YouTube, and SoundCloud who self-release their work.

Not only that, you used to only see strong music scenes in places traditionally known for music. However, since technology has made it possible to record and release music from anywhere, you can now see thriving indie music scenes in non-traditional music towns like Detroit, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis, where I live. In the Circle City, at the start of the decade, we only had 4 local music venues, no festivals, 1 label, 1 local record store, and the small scene we did have was very centered around punk rock (not that punk is bad). However, we now have 17 venues, 6 festivals, 3 labels, 7 record stores, and a ton of artists of all genres. So clearly music is not "dying" because of piracy.

Sure, most of us are so-called "hobbyists" (I despise that word, as it often implies the musician is unserious), but that was the case with 99.9999% of all musicians who have ever lived, just because there are so many talented musicians in the world, yet the average person only needs so much new music. The only differences now are that recording is much simpler and a day job is no longer mutually exclusive with playing/writing music.

And if you're one of those people who thinks all "hobbyist" music is "low-quality", Eric Pedigo, The Trees, Ross Hollow, and tons of others I could mention prove that claim to be nothing more than an extremely dehumanizing overgeneralization towards us "hobbyists" and our great art.

However, the only reason we can distribute our work is because of such websites accepting submissions from anyone. Websites like YouTube and Bandcamp receive way too many submissions to monitor for infringement, so the only way they could possibly comply with Article 13 would be if they stopped accepting everyone's submissions completely, and limited their platforms to large companies.

If you understand that more music is being released than ever before, and it is NOT all "low-quality", but want laws like Article 13 anyway "because those poor people are losing their jobs!", you sound no different than a Trump-supporting coal miner or auto plant worker. There are a lot of jobs you can learn to do instead.

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with one more response on the subject of social media censorship, this time from an anonymous commenter:

Ignoring your baseless non-point for a moment, if all of the big, successful tech giants have a left-leaning tendency the takeaway is that right-leaning industry is less successful. Given that the conservative party is supposed to be the pro-business party this seems at odds with reality. Sooner or later you're going to have to admit that you're a dinosaur and have failed to adapt to an ever-changing world.

Back to your post: The speakers removed from those platforms were removed for hate speech, not simply because they were alt-right. There are plenty of other right-wing speakers still on those platforms espousing the same ideals but in a much more mature and measured way. There are plenty more who probably should be kicked off but have not yet, for whatever reasons.

If you can't be mature in your communications you can be sure you will be heard by fewer people. Go far enough and nobody will be willing to transmit your rants. That's all this boils down to.

Next, we've got Gwiz with a quick response to the assertion that Section 230 exists "to make sure that tech companies don't have to follow the rules other companies have to follow":

No. The point was to place liability on the person doing the actual speaking, not on the tool being used.

Do you also think that pencil manufacturers are liable for everything written with their pencils?

Over on the funny side, not only did Thad take second place with the same comment that won first place for insightful... he also took first place for funny with a followup comment to that one. Got that? Here it is:

The reference for my Mark Twain quote is Huckleberry Finn.

I'm not going to tell you what the quote is. Read the book.

For editor's choice on the funny side, we've got a pair of responses to the recording industry's announcement of massive recent growth. First, it's Bobvious with an interpretation of the data:

As we can clearly see, the US uptick is entirely proportional to Vinyl/LP sales. The MAFIAA should never have stopped selling them in the first place. Now see how they have massively improved the profits. As for the Paid Subscription contribution, that is just masking the Columbia Record Club profits, and their LP of the Month promotion. Also, this has come at the expense of Cylindrical Distribution [wax cylinders]/ Direct Vinyl Distribution (CD/DVD).

Watch out for the re-emergence of Direct-Reel-to-Digital-Reel-Enhanced™ (D®.D®E), and Binaural-Enhanced-Analog-Tape-Systems.

Finally, it's an anonymous commenter expressing general surprise:

What?? The recording industry is still around? I thought we'd killed them off with our tape recorders. And our CD burners. MP3 players. Mobile phones. Torrents.

Dang. Nothing seems to work.

That's all for this week, folks!

Game Jam Winner Spotlight: The Garden Of God

from the like-it's-1923 dept

Last week, we looked at one of the two titles that tied for the Best Visuals category in our public domain game jam, Gaming Like It's 1923. This week, we're shining the spotlight on the other winner in that category: The Garden of God by DreadRoach.

As I mentioned last week, any game made in 30 days will need to be creative and cut a few corners if it's going to feature engaging visuals. Where last week's Chimneys and Tulips did that with a minimalist approach focused on color and typography, The Garden of God does it by building on a strong foundation: the graphic sprites and convenient capabilities of RPG Maker MV, the most popular tool for making JRPG-like games. But sprites are just one piece of a game's visual puzzle, and DreadRoach used that pre-made palette to paint some excellently designed environments:

Based on a 1923 novel by H. De Vere Stacpoole, The Garden of God is a short, linear narrative experience that tells a simplified version of the first portion of the story, and manages to very effectively capture some of its key characterizations and emotional beats even as it reduces chapters of text to a few lines of dialogue. The story is short enough that it's not worth trying to summarize — just take a few minutes to play it through — except to say it's about a crew investigating something at sea:

In addition to the skilled map design and use of sprites, the game employs a few nice little scripted sequences as characters interact, with occasional bits of background activity. Most of the actual story is conveyed by dialogue, but there are also objects in the world to be examined for more clues about what's happening, in the style of an adventure game. Though it's all pretty simple and straightforward, it was one of the only games that aimed for an ambitious and robust visual aspect, and that caught the eyes of all our judges. You can play The Garden of God in your browser from its page on Itch, and don't forget to check out our other winners as well as the many great entries that didn't quite make the cut.

Filed Under: game jam, public domain, video games

Sites Warn EU Users Of Just How Bad Article 13 Will Be

from the speak-up dept

As we mentioned, a bunch of websites started protesting yesterday in the lead up to next week's vote on Article 11 and Article 13 that will fundamentally change the nature of the internet. The main ones were various European Wikipedia editions, which completely blacked out and posted a warning message. Here's the one in Germany (with automatic browser translation -- the original, obviously, is in German):

Different sites are doing different things -- and for some it depends on whether you're visiting from the EU or not, but it's good to see so many sites coming together on this. Reddit, as explained in a blog post on its site, are telling any EU Redditor who tries to post something new that it's blocked:

Lots of others have stepped up as well. The ever popular online streaming site Twitch is warning people in a variety of ways, including creating a video about its concerns:

And has also put the message all over its social media:

Patreon, the very popular website for helping creators get paid has warned its creators that under Article 13, it may need to block their content:

Others who have spoken up include Creative Commons and the Internet Archive:

Another site that joined in -- which we'll refrain from screenshotting -- is the most popular porn site on the internet, Pornhub.

Between all of this, the question now remains: will the EU Parliament ignore all of these voices? Ignore all of the over 5 million people who signed a Petition against Article 13? Will it ignore all the companies who have said that Article 13 will put them at a disadvantage compared to Google? Will it ignore of the content creators who rely on platforms like Twitch and Patreon?

Filed Under: #saveyourinternet, article 11, article 13, censorship, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, filters, intermediary liability
Companies: creative commons, internet archive, patreon, reddit, twitch, wikipedia

FBI's 'Clothing Match' Expert Changed Testimony To Better Serve Prosecutors, Co-Chairs Nat'l Forensic Committee

from the when-scientific-rigor-meets-streamlined-prosecutions dept

A little more than a month ago, we covered the ultra-weird offshoot of FBI forensics spearheaded by Richard Vorder Bruegge. Vorder Bruegge claimed mass-produced clothing like jeans were as unique as fingerprints and DNA. According to his forensic "expertise," a match could be made using only low-res CCTV screengrabs and whole lot of arrows.

This peculiar strand of FBI forensics is still in use. Vorder Bruegge, rather than being laughed out of the FBI forensic lab, has risen to a position where he can pass on his dubious expertise to others. ProPublica continues to dig into the FBI's questionable forensic programs and has found that Vorder Bruegge is now sitting near the top of the nation's forensic organizational chart.

Today, Vorder Bruegge is one of the nation’s most influential crime lab scientists. He serves on the Forensic Science Standards Board, which sets rules for every field, from DNA to fingerprints. He’s a co-chair organizing the American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting this week in Baltimore, a gathering of thousands of crime lab professionals, researchers, lawyers and judges.

This has happened due to Vorder Bruegge's testimonial quantity, not quality. ProPublica quotes a 2013 law review article that refers to him as the "most ubiquitous" expert witness. A quality job it isn't. But given enough opportunities, Vorder Bruegge has managed to turn unproven claims about the uniqueness of clothing into years in prison for people he's testified against. His track record shows he's willing to change his expert opinion if it better serves the prosecution.

In his report, Vorder Bruegge wrote that John Henry Stroman and the robber had similar “overall shape of the face, nose, mouth, chin, and ears.” But Vorder Bruegge stopped short of declaring a match, saying the video and pictures were too low resolution for that.

Nevertheless, prosecutors said in court filings that if Vorder Bruegge took the stand, he would testify that “the photograph is of sufficient resolution to definitively state that the robber is John Henry Stroman.”

[...]

It wasn’t the first time, nor the last, Vorder Bruegge’s lab results said one thing and the courts were told something different. Court records and FBI Lab files show statements by prosecutors or Vorder Bruegge veered from his original conclusions in at least three cases.

This is what happens when you care about convictions but not all that much about science. Vorder Bruegge's background as a geologist certainly didn't prepare him for a future of staring at grainy photos of shirts worn by suspects. But none of that mattered to the FBI which found him to be a useful champion of pseudoscience who could be used to lock people up.

The entire report is a fascinating, if disheartening, read. Jurors and judges are easily swayed by FBI experts, even after cross examination exposes mathematically-impossible levels of certainty or, in at least one case, Vorder Brugge's admission he worked backward from the conclusion prosecutors wanted him to reach.

Work like Vorder Bruegge's is exactly why a prominent federal judge resigned from a forensic committee in 2015. Judge Jed Rakoff recognized the DOJ did not want to fix its forensic problems. It only wanted to give the appearance it cared for as long as it took to sweep the embarrassment under the rug. The DOJ has too much invested in half-baked science and self-made experts to actually clean house and add more actual science to its forensic methods.

Filed Under: clothing matching, fbi, forensic science standards board, forensics, vorder bruegge

Independent Musician Dan Bull's New Song, Robocopyright, Warns Of The Dangers Of Article 13

from the for-the-artists dept

You know how supporters of Article 13 keep insisting it's "for the artists?" Well, successful independent musician Dan Bull has just put out his latest song and video: Robocopyright, calling out all the ways in which Article 13 will harm him as a creator:

The key message: Article 13 and its requirement for filters (and, yes, it requires filters) will mean more gatekeepers, more censorship, and less freedom for creators. Algorithmic policing of content does not work as it cannot take into account context. It fails in both directions in blocking legit content and failing to block infringing content (which will only open up platforms to even greater liability). In short, to anyone who understands technology, it will be a huge mess.

Go watch it and then let the EU Parliament know not to pass Article 13.

Filed Under: article 13, copyright, dan bull, eu, eu copyright directive, music, robocopyright

MEPs Realizing How Bad Article 13 Could Be, Begin To Back Away From EU Copyright Directive

from the but-more-is-needed dept

The online protests around the terrible Article 11 and Article 13 only began yesterday. This weekend there are expected to be significant in-person protests as well, leading up to the big vote next week. Already the protests are having an impact. MEP Julia Reda passes on the news from Polish MEP Michal Boni that the major Polish political party, Civic Platform (or Platforma) has said they will not vote for the EU Copyright Directive if it contains Article 13:

That's a big win for the internet, and people should go thank Boni for that. However, many others in the EU Parliament have not yet said how they will vote and need to hear from people in the EU. The future of the internet -- and whether it's an open platform for all, or a closed platform for gatekeepers, depends on it.

Filed Under: article 13, censorship, civic platform, copyright, eu, eu copyright directive, filters, michal boni, platforma, poland

CBP Detains 9-Year-Old US Citizen For 36 Hours, Accuses Her 14-Year-Old Brother Of Sex Trafficking

from the safest-border-ever dept

Today's example of the government's ugliness comes to us courtesy of Customs and Border Protection. There's a crisis at the border if the latest national emergency is to be believed (it isn't), and the only way to stop it is to ramp up enforcement. If this means tossing a 9-year-old American citizen in the clink, so be it.

A mother and her 9-year-old daughter were separated for 36 hours after the child fell into U.S. Customs and Border Protection custody because agents at the border didn't believe she was who she claimed to be, a mother says.

This debacle started the way something like this usually does: with US citizens engaged in activity they engage in every day. In this case, mother Thelma Galaxia's children were being driven from Tijuana to the border crossing in order to attend school in San Ysidro, California. This was the normal state of affairs for her 9-year-old daughter and 14-year-old son.

Traffic was heavy at the crossing so her friend told them to walk across the border to make sure they got to school on time. Both children were questioned by CBP officers. These officers decided 9-year-old Isabel Medina didn't resemble her passport photo. They accused her of actually being her cousin, Melanie.

That wasn't enough for the CBP. It also decided to terrorize her 14-year-old brother, Oscar, by accusing him of being a criminal.

Galaxia said officers made Oscar Medina sign a document that said his little sister was his cousin.

“That is not true,” Galaxia said. “She is my daughter. He was told that he would be taken to jail and they were going to charge him for human trafficking and sex trafficking.”

The intimidated 14-year-old signed the document, thus making the CBP officers technically correct in their assumptions. They now had a paper signed by a human trafficker family member stating that Isabel Medina was actually someone other than the person she actually was.

Galaxia's children might have been detained longer if she hadn't gone to the press. NBC7 reports the Mexican consulate contacted the station while Galaxia was being interviewed by journalists, saying the children were being released to her. Presumably, the station's requests for comment from the involved government agencies got the wheels rolling on her daughter's case. The CBP, meanwhile, has refused to comment on this detention, claiming it's still in the middle of investigating this incident.

It seems like one of the CBP officers might have tried to contact the children's parents to straighten this out. But I guess it's a lot easier to intimidate children into false confessions when there are no other adults around standing up for their rights or contradicting the CBP's assumptions.

Filed Under: cbp, children, immigration, isabel medina, overreaction, thelma galaxia, us citizens

Daily Deal: Hacksaw Academy

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

Hacksaw Academy is an interactive elearning platform that is divided into easily digestible programming projects that get you mastering key programming tools, like HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Each project is split into 30-minute sprints and takes place inside an interactive editor that you can jump in and out of at any time. From landing pages to portfolios, Hacksaw's projects will help you develop invaluable skills. It's on sale for $49.

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: daily deal