Australian Aboriginal Flag Mess Is Getting Worse -- All Thanks To Copyright

from the don't-give-them-ideas dept

One of the longer-running sagas here on Techdirt concerns the disgraceful situation regarding the flag of Australia's Aboriginal peoples. Mike first wrote about this in 2010, and again in June of this year. The problem is that what is now widely regarded as the flag of Australia's First Nations was designed fairly recently by a private individual, not a group representing those peoples, or some official Australian government body. The designer, Harold Thomas, signed a licensing deal with a clothing company, Wam Clothing, which imposes hefty fees for the use of the design, even on non-profit health organizations giving away items that bear the flag:

In August, Wam Clothing charged the Indigenous Wellbeing Centre in Bundaberg AU$2,200 [about $1500] to use the flag on T-shirts it had given to patients who came into the clinic for a preventive health check.

According to an article in the Guardian, the licensing agreement between Wam Clothing and Harold Thomas specified that the design may be used by Aboriginal people for non-profit purposes. However:

Wam Clothing has said the terms of any licence agreements are confidential and legally privileged and only for the benefit of the parties to that agreement. They said the documents seen by Guardian Australia may have been fraudulently created.

Wam Clothing claims that it is the exclusive worldwide licensee for the use of the Aboriginal flag not just on clothing, but also on digital media. To prove the point:

In mid-August, the company issued a "cease and desist" notice to the creator of a Facebook discussion page called "New Aboriginal flag or flags discussion" because its "use of the digital image of the Aboriginal flag on social media platforms are [sic] being used in a negative light".

Copyright and secret deals have made the situation so ridiculous that in June 2019 the Australian Senate passed a motion calling on the national government to do all it could to "ensure that all First Nations peoples and communities can use the flag whenever they want without cost or the need for consent". More recently, the Australian MP Linda Burney called for the government there to sort things out:

"This situation is untenable," Burney said. "It’s unthinkable that the use of the Aboriginal flag is now governed by a secret agreement at the discretion of a for-profit company.

"It is a discredit to the flag's history and the strength it represents."

This is not just about copyright, or the rights of Australia's Aboriginal peoples. For Burney, the issue is personal:

"Like so many proud Aboriginal people, I've got a tattoo of the flag. What are they going to do? Try and cut it out of me?"

Probably best not to give them ideas, Linda…

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: aborigine, australia, copyright, flag, flag copyright, harold thomas
Companies: wam clothing

Security Researchers Whose 'Penetration Test' Involved Breaking And Entering Now Facing Criminal Charges

from the [throws-brick-through-window]-this-needs-hardening dept

Turning security researchers into criminals is so popular we have a tag for it here at Techdirt. A security hole is found or a breach pointed out, and the first thing far too many entities do in response is turn the messenger over to law enforcement while muttering unintelligible things about "hacking."

Security researchers are invaluable. They've exposed a ton of security breaches and helped make the web safer for everyone. Their efforts are rarely appreciated by the entity caught with its security pants down. Just because the breachee has chosen to blow off its obligations to its customers and users doesn't make the person who discovered the breach a criminal. Unfortunately, the CFAA lends itself to abuse and the DOJ is more than willing to abuse it -- something that turns security research into a security risk for those who choose to follow this career path.

Then there are efforts like this one, which seems completely inexplicable. It's dog-bites-man news when a security researcher is arrested, but every other case we've covered involved nothing more than the use of a computer. This one expands the definition of "penetration testing."

Two men arrested for breaking into the Dallas County Courthouse told law enforcement they were hired to do so by the judicial branch.

The men, outfitted with numerous burglary tools, told authorities they were on contract to test out the courthouse alarm system's viability and to gauge law enforcement's response time, an alleged contract that Dallas County officials said they had no knowledge of, according to a criminal complaint.

Well, then. At first blush, it seems like the sort of thing one might say when pressed to explain their actions while facing breaking and entering charges. It's a better excuse than most off-the-cuff denials of wrongdoing. The thing is, this narrative appears to be true.

Authorities later found out the state court administration did, in fact, hire the men to attempt "unauthorized access" to court records "through various means" in order to check for potential security vulnerabilities of Iowa's electronic court records, according to Iowa Judicial Branch officials.

However, it appears judicial officials did not think "breaking and entering" would be part of the "various means." The men remain in jail on $500,000 bond despite this penetration test showing the courthouse's security response was hardened or whatever. The alarm system triggered a response by law enforcement and the men were found on site and arrested. The system -- at least the physical part of the court's alarm system -- works.

It appears the men's excuse is legitimate. As Sean Gallagher reports for Ars Technica, cybersecurity advisors Coalfire did indeed hire the men to carry out a test of the Dallas County courthouse's security. But it has, so far, refused to comment on the arrests, so it's unclear whether this was done with the company's blessing. And it appears this wasn't the testers' first run, either. The Des Moines Register says the men are also suspected of breaking into the Polk County Courthouse in Des Moines -- something that happened two days prior to their arrest at the Dallas County courthouse.

Unfortunately, this isn't going to make anything easier for security researchers. When researchers are hired to perform penetration tests, anything not explicitly defined in the contract could net them criminal charges, even if they were told to check systems for flaws.

This is some prime WTF-ness but even with its unusual details, it's still illustrative of the risks researchers face on a daily basis. Those that don't hire them are peeved when flaws are exposed and tend to treat them like criminals. Those hired to do the job run the risk of performing unanticipated tests, putting them in the same line of fire.

UPDATE: The Iowa Judicial Branch has released an official statement on the penetration tests, along with copies of its contract with Coalfire. The documents appear to authorize physical access to targeted courthouses, but nothing in the details suggests breaking-and-entering after hours was contemplated as part of the physical access test. Nothing in the language strictly forbids it either.

Here's what the Judicial Branch has to say about the two incidents, which may ultimately result in charges being dropped:

Recently, two penetration testers employed by Coalfire were arrested in the Dallas County Courthouse during a security testing exercise to help the Iowa Judicial Branch ensure the court’s highly sensitive data was secured against attack. Coalfire was working to provide quality client service and a stronger security posture. Coalfire and State Court Administration believed they were in agreement regarding the physical security assessments for the locations included in the scope of work. Yet, recent events have shown that Coalfire and State Court Administration had different interpretations of the scope of the agreement. Together, Coalfire and State Court Administration continue to navigate through this process. To that end, the Iowa Judicial Branch and Coalfire will each be conducting independent reviews and releasing the contractual documents executed between both parties.

State Court Administration has worked with Coalfire in the past to conduct security testing of its data and welcomed the opportunity to work with them again. Both organizations value the importance of protecting the safety and security of employees as well as the integrity of data.

State Court Administration apologizes to the sheriffs and boards of supervisors of Dallas County and Polk County for the confusion and impact these incidents have caused.

Filed Under: breaking and entering, pen test, penetration teesting, security, security researchers

Lawsuit Settlement Over Detainment Of A Journalist Will Force Denver Police Department To Admit The First Amendment Exists

from the being-deliberately-wrong-is-just-playing-the-odds dept

Last summer, Denver police officers decided the First Amendment didn't exist in the city, at least not while they were in the process of helping a naked black man get some medical attention by handcuffing him in the middle of the sidewalk.

Denver PD officers Adam Paulsen and James Brooks noticed journalist Susan Greene filming the incident and decided she needed some law enforcement herself. So they approached her and told her to stop filming by citing an inapplicable law. For whatever reason, they also told her to "act like a lady." Greene was handcuffed and placed in a squad car for 12 minutes before a less-stupid cop contacted these officers and told them to release her.

The whole incident was captured by officers' body cameras, including the repeated suggestion the journalist wasn't "acting like a lady" by contesting the officers' decision to cuff her and put her in the nearest squad car.

Here was the bullshit the cops used to try to shut Greene down:

As Greene detailed in a post the next day, and as the body-cam footage confirms, she approached the scene and was immediately blocked by Officer James Brooks.

He continues to block her as she tries to keep shooting, at one point raising the camera high above Brooks’s head.

Brooks is quickly joined by Officer Adam Paulsen, and the two advise her that she can not take photographs because doing so violates the HIPAA rights of the nearly naked man they have cuffed. HIPAA or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act outlines an individual’s rights to medical privacy.

To be clear, HIPAA isn't violated when officers perform an ultra-weird medical consultation in the middle of public street -- one that involves a strategically-draped towel and a pair of handcuffs. If this man was ultimately taken in for a medical/mental examination and those records were handed over to the reporter, that would be a HIPAA violation. Shooting footage of public servants on a public street performing their public duties doesn't violate the privacy of anyone, medical or otherwise.

The officers also claimed she was interfering with the non-arrest the officers claimed they were not making, apparently oblivious of the fact that they had approached the journalist, rather than the other way around. They also trotted out the "stop resisting" canard to pre-exonerate themselves for their aggressive handling of a person armed with a camera.

Throughout the entire thing -- at least all the way up till the settlement the city is planning to pay Susan Greene -- Denver PD brass acted with useless decorum. Shortly after the incident went public, Police Chief Paul Pazen said people were way too focused on officers ignoring the First Amendment, rather than expressing their concern for the naked person his officers had handcuffed in the middle of the sidewalk.

“It doesn’t appear that you’re asking any questions with regards to how an individual is treated who’s in crisis,” he said at one point in the interview. “That’s really what we all should be focusing in on.”

“In a situation like this, we should look at the whole picture, not just certain segments that could point one person in a bad light.”

Actually, it was two people, chief. And they put themselves in a "bad light" with their actions. The public shouldn't be deterred from asking why police officers are violating Constitutional rights, even if there are other issues at play.

More disheartening was the complaint process, in which one of the officer's supervisors pretty much said filing a complaint would be a waste of everyone's time.

I called Denver Police Department’s District 6 and spoke with Sgt. Shawn Saunders, who supervises Officer Brooks. He said he’d look into the incident and make sure the halo camera footage and other evidence are preserved for review. He gave me the option of filing a formal complaint against Officer Brooks. I told him I’d consider it, but that I don’t have a lot of confidence in Denver’s disciplinary system, which I’ve seen slap officers on the wrists for misconduct far more serious than this, only to have the Career Service Board side with the police union and overturn even the most meager disciplinary measures.

To that, Saunders offered a response that was at once striking yet maddening in its candor.

Yeah, he told me. “I don’t have a lot of confidence in it, either.”

Part of the system works. But it will still be citizens paying for it. Susan Greene is about to receive a payout from the city of Denver.

Denver’s Police Department has agreed to a $50,000 settlement with Colorado Independent Editor Susan Greene, whose First Amendment rights officers violated when they wrongfully handcuffed and detained her for photographing police last summer.

The officers who handcuffed and detained her were also punished… by losing two days of pay each.

Finally, the Denver PD will be forced to refresh itself on the contours of Constitutional protections -- basic stuff these officers were certainly aware of before they decided government might beats First Amendment rights.

As part of the settlement, Denver agrees to significantly strengthen First Amendment and sensitivity trainings for police through at least 2024. The department also will update its policies on police bias and search and seizure of recording devices.

We know officers aren't expected to know the intricacies of the laws they enforce. In fact, they're barely expected to know anything about the multiple statutes they use to detain and arrest people. But we should expect them to know just enough about Constitutional protections to realize they can't handcuff a person just for filming them. The thing is, they very likely do know this. Some officers just choose to ignore this knowledge because they think they might get away with it. They didn't here, and now citizens will be footing the bill for these officers and their unwillingness to respect the rights of the people they're supposed to protect.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, adam paulsen, filming police, free speech, james brooks, journalist, susan greene

Senator Hawley Responds To Techdirt With A Bunch Of Nonsense And Lies About His Own Bill That He Doesn't Seem To Understand

from the you-did-the-what-for-the-who-now? dept

Hoo boy. We've criticized a bunch of Senator Josh Hawley's nonsense over the past few months. After all, he's the elite cosmopolitan "get big government out of business" Senator who is railing against elite cosmopolitans, while demanding that government get deeply involved in regulating companies. Well, not all companies. Just tech companies. It's almost as if Hawley is deliberately picking on companies that he thinks don't like his insane brand of politics. Anyway, while Hawley has introduced a slew of nonsensical bills targeting internet companies, the most laughable was the one that literally lays out what features certain websites can and cannot use. As we wrote in our post about it, Hawley seems to want to appoint himself the product manager of the internet.

Saagar Enjeti, a reporter for The Hill, recently sat down with Hawley, and Enjeti has posted some highlights from the interview. It's kind of scary that this guy is a sitting US Senator, as almost everything he talks about, he demonstrates an astounding, almost comical, level of ignorance or a clearly superficial understanding. But, hilariously, Enjeti actually asks him specifically to respond to my criticism that he's trying to appoint himself the product manager for the internet. Hawley's response is... not good.

Let's write out the transcript here, because it is unbelievable. It's so unbelievable that I don't even think Hawley understands what his own bill says, and I'm almost wondering if he's commenting about a different bill, introduced in the other part of Congress.

Enjeti: So I also want to talk about your SMART Act. It's probably the most criticized foray of yours within the Big Tech debate. Among other things, you've proposed banning infinite scroll, autoplay, limiting users to 30 minutes a day. A Techdirt columnist said you want to appoint yourself "product manager of the internet." What would your counter to that be?

Hawley: My counter is that parents ought to be in control of raising their children, not big tech. So parents ought to have tools and options and support. So take the thing limiting 30 minutes for apps usage. I mean parents can change that. It's a default setting. But it gives control to parents to say, "look, these tech companies whose entire business model is focused on getting my kids addicted and then stealing, essentially, their information, and then turning around and selling it, it's time to stop that."

It's time to give parents control. To say, look, if I'm comfortable with my kids online, fine, that's the parents' choice, and the kids' choice. But it shouldn't be big tech's choice. Big tech shouldn't be raising our children. Infinite scroll and autoplay. These are technologies, quote unquote, that Big Tech has developed, in concert with psychologists, to try to get us -- and, again, especially kids and teenagers -- addicted to their platforms. Why should they be able to do that without scrutiny? Why shouldn't we give parents the ability to say "no"? It ought to be a choice, but the choice and the power of the choice ought to be in the hands of the family. Not in the hands of some Google executive.

First of all, none of this makes any sense at all. Parents already have that control. Not tech companies. Parents can block their kids from using certain services or apps or can use any number of the fairly long list of third party services to help control how much their kids use these services or their devices. Isn't that the free market at work, Senator Hawley? Second, Hawley's bill doesn't actually do anything that he suggests above.

The word "parent" doesn't even appear in the bill at all. Regarding the 30 minute limit, the bill says nothing about parents, but does say that any social media platform has to default to a limit of 30 minutes per day for all users, and while it does allow those users to alter the limit, it resets every month, and Hawley's bill requires the services to continue to nag users. It doesn't say that the ability to change the limit should be for parents changing things for their kids. Indeed, how hard would it be for kids to change the settings?

The same is true of the ban on autoplay and infinite scroll. Those are listed as "prohibited practices" -- not "tools for parents to help their kids." Yes, it does say that services can offer a way for users to "opt-in" to both, but says this can be accomplished by "pushing a button." Does Senator Hawley think that kids can't push buttons?

Also, we won't even get into how wrong he is to argue these companies are either "stealing their information" or "turning around and selling it" (though, Senator Hawley, if they're selling it, can you tell us where to buy it? Because it's not actually happening. But, damn, you could really prove your point if you went out and bought that "stolen" information that you insist is for sale), but it seems worth pointing out that Hawley exempts autoplay ads from his autoplay ban. If he were really concerned about the privacy implications and the data implications of these services, then, um, wouldn't that include ads? But, nope, Hawley's all happy to let these companies continue autoplay if it's for making money.

And, while I'd normally say this goes without saying, it appears to need saying based on Hawley's own confused comments: how the hell is a bill that has the government "make choices" for you an example of "giving more choices" to parents?

Honestly, so much of Hawley's description of his own bill actually sounds like he's talking about an entirely different (but still dumb) bill, the one that was introduced by Rep. Goasar in the House, and which would require companies to offer content moderation tools for end users. That one, you could credibly argue, is about putting more control in the hands of end users (parents or not...).

But, really, all we're left with here is a Senator who doesn't seem to understand how technology works, what his own bill says or does, what it means for "big government" to meddle in private businesses, or, really, anything. How is this guy in a position of power?

Filed Under: big tech, choice, infinite scroll, josh hawley, parents, product manager, think of the children
Companies: amazon, facebook, google

Daily Deal: The Complete Python Certification Bootcamp Bundle

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

The Complete Python Certification Bootcamp Bundle has 12 courses to help you learn all about what Python can do. Python is considered by many to be the ideal learning language for first time programmers because it is syntactically fairly straight-forward and has an enormous reach of applications. You'll learn how to use Python to develop games, to create your own apps, to data mine, and much more. The bundle is on sale for $35.

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

University Of Alabama Is Using A Location-Tracking App To Punish Students For Leaving Football Games Early

from the surveillance-state-perks dept

One of the most successful college football programs in history is coached by one of the most insecure men in America, apparently. This combination of success and neediness has resulted in one of the weirdest forms of location tracking in government history. (via Slashdot)

[Nick] Saban, the Alabama football coach, has long been peeved that the student section at Bryant-Denny Stadium empties early. So this season, the university is rewarding students who attend games — and stay until the fourth quarter — with an alluring prize: improved access to tickets to the SEC championship game and to the College Football Playoff semifinals and championship game, which Alabama is trying to reach for the fifth consecutive season.

But to do this, Alabama is taking an extraordinary, Orwellian step: using location-tracking technology from students’ phones to see who skips out and who stays.

Yes, this is all voluntary, but it's entirely unique to the University of Alabama. As the team blows out early season creampuffs, Coach Saban wants to see the stands full of bored students dressed in crimson and tied to their seats by an app that will take students out of prime ticket consideration if they choose to do something more worthwhile with their time.

The app comes from a software developer that has created apps for several universities. But Alabama's app is one of a kind.

The creator of the app, FanMaker, runs apps for 40 colleges, including Clemson, Louisiana State and Southern California, which typically reward fans with gifts like T-shirts. The app it created for Alabama is the only one that tracks the locations of its students.

To boil things down to a concerning reduction, a publicly-funded university used public funds to purchase an app that tracks students' location. The app can be deleted at any time and only tracks students while they're in the stadium, but leaving the stadium and/or ditching the app sends students to the back of the line for tickets to games that actually matter, like conference championship games featuring the omnipresent Alabama.

What's also weird is that the reward for fourth quarter attendance -- 250 points -- is roughly equivalent to the points earned for 2.5 credit hours, showing how meaningful the university considers fourth quarter attendance in meaningless games.

The app is apparently popular with students, so much so that the school's home opener crashed the server, forcing students to become their own surveillers to prove they had stayed all the way to the end of the 62-10 "contest."

The stadium’s network servers were overwhelmed by the number of fans in the student section, which seats 17,000 — slightly more than half the student body. That meant that many students were unable to open their apps, leading to long lines at several help kiosks and students taking photos with the scoreboard in the background to prove they had stayed.

Loyalty matters. It apparently matters more than student safety (the temperature was near 100 degrees for most of the game). That's changing. The university has decided to alter the terms of its surveillance to allow for weather-related early exits. That's not sitting well with Coach Saban who would apparently rather have the student section filled with lifeless bodies than see students exiting a game that ceased to be competitive shortly after kickoff.

“Everybody wants to be the beast, but they don’t want to do what the beast do,” Saban said afterward. “So everybody’s got to make a sacrifice. I mean, you want to be the lion?”

He was just getting warmed up.

“Everybody’s got to do something,” he continued. “Everybody wants to be No. 1. If I asked that whole student section, ‘All right, you want to be No. 1?’ Nobody would put their hand up and say, ‘I want to be No. 4.’ They’d all say we want to be No. 1. But are they willing to do everything to be No. 1? That’s another question. Ask them that. I don’t know the answer.”

At this point, it's maybe time to discuss the separation of church and state. The publicly-funded college shouldn't be pressuring students to attend something Coach Saban clearly considers to be a religious event.

Filed Under: attendance, football games, location tracking
Companies: university of alabama

DOJ Decides To Help Publicize Snowden's Memoir By Suing Him For Failing To Run His Book By The CIA And NSA First

from the thanks-for-the-publicity dept

As you've probably heard, Ed Snowden just came out with his memoir, entitled Permanent Record. I haven't yet had a chance to read it, but it looks fascinating. Snowden obviously can't do the usual book tour for this kind of thing, but he has been doing a fresh round of very interesting interviews about his current situation -- including saying that he'd be willing to come home to the US and stand trial if only the US actually allowed a public interest defense for Espionage Act claims. As we've pointed out for years, one of the (many) problems with the Espionage Act is that it literally does not allow a defendant to explain why they leaked certain information, and assumes that it is equally nefarious to sell secrets to foreign enemies as it is to blow the whistle by informing the press of unconstitutional surveillance.

Still, the DOJ decided to help boost sales of Snowden's book by suing him for all of the proceeds, over violation of the contract he held with both the CIA and the NSA. The lawsuit is fairly straightforward. Anyone who works in the intelligence community signs a lifetime contract that forbids publishing any manuscript or speech related to their work, without first getting "pre-publication" review.

The government takes this very seriously (in fact, too seriously). Indeed, just recently there was another controversy about pre-publication review regarding a memoir and TV show by former CIA officer Amaryllis Fox. And, for reasons like these, it seems that -- purely on a legal basis -- Snowden and his publisher have a high likelihood of losing the lawsuit (in part because the law is against him here, and in part because he's unlikely to be in a position to contest it from Russia -- a point we'll discuss more below).

That said, pre-publication review is a hugely sketchy process. Earlier this year, a bunch of former intelligence officials actually sued the government, arguing that the requirement is unconstitutional. That case is still making its way through the courts, with the government pushing for it to be dismissed. However, there are other recent stories about what a bullshit process pre-publication review tends to be. It involves multiple different contracts with unclear definitions and unclear requirements. Recent revelations have also shown that the feds often use the process to purposefully delay books that will reflect poorly on the government, while speeding through ones that support the government's position, or are coming from high-profile former officials.

The ACLU, which is defending Snowden (and also involved in the other pre-publication lawsuit mentioned above) quickly put out a statement claiming that the book doesn't reveal any new secrets and didn't need to go through review:

"This book contains no government secrets that have not been previously published by respected news organizations. Had Mr. Snowden believed that the government would review his book in good faith, he would have submitted it for review. But the government continues to insist that facts that are known and discussed throughout the world are still somehow classified.

“Mr. Snowden wrote this book to continue a global conversation about mass surveillance and free societies that his actions helped inspire. He hopes that today’s lawsuit by the United States government will bring the book to the attention of more readers throughout the world.”

Snowden, for his part, seems to have had a bit of fun about the whole situation on Twitter, pointing out how it's helping to attract more attention to the book:

Oh, and also this:

Though, the framing of this as being about the government "not wanting" people to read the book is not entirely fair. They are not suing to stop the publication, which would be a much tougher task. They're suing for the money -- and as much as I disagree with the government on this, given the current state of the law, it's totally understandable why it feels the need to. Without this lawsuit, lots of others who are going through, or intend to go through, pre-publication review will point to the Snowden situation and say "but what about that guy?"

Anyway, as noted, the government likely does have a strong case, even as bullshit as the pre-publication rules are. And, so, perhaps this means that the Treasury will get a bit of money that should end up with Snowden or his publisher. But, if the goal (as Snowden has insisted) was merely to continue the conversation and get his story out there, well, the DOJ just ended up promoting the book quite a bit. Similar situations in history have, not surprisingly, driven up demand for books:

But, if the DOJ is collecting the revenue on the other end, perhaps it doesn't care?

There is one other element here that seems worth mentioning. Up at the top, we pointed out that Snowden says he'd come back to face trial if he was allowed to present a public interest defense for his whistleblowing. The fact that the government still refuses to allow this also makes it nearly impossible for Snowden to even fight this lawsuit, because the government will quickly argue that he's a "fugitive" and thus not able to be represented in court (as it did with Kim Dotcom). That seems to highlight the wider fallout of the over-aggressive nature of the Espionage Act, and the inability to use a public interest defense. It makes it that much more difficult for someone like Snowden to defend his own 1st Amendment rights. And that seems unfortunate.

Either way, while I can understand why the DOJ is doing this, and recognize that it's likely to win, that doesn't mean that it's the right move or a good thing overall.

Filed Under: cia, doj, ed snowden, nsa, permanent record, pre-publication review

Space X May Soon Give The US Broadband Sector A Much Needed Kick In The Ass

from the competition-is-a-good-thing dept

Could Space X finally give the busted US telecom sector a much needed kick in the ass? Since 2017, Musk's Space X has been promising that it would launch 800 low orbit satellites capable of delivering cheaper, lower latency broadband to large swaths of the United States by 2020 or 2021. By and large Musk and company appear to have been successful sticking to that promise, insisting recently that this proposed timeline was "pretty much on target." That said, Musk had to fire some folks to ensure that the project was meeting its goals, which itself suggests they may not have been.

More recent government filings indicate that the company may be able to accelerate the deployment of fast low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites across broad swaths of the Southern US. The company says that a number of improvements were discovered in the wake of launching 60 LEO satellites back in May. In a filing (pdf), the company says an adjustment in orbital spacing and other efficiences may bring the service (which will be sold under the "Starlink" brand) online sooner and more broadly than expected:

"This adjustment will accelerate coverage to southern states and US territories, potentially expediting coverage to the southern continental United States by the end of the next hurricane season and reaching other US territories by the following hurricane season.

...SpaceX has demonstrated the effectiveness of its revolutionary deployment process and confirmed its ability to populate three orbital planes with a single launch. By then reorganizing its satellites at their already authorized altitude, SpaceX can place coverage and capacity more evenly and rapidly across more of the US."

Obviously it's way too early to know what kind of pricing we're talking about, but the smaller, mass produced satellites are expected to cost significantly less to deploy and maintain, meaning service pricing should be notably less than the heavily capped, throttled, and expensive satellite services we all know and love. There have been some rumblings that the service could clock in under $50 a month, but it's too early to know if that's going to be doable, or whether the service will be rife with annoying usage limits, throttling, or other restrictions (ensuring it's not a truly symmetrical competitor to something like fiber to the home).

All of that said, there are still reasons to keep expectations in check. This being Musk, hype could be overshadowing reality. The service could also launch with a number of the same arbitrary, cash-grabbing restrictions we've seen developing in the cellular space, something that could get worse in the wake of the death of net neutrality and FCC authority. It's also worth noting that there have been a laundry list of similar efforts that have been just as aggressively hyped that have gone absolutely nowhere, thanks to the complicated economic factors involved in, you know, space:

The history of satellite internet, however, is defined by failure, including one of the largest corporate bankruptcies in history. This was a reality Elon Musk candidly acknowledged to reporters ahead of the Starlink launch. “No one has ever succeeded in making a viable low Earth orbit communication constellation right off the bat,” Musk said. “I do believe we’ll be successful, but it is far from a sure thing."

The other x-factor is AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, companies that have a thirty year history of doing everything in their power to stifle newly emerging alternatives to their expensive, unpopular services. The three companies all but own countless state legislatures and a significant portion of Congress, who'll all be doing their best (as they have for decades) to ensure that nothing disrupts the existing, uncompetitive cash cow that is the US residential broadband market. Space X will also have to do battle with a number of other deep-pocketed giants (like Amazon) that have been eyeing the space as a potential disruption play.

Still, the promise being made by low-orbit satellites is hard to ignore. But given the power of entrenched players and telecom history, it probably makes sense to keep enthusiasm in check until we have actual, widespread commercial deployment at a price point that's actually appealing to the millions of Americans desperately craving more, better broadband options.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, elon musk, leo satellites, satellite interent
Companies: spacex

AB InBev Fails To Get 'Patagonia' Trademark Suit Dismissed

from the nice-try dept

Earlier this year, we discussed a trademark suit brought against Anheuser-Busch InBev by Patagonia, the famed outer-wear maker known best for its association with skiing and outdoor sports apparel. While we usually make a big deal about market separation when it comes to trademark enforcement, this case was notable for two reasons. First, the trade dress choices made by AB InBev for its "Patagonia" beer were quite similar to Patagonia's trademarks, not to mention that AB hosted popup locations at skiing and biking locations to sell its beer, exactly where Patagonia is so well known. Second, AB is a notorious trademark hound, gobbling up all kinds of marks and then wielding them like a cudgel against small entities. If anyone were going to be sensitive to the trademark rights of others, you would think it would be a company like AB. But not so much.

Rather than admitting its error and siding for strong trademark rights, however, AB InBev decided to try to get the lawsuit tossed by claiming that "Patagonia" is not actually well known and therefore should not be afforded federal trademark rights. The court took 20 pages to decide that AB InBev was wrong and that the case would move forward.

U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips disagreed, writing in a 20-page order Tuesday that Patagonia has – at this stage in the proceedings – sufficiently shown its mark is both “famous and distinctive” and that promotion of its brand has factored in its $10 billion in sales since 1985.

“Assuming these allegations are true and construing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that its Patagonia mark is “famous” for purposes of its federal trademark dilution,” Philips wrote.

The sales numbers are really all that was required to refute AB's ridiculous claim. Anecdotally, I can say that I haven't been to a ski mountain in a decade or so, and even I am fully aware of Patagonia's brand. The company has been around forever and is a common sight out west.

The court also refused to dismiss on AB's claims that it in fact had not abandoned its Patagonia trademark by not using it for half a decade and that there would be no confusion by the public that its "Patagonia"-branded beer would be confused with the clothing company.

Phillips also denied Anheuser-Busch’s request to dismiss on grounds that Patagonia failed to show that customers would associate their beer with its clothing and its brand of environmentalism. The brewer likewise failed in its argument that it had not abandoned the Cerveza Patagonia mark from Warsteiner despite not using the mark for five years.

Rob Tadlock, a member of Patagonia’s legal team, applauded Phillips’ ruling as “a well-reasoned opinion rejecting Anheuser-Busch’s effort to avoid defending Patagonia’s claims, including that Anheuser-Busch committed fraud on the Trademark Office and has deliberately tried to confuse customers into thinking that Patagonia Cerveza is produced by Patagonia, rather than Anheuser-Busch.”

Again, where is AB's strong stance on trademark in this case in which it is the one that appears to have run afoul of another's trademark rights? To the shock of this writer, it appears the company has something of a "trademark for me, but not for thee" philosophy.

Filed Under: beer, outdoor gear, patagonia, trademark
Companies: inbev, patagonia

History Repeats Itself: Twitter Launches Illegal SF Street Stencil Campaign Just As IBM DId Decades Ago

from the oops dept

Everything old is new again, and the population of tech workers seems to turn over especially fast in the San Francisco Bay Area. I guess I now qualify as an old timer, in that I remember quite clearly when IBM ran a big ad campaign in San Francisco and Chicago to profess its newfound love for Linux. The ad campaign involved stenciling three symbols side-by-side: a peace symbol, a heart, and Tux, the Linux penguin:

The message? Peace, Love, Linux. It didn't make much sense then either. Either way, neither city was happy with the streets being all stenciled up. San Francisco fined IBM $100,000 for graffiti, though perhaps the company figured that was cheaper than buying a bunch of billboards in the same area, and it certainly got more press attention. The story was even more fucked up in Chicago, however. There, one of the random dudes IBM's ad company had hired to paint this ad message all over sidewalks was arrested and sentenced to community service for vandalism. Not great.

So, apparently no one working at Twitter was around for that experience nearly two decades ago, because the company has just done the same thing. Just a few days ago I was at the Powell Street BART station and saw it was completely coated in giant posters of tweets, but apparently they're stenciled on sidewalks nearby as well (I seemed to have missed those)

San Francisco wasted little time in pointing out to Twitter that, uh, this is not allowed:

Apt or not, the stencils, created using a spray-paint-like chalk, are illegal, according to Rachel Gordon, spokeswoman for the Department of Public Works.

“That’s not the use of the sidewalks,” she said. “We can go and document them. If they don’t remove them immediately, we’ll send a crew to remove them and charge them.”

Gordon added, “Our sidewalks are not to be used for commercial billboards. Twitter has the resources to use appropriate venues to advertise their company.”

Twitter has apparently already apologized and said it's trying to figure out why it fucked up:

Twitter responded with the following apology: "We looked into what happened and identified breakdowns in the process for meeting the cities' requirements for our chalk stencils. We're sorry this happened."

I'm just amazed that no one involved in the process remembered the whole IBM thing, but I guess it's just a reminder of how old stories like that fade away.

Filed Under: advertisements, chalking, promotions, sf, stencils
Companies: ibm, twitter