from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept
Note: We earn a portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
by Mike Masnick
Thu, May 28th 2015 10:26am
Do we have Mr. Prince’s permission to sell these prints? We have the same permission from him that he had from us. ;)Also, any profits are being donated to EFF, so that obviously rocks as well.
by Mike Masnick
Thu, May 28th 2015 9:28am
For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.It's a fairly amazing speech where Cameron can -- within just a few sentences -- both argue for the rule of law and that obeying the rule of law should not keep you out of trouble.
This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values.
Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality.
We must say to our citizens: this is what defines us as a society.
Measures will also be brought forward to promote social cohesion and protect people by tackling extremism. New legislation will modernise the law on communications data, improve the law on policing and criminal justice, and ban the new generation of psychoactive drugs.That first sentence is about the extremism orders, but the second part may be even more troubling. It's the Queen making it clear that the Snooper's Charter is returning -- but even worse than before. If you don't recall, the UK government has been trying to pass this bill that would grant the government massive surveillance powers. David Cameron insists this is necessary because he's seen it work on fictional crime shows that he watches on TV (really). The last major attempt to push this through failed thanks to then Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg blocking it. But with Clegg out of the way following the last election, the government is going for the gold in pushing for an even broader Snooper's Charter including mandatory backdoors into encryption:
In a surprise move, the government is to introduce an investigatory powers bill far more wide-ranging than expected. The legislation will include not only the expected snooper’s charter, enabling the tracking of everyone’s web and social media use, but also moves to strengthen the security services’ warranted powers for the bulk interception of the content of communications.Of course, as we've been discussing for quite some time now, such backdoors into encryption are monumentally stupid and counterproductive. They weaken the security and privacy of everyone. And, of course, we've already discussed how once one country demands its own backdoors, others will want them as well. And, of course, such backdoors always come back to bite everyone by opening up avenues for malicious and nefarious attacks -- no matter how often law enforcement insists that it can keep things safe. You are, by definition, opening up a vulnerability. And it will lead to less safety and security.
by Mike Masnick
Thu, May 28th 2015 8:16am
“There is no data of 400,000 of our customers on the web,” a spokeswoman for the company told the BBC. “We believe to have become a victim of a predatory attack, aimed to take advantage of our estimated commercial achievements.”And, of course, a day or two later, mSpy actually admitted the truth... which was that of course it had been hacked and had the data leaked.
"Much to our regret, we must inform you that data leakage has actually taken place," spokeswoman Amelie Ross told BBC News.We'll see. If history is any guide, the hack may be even worse. In almost every story of a big hack into corporate computer systems, the initial estimate on the number of accounts impacted is too low, and adjusted upward at a later date.
"However, the scope and format of the aforesaid information is way too exaggerated."
She said that 80,000 customers had been affected. Initial reports suggested up to 400,000 customer details had been exposed.
"Naturally, we have communicated with our customers whose data could have been stolen, and described them a situation. We put in place all the necessary remedial measures and continue to work on mechanism of data encryption," she added.
"As its name suggests, this "non-document" is just a proposal from the presidency for a meeting of the EU Council, made up of representatives of EU governments, which was held yesterday. However, the fact that every mention of net neutrality was excised from the existing text is a clear indication that there is no interest in protecting it among this group. According to La Quadrature du Net, the presidency has adopted this anti-net neutrality position "as a bargaining chip to get a compromise on roaming, perceived as more consensual, allegedly easier to understand and more marketable to voters."In other words, instead of an all-encompassing, consumer and startup friendly telecom regulation package promised by Kroes years ago, the EU's looking at some relatively wimpy reform that may leave net neutrality left on the cutting room floor. European supporters of net neutrality are obviously annoyed, and are pushing for action ahead of the June 12th Council meeting of Telecommunications ministers. Of course if you've followed the net neutrality fight in the States for the last decade, there were countless times where the fight appeared utterly hopeless. So while Kroels ridiculed the States for being neutrality unfriendly a year and a half ago, the U.S. battle is now an example of how seemingly intractable, wealthy and powerful telecom interests really can be defeated.
by Tim Cushing
Thu, May 28th 2015 4:08am
Police Lt. Kimberly A. Schneider told The Associated Press that Capitol Police officers on routine patrol spotted the parked, unoccupied vehicle on a street on the mall west of the Capitol around 5 p.m. Sunday.That's how the "boots on the ground" War on Terror
“Further investigation revealed a pressure cooker, and an odor of gasoline was detected,” Schneider said, adding a Capitol Police bomb squad was called in because the vehicle was deemed “suspicious in nature.”
She said the squad known as the Hazardous Devices Section destroyed “items of concern in the vehicle including the pressure cooker” at about 7:45 p.m. after temporarily closing off the area on the long Memorial Day holiday weekend. She did not immediately identify the other items but said only that “this safe disruption produced a loud ‘bang.’
Authorities have noted that pressure cookers have been used in the past to create explosive devices.Presumably, these same authorities can also be counted on to point out that planes have been hijacked in the past, just in case anyone has forgotten the "devices" used in high-profile terrorist attacks on American soil.
by Glyn Moody
Thu, May 28th 2015 1:03am
Recently, we looked at how corporate sovereignty provisions undermine democracy by irrevocably binding future governments. The analysis was framed in terms of the UK's situation, but applied more generally to any country that signs up to investor-state dispute (ISDS) mechanisms in trade agreements. In particular, it applies to the US. And yet in President Obama's (in)famous TPP speech at Nike a few weeks ago -- the one where he claimed some of his "dearest friends" were wrong -- he said the following:
[TPP] critics warn that parts of this deal would undermine American regulation -- food safety, worker safety, even financial regulations. They're making this stuff up. (Applause.) This is just not true. No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.
But as a post on the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy site points out, just 12 days after Obama made that speech, this happened:
The House Agriculture Committee voted 38-6 to repeal in its entirety country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) for beef, pork and poultry. The House vote came in response to a May 18 ruling by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that the U.S. had violated global trade rules by requiring supermarket labels on beef and pork to indicate where livestock was born, raised and slaughtered.
As that makes clear, alongside the fact that it is quite possible that the US will indeed modify its laws here because of a trade agreement, this would be happening even though the laws in question enjoy huge support among the US public. Which shows that trade agreements can not only force laws to be changed, but can do so with absolutely no regard to what the people in whose name they are supposedly negotiated, actually want.
Congress has not repealed it because of overwhelming public support for COOL -- 90% of Americans support such a measure, according to Consumer Reports. Needless to say, civil society including farm, ranch, consumer, labor and other groups, won't sit quietly. But the fact is that the U.S. has to change COOL or face trade sanctions (though how significant is unclear). The USTR has already indicated it will encourage Congress to revise COOL.
by Tim Cushing
Wed, May 27th 2015 9:02pm
Racial profiling certainly appears to be a problem for some law enforcement agencies. It's not often you hear the government arguing that it should be allowed to profile citizens racially, but that's exactly what it did. Unsurprisingly, the government body arguing for the right to search any black male simply because a black male is being sought is the NYPD -- an argument which highlights the sort of behavior its "stop and frisk" program encouraged.
A couple of years ago, the NYPD was searching for a robbery suspect with the following description:
On the morning of April 2, 2013, New York City Police Officers Christopher Vaccaro and Damon Valentino were ordered to locate and arrest Chauncey Butler, a third-degree robbery suspect. The officers were provided with a photograph of Butler from a previous arrest and an investigation card, or “I-Card,” that contained “pedigree information.” Based on these records, the officers had at their disposal Butler’s race, black; height, 5’10” to 6’0” tall; hair color, black; weight, 155 to 180 pounds; age, 19; and home address, on Valentine Avenue in the Bronx.In addition, one of officers had direct knowledge of Butler's physical features, having arrested him previously on drug charges. Despite this info, the officers looking for Butler decided -- after a fruitless ninety-minute search -- that another black male could be made to fit the description.
[A]t about 5:00 in the afternoon, when it was still light out -- [the officers[ came across Watson and stopped to observe him. Watson is black, 6’2” tall, and was 180 pounds and 25 years old at the time.Watson was in the vicinity of the description, but didn't necessarily fit it. But when Watson's later actions proved he wasn't the sought suspect, the officers tried to pin their illegal search on something else.
The officers testified that when they first caught sight of Watson, they “believed” he was Butler. At that time, moreover, he was with two other individuals and appeared to be engaged in a drug sale. After seeing a hand signal that they recognized as indicative of a drug transaction, the officers exited the car. Officer Vaccaro then immediately drew his gun and, approaching the three men from behind, “announced himself as a police officer.”Watson was then searched for weapons and contraband by the officers, who found 27 baggies of crack in his pockets. That was the officers' take on the events leading up to the search. Watson, however, argued that he was not engaged in a drug deal (although he was carrying a weapon). He was instead walking with a friend when he was ordered to turn around by the NYPD officers. One of the officers asked Watson if he was Butler, which he (obviously) denied. He then handed his ID card to the officers. The officers then asked if he was carrying any contraband, which he (obviously, but for different reasons) denied. The officers performed the search anyway, despite lacking the reasonable suspicion to do so and being well-aware they weren't dealing with the robbery suspect they were looking for.
In an oral ruling delivered from the bench, the district court found that the search was unconstitutional for two reasons. The first -- which we conclude we need not address on this appeal -- is that the officers would have lacked authority to frisk Butler had they actually encountered him because he was only charged with third-degree robbery, which, unlike first- or second-degree robbery, does not involve use of a firearm or deadly weapon. This, combined with the fact that “[t]he government offered no evidence that Butler had ever committed a crime using a weapon,” led the district court to conclude that Officer Vaccaro had no reasonable basis to believe that Butler, had he actually been present, might have been armed and dangerous.Judge Scheindlin -- who has never been one to oblige the NYPD's excesses -- made it clear in her ruling that the officers had no reason to search Watson, no matter which line of logic it pursued.
Second, and of relevance here, the district court determined that, even assuming arguendo that the officers would have had authority to search Butler if they had encountered him, the search of Watson was objectively unreasonable because the officers had no reasonable basis to believe he was Butler and did not in fact believe he was Butler. Furthermore, the officers had no alternative ground to search Watson, for, as the district court found, the officers did not observe any hand signals indicative of a drug transaction; no third person existed or escaped from the scene; and Watson’s coat was closed and the butt of his gun was concealed.
Vaccaro testified that he saw Watson clearly and still believed that Watson was Butler. Although Vaccaro previously arrested Butler and spent time with him, he admitted that he was not sure whether or not Watson was Butler until after he ran Watson's fingerprints because “on a yearly basis [he] arrests or comes into contact with over a hundred individuals.” I do not find this testimony credible. Butler and Watson do not look [a]like. This is evident from a comparison of the photographs of Butler and Watson, as well as my observation of Watson at the hearing.The NYPD appealed this decision, using some truly regrettable arguments -- ones that not only suggest racial profiling might be OK because people sometimes have certain features in common, but that its officers are sometimes so visually impaired they can't tell the difference between the person depicted on a NYPD "ID card" and the person standing right in front of them, presenting identification that proves otherwise.
In addition to their different facial features, skin tone, height, and weight, Watson is over five years older than Butler. Vaccaro’s generic description of the similarities between Watson and Butler undermines the contention that he reasonably believed them to be the same person.
The government argues that it would have been illogical for the officers to ask for identification prior to searching Watson, but I reach the opposite conclusion: It would have been illogical and imprudent not to ask for identification. While Vaccaro’s belief that Watson was Butler might have been the basis for the stop, it was not the basis for the search.
The Government argues, inter alia, that, to the extent that the district court’s finding that the two men do not look alike was based on its in-person observation of Watson, we should discredit it because the district court had an extended opportunity to view Watson in a well-lit courtroom, whereas Officer Vaccaro viewed him for only a minute. But the testimony in the record shows that it was light out at the time of the stop, and that, once he exited his car, Officer Vaccaro’s view was not impaired. A material difference in skin tone, facial features, and height is not something that takes a long time to process. Thus, we see no reason to conclude that the factual findings of the district court are clearly erroneous.Quite obviously, this isn't the outcome the NYPD's lawyers were hoping for when it laid down its suspect arguments. But even if this wasn't exactly what it meant, this was the only conclusion the court could reach. And it's a severely ugly conclusion.
The rule that the government would have us adopt has the practical effect of permitting police officers to search any black male who is of roughly similar height, age, and skin tone to another black male charged with a crime. Such a rule is unreasonable on its face.The officers had no reason to search Watson because he didn't physically match the description and had provided ID stating the contrary. Ah, but some will say, what about the drug deal the officers observed? Well, that description of the events was considered so contradictory to other testimony that the lower court discredited it completely. And, while the officers first attempted to justify their search with the "we saw a drug deal" story (rather than basing it on the momentary "belief" that Watson was Butler), the government's lawyers did not rely on this disputed narrative during the case's trip to the Second Circuit Court.
by Michael Ho
Wed, May 27th 2015 5:00pm
by Mike Masnick
Wed, May 27th 2015 3:06pm
The much delayed filing of the summons return simultaneously forced the Court to unnecessarily expend judicial resources in the issuance of an Order to Show Cause and hindered the ability of the Court to manage its docket. With respect to the filing of an answer or other matters dependent on the date of service of process, the Court’s ability to actively manage its docket is entirely dependent on counsel filing a summons return within a reasonable amount of time.But that's just the preamble. From there, Judge Black makes it clear he's well read up on all of Malibu Media's infamous shenanigans in gaming the judicial system for profit.
The Court does not view Malibu Media’s conduct in this action in isolation. Rather, the Court views it as part of an unmistakable pattern that has emerged in other actions before this Court and in context of observations made by multiple other federal judges in cases involving Malibu Media.We wrote about that public filing a few months ago. But that's not all that the judge has been watching. He's also well aware of the notorious "Exhibit C," where Malibu Media would file an "exhibit" of other movies that it believed the defendant may also have downloaded illegally -- even though it was not the copyright holder on those films. The titles were often very embarrassing, suggesting that the entire purpose of Exhibit C was to embarrass someone into settling so the list would not be associated with their name in court documents.
This Court has observed the conduct of Malibu Media and its counsel of record in over 60 cases filed in this District in the past twelve months. This is not the first case in which Malibu Media has filed a summons return well after the date of service. Counsel appears to have made a misrepresentation in seeking an extension of time to complete service in two cases. The Court also issued an order to show cause after counsel publicly filed a defendant’s name in direct violation of two orders unambiguously ordering counsel to file that information under seal.
Malibu Media asserts that it is necessary to invoke the Court’s subpoena power to “propound discovery in advance of a Rule 26(f) conference.” .... However, not a single one of these 60 cases has ever progressed to a Rule 26(f) conference. In fact, most cases are voluntarily dismissed by Malibu Media pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without obtaining a summons, but presumably after Malibu Media has used the third-party subpoena to obtain a settlement. The name of the IP subscriber is never provided to the Court in these voluntarily dismissed cases. This makes it impossible for this Court or any other court to determine, for example, if a later action should be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(B). In the few cases in which a defendant has appeared with counsel, counsel have raised numerous allegations of impropriety and abusive litigation tactics. The Court is not blind to the reality that these allegations likely substantially underrepresent the amount of misconduct that goes unreported by defendants who simply pay Malibu Media’s settlement demand rather than face the prospect of expensive and extensive litigation regarding their purported interest in pornography.Oh right. The Bellwether trial. That case had all sorts of problems, including a lying defendant who tried to destroy evidence. Unfortunately, it did not do what it was initially intended to do: actually test some of Malibu Media's really questionable legal arguments. Judge Black quickly notes that the "bellwether" trial doesn't matter. Malibu Media is up to some really questionable judicial gaming. He walks through all of the abuses, from misjoinder to Exhibit C -- and even notes that despite being benchslapped over Exhibit C, Malibu Media just "evolved this practice":
The Court is aware that Malibu Media, through separate local counsel, has filed thousands of similar cases in federal courts across the country. A copyright troll has been defined as “an owner of a valid copyright who brings an infringement action not to be made whole, but rather as a primary or supplemental revenue stream.” .... Under this definition, Malibu Media certainly qualifies. However, Malibu Media generally responds to this allegation by pointing to comments of the trial judge in the so-called bellwether trial as unassailable proof that its intentions and tactics differ from other entities that bring copyright infringement actions related to pornographic movies.
Notwithstanding Malibu Media’s contention that it “instructed counsel nationwide to never file Exhibit C with a complaint again,” ... this Court has borne witness to the fact that Malibu Media has simply evolved this practice rather than eradicate it. In an Order issued in a separate case on October 6, 2014, this Court sua sponte noted a continued vestige of Exhibit C in several paragraphs of Malibu Media’s complaint.... Instead of attaching Exhibit C, Malibu Media adapted its practice and now made an explicit reference to a document with “additional evidence” that the defendant had distributed a large number of third-party files through BitTorrent.... Malibu Media disingenuously offered to produce this document to the Court with the seemingly off-handed remark that “many of the titles to the third party works may also be relevant to proving Defendant is the infringer because they correlate to the Defendant’s hobbies, profession, or other interests.” ... Citing the two Wisconsin district court cases that imposed sanctions for attaching Exhibit C, the Court struck the offending paragraphs from the complaint and ordered Malibu Media to file a conforming amended complaint forthwith.... Two months later, Malibu Media voluntarily dismissed the action without filing an amended complaint.In discussing what to do about this, Black notes that, ordinarily, it's wrong to just dismiss a case to discipline "an errant attorney" since that would be unfair to the parties the lawyer represents. However, he notes that in this case, it's different. The sheer number of cases and the fact that Malibu/Lipscomb's games continue suggest that this is not just a bad lawyer not fairly representing the interests of a client. Oh, and it's clear Black knows that this is all being run through Lipscomb, rather than the random lawyers who actually turn up for local cases:
Here, and in the dozens of other actions before the Court, there is ample evidence that Malibu Media or its “outside general counsel,” rather than its local counsel of record selects the litigation strategy and tactics. 12 Accordingly, the general principle that “directly sanctioning the delinquent lawyer rather than an innocent client” may not apply here....Still, Judge Black is incredibly patient. Despite the earlier orders to show cause, he once again gives Malibu a chance to explain itself. Though in the second of the two orders, Judge Black also lays out the possibility of "Rule 11 sanctions" against the lawyers for flat out lying to the court and failing to correct the record on it -- though again (perhaps surprisingly) suggests that the conduct to date is not enough to get there.
Here, the record indicates that on February 10, 2015, Malibu Media’s counsel represented that service had not yet occurred. (Doc. 10 at 2). However, it is clear that Defendant was served on January 26, 2015. (Doc. 12). Counsel made no attempt to correct this statement until after the Court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding the apparent failure to complete service of process.It may be frustrating to those who are watching these cases that even this is not enough to bring down Rule 11 sanctions, but Judge Black has made it clear that he's watching -- and you can bet that other judges across the country may start to take notice as well. And assuming Malibu Media can't resist continuing to push things even further, the record of misconduct will be that much longer and more detailed.
Explore some core concepts:
|13:49||How Much Of Europe's Regulatory Interest In Silicon Valley Is Just Jealousy Over Successful Foreign Companies? (25)|
|12:48||Hacker Informs Starbucks Of Gift Card Exploit; Starbucks Accuses Hacker Of Fraud And Maliciousness (37)|
|11:46||Federal Judge Tosses All Evidence Obtained By FBI's 'Cable Guy' Ruse (21)|
|10:43||Richard Prince Continues To Push The Boundaries Of Copyright Law In Selling Other People's Instagram Selfies (53)|
|10:32||Daily Deals: Father's Day Deals (0)|
|09:44||Disney Warned Fusion Not To Do News Coverage That Might Embarrass It Or Others In Hollywood (20)|
|08:17||Obama Administration Files Totally Clueless Argument Concerning Software Copyrights In Supreme Court Case (57)|
|06:13||Good News! Dianne Feinstein Is Here To Reform The Section 215 Program By Making Everything Worse! (24)|
|04:13||2 Teen Diablo Players Were Charged, Got Probation For 'Stealing' Virtual Items That Were Replaced (47)|
|01:15||How Corporate Sovereignty Undermines Democracy By Irrevocably Binding Future Governments (22)|
|21:15||The Price Of Ignoring Free Internet Security Advice: Billboards Of Goatse (36)|
|17:00||DailyDirt: Space Mining (7)|
|15:58||Financial Info On 100,000 Taxpayers Now In The Hands Of Criminals, Thanks To The IRS's Weak Authentication Processes (21)|
|14:47||Charter Acquires Time Warner Cable, Promises It Will Suck Less Than Blocked Comcast Merger (24)|
|13:47||Supreme Court Sides With Patent Trolls (23)|
|12:45||Techdirt Podcast Episode 26: Silicon Valley's Secret Ingredient (0)|
|11:47||Cox Claims Rightscorp's 'Extortionate' Lawsuit Really A Backdoor Way To Get Subscribers' Info (24)|
|10:42||AT&T Argues Net Neutrality Violates Its First Amendment Rights (28)|
|10:37||Daily Deal: Earjax Lyrics Noise-Isolating Headphones (4)|
|09:41||There Aren't Many Ways To Do Online Reputation Management Right, And This Isn't One Of Them (23)|
|08:12||Sherlock Holmes And The Case Of The Never Ending Copyright Dispute (35)|
|05:57||Obtained Emails Show FBI's General Counsel Briefly Concerned About Privacy Implications Of License Plate Readers (13)|
|03:59||Meanwhile, In Japan: More Arrests For Cheating At Video Games (49)|
|12:00||Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (12)|
|12:00||This Week In Techdirt History: May 17th - 23rd (10)|
|09:00||Awesome Stuff: Handwritten Input For Anything, Anywhere (7)|
|06:55||Senate Fails To Pass Both USA Freedom And PATRIOT Act Extension, Setting Up Possible Expiration Of Section 215 (30)|
|19:39||Paper Says Public Doesn't Know How To Keep Score In Privacy Discussion While Glossing Over Government Surveillance (25)|
|18:16||TPP Moves Forward In Senate With Fast Track; On To The House (27)|
|17:00||DailyDirt: Trendy Drinks (5)|