by Mike Masnick
Thu, Sep 22nd 2016 1:01pm
private internet access
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Sep 22nd 2016 11:41am
Senate Comes To Its Senses: Does NOT Support Ted Cruz's Plan To Block Internet Governance Transition
from the crisis-averted dept
And then... poof. The Senate Appropriations Committee released its "short term continuing resolution" (CR for short) and it does not include any language on blocking the IANA transition. So... all the talk and (misleading) hype was apparently a bunch of grandstanding and hot air over nothing. It may have just been posturing and used to negotiate something else. Or, maybe (just maybe) people who actually understood what was happening with the IANA transition were actually able to explain to those in charge how stupid all this rhetoric was. That would certainly be a nice explanation for this -- though it seems tragically unlikely.
But, for the short term, this means a very dangerous thing for the internet, pushed for by Ted Cruz (and, as of yesterday, Donald Trump) has been avoided. It's possible that the House could try to somehow move to block the transition, but that seems unlikely. So, we may have actually won one here and narrowly avoided political grandstanding mucking up a piece of the internet. Phew.
by Tim Cushing
Thu, Sep 22nd 2016 10:45am
EFF Heads To Court To Fight Off Smart Grid Company That Can't Wrap Its Mind Around Section 230 Protections
from the internal-logic-failure dept
Apparently the legal battle between a bunch of contractors providing "smart meter" equipment to the city of Seattle and FOIA clearinghouse MuckRock isn't over. The last time we checked in, a judge had overturned his own hastily-granted injunction, relieving MuckRock of the impossible demands placed on it by miffed tech provider Landis+Gyr -- which included handing over the details of everyone who might have seen Landis+Gyr's documents and "retrieving protected information that may have been downloaded" from the site.
MuckRock was allowed to reinstate the documents and Landis+Gyr walked away from a debacle of its own making. Another contractor utilized by Seattle Power and Light (Ericsson) had pursued a similar injunction but dropped MuckRock from its complaint, following Landis+Gyr into battle against the entity that had released the documents to requester Phil Mocek: the city of Seattle.
But there's still one company pursuing a case against MuckRock. The EFF, on its way back into court to fight the tenacious litigant, points out that Elster Solutions, LLC is still hoping to hold MuckRock accountable for publishing documents received from the city of Seattle. But it's impossible to ascertain why it's going after MuckRock.
First off, Section 230 shields MuckRock from this sort of litigation.
Section 230 provides broad protections for online platforms such as MuckRock, shielding them from liability based on the activities of users who post content to their websites. Given that broad immunity, MuckRock cannot be sued for hosting public records sought by one of its users regardless of whether they contain trade secrets.
MuckRock isn't the correct target because it only hosts the documents. It did not demand them itself, nor did it actively participate in the posting of the documents. MuckRock's system is automated. Default user settings will, without addtional input or control, post all correspondence and responsive documents pertaining to public records requests routed through the site. This makes Mocek's request and published documents third party, user-generated content.
The other reason why Elster's decision to name MuckRock as a defendant is completely misguided is this simple fact:
MuckRock currently does not host any documents from the company, Elster Solutions, LLC, that are subject to the public records request.
Even if MuckRock were able to obtain these documents, it wouldn't be doing so directly -- which is exactly what Elster claims has happened or might possibly happen. It wants to prevent the release of unredacted documents to the site (via requester Phil Mocek), but its litigious attention should be solely focused on the entity releasing them, rather than the site hosting them. At this point, MuckRock doesn't have anything Elster wants to argue about, and yet, it's doing so anyway. Its complaint is not only seemingly unfamiliar with Section 230 protections, but also severely deficient. From the EFF's motion to dismiss [PDF]
The Court should dismiss MuckRock from the lawsuit due to the obvious deficiencies in in Elster’s allegations in the Complaint. With respect to MuckRock, the Complaint contains precisely the type of bare, conclusory, or formulaic allegations the Court said were insufficient in Iqbal. See Yates, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71077, at *8 (“[b]are, conclusory and formulaic allegations of involvement do not state a claim for relief against a particular defendant”). The Complaint mentions MuckRock in only three paragraphs, and in all three instances fails to specify any conduct by MuckRock that underlies any purported claim against it. (See Complaint ¶¶ 2, 6, 18.) Paragraph 6 references MuckRock’s domicile and state of incorporation. Paragraph 18 merely recites that Phil Mocek made a request for certain documents. And paragraph 2 is an introductory paragraph vaguely alleging that Mocek “and/or” MuckRock submitted a records request.
This lawsuit shouldn't last for much longer. What's surprising is that it's lasted this long already.
from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept
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.
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Sep 22nd 2016 9:38am
from the not-a-copyright-issue dept
That's not how copyright law actually works -- but the message has caught on, and the FCC has already been forced to weaken its proposal -- and the industry is still bitching about it.
Thankfully, we're finally starting to see some copyright experts speak up about just how wrong Hollywood and the Copyright Office are on this. Mark Lemley, by far the most cited intellectual property professor (who is also a practicing lawyer), has written up a piece for the Hill that rips to shreds the idea that the FCC's plan somehow would implicate Hollywood's copyrights. As he notes, they're totally overstating what copyright allows:
The MPAA’s argument that studios have the right to control the device on which you view your content reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law. Copyright gives its owner the right to control the making of copies and public performances of a work. But it does not give them control over any use of a work. That’s no accident. Once the copyright owner has been paid once for a particular copy, its control over that copy ends. That’s why I can lend a book to friends, or sell my used record collection outright.And, while the MPAA and its supporters keep calling the FCC proposal a "compulsory license," Lemley points out that it's not a compulsory license that lets you record a TV program to your VCR or DVR, and neither is this:
True, there are some things I can ‘t do even with a copy of a movie or song I own. I can’t upload it on a file-sharing site, for instance, and I can’t play it on the radio. But that’s because doing those things either makes a new copy or makes a new, public performance of the work.
The studios have already been paid for the movies shown on a cable or satellite service. Indeed, they’ve been paid specifically for the right to publicly perform the work by transmitting it to my (and everyone else’s) home.
And here, copyright law says something very important to copyright owners: that’s all you get. Once the cable companies have paid the MPAA for the right to deliver their movie into my home, the MPAA loses control over how I choose to watch their movie in the privacy of my own home. I can record it on a DVR and watch it whenever I want. I can watch it on a big-screen TV or a small one, with the sound on or off, in one sitting or many, while fast-forwarding through parts I don’t like or rewinding to rewatch parts I do. I can watch it again and again. Most important, I can watch it on any device I want, including my computer, my iPad, or my phone.
That isn’t a “compulsory license” of copyrights; it’s a limit on the scope of those rights. That limit exists even if copyright owners try to declare that it doesn’t. This is the law. It has always been the law. Every effort by copyright owners to control how I watch a show in my own home has ended in failure.Unfortunately, this blatantly false attack by Hollywood and the Copyright Office on the FCC's plan has been effective. It seems unlikely that the plan will go through, and what's troubling about it is that it's all based on flat-out falsehoods by Hollywood, the Copyright Office and its supporters.
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Sep 22nd 2016 8:25am
Donald Trump Doubles Down On Ted Cruz's Blatantly Confused And Backwards Argument Over Internet Governance
from the let-that-transition-go dept
I was working on another post about some of the issues related to this... and while I was working on it Donald Trump decided to turn this into a Presidential campaign issue by releasing a statement more or less echoing Cruz's factually incoherent position:
"Donald J. Trump is committed to preserving Internet freedom for the American people and citizens all over the world. The U.S. should not turn control of the Internet over to the United Nations and the international community. President Obama intends to do so on his own authority – just 10 days from now, on October 1st, unless Congress acts quickly to stop him. The Republicans in Congress are admirably leading a fight to save the Internet this week, and need all the help the American people can give them to be successful. Hillary Clinton’s Democrats are refusing to protect the American people by not protecting the Internet.First of all, here's Trump going on and on about "internet freedom" and "free speech." And yet... this is the very same candidate just a few months ago who talked about "shutting down parts of the internet" and mocking those who would say "oh freedom of speech" claiming anyone who fell back on that claim were "foolish people."
The U.S. created, developed and expanded the Internet across the globe. U.S. oversight has kept the Internet free and open without government censorship – a fundamental American value rooted in our Constitution’s Free Speech clause. Internet freedom is now at risk with the President’s intent to cede control to international interests, including countries like China and Russia, which have a long track record of trying to impose online censorship. Congress needs to act, or Internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost." - Stephen Miller, National Policy Director
More importantly, almost everything the Trump campaign says in those two short paragraphs about the transition is wrong. And it's a really, really stupid and dangerous position to take for the internet. First off, as we've explained, the current link between the Commerce Department and ICANN and its IANA functions is more theoretical than real anyway. The US government really doesn't have any official control here. It's symbolic and that symbolism is doing a hell of a lot more to hurt the internet than to help it. Yes, Russia and China have, in the past, tried to take more control over internet governance via the UN/ITU, but that was stopped. But -- and this is the important part -- a big part of their rationale for trying to do so was the US's "control" over IANA via the Commerce Dept. That is, keeping this small bit of internet governance loosely connected to the US government adds fuel to the fire for authoritarian governments to seek more control over the internet. And that doesn't even get into the backlash that it will create if we go back on our word and refuse to complete the transfer of IANA away from the Commerce Dept (again, a largely symbolic move anyway).
But, don't trust me. Trust basically anyone and everyone with any actual knowledge on the situation. Here's Tim Berners-Lee, the guy who invented the web itself, explaining why the transition must go forward and why Cruz (and, by extension now, Trump) are totally wrong:
The global consensus at the heart of the Internet exists by virtue of trust built up over decades with people from all over the world collaborating on the technical design and operation of the network and the web. ICANN is a critical part of this global consensus. But if the United States were to reverse plans to allow the global Internet community to operate ICANN independently, as Sen. Cruz is now proposing, we risk undermining the global consensus that has enabled the Internet to function and flourish over the last 25 years.Berners-Lee makes it clear that going back on the transfer will put the US gov't in the same kind of dangerous category that Cruz (and Trump) put Russia and China in:
Contrary to the senator’s view, ICANN is no “mini-United Nations.” ICANN is a vital part of the voluntary, global network of private organizations that provides Internet stability and the ability to innovate free from government interventions around the world.
But by forcibly undermining the global Internet community’s ability to make decisions about ICANN, the United States would stoop to the level of Russia, China and other authoritarian regimes that believe in the use of force to limit freedom online.Tim Berners-Lee not good enough for you? How about Vint Cerf, recognized as one of the creators of the internet itself. He's in favor of the transition too and has explained why people should stop freaking out about it.
If not them, how about Kathryn Brown, who runs the Internet Society. She also argues that delaying the transition is what helps the case for Russia and China, rather than the other way around:
Some warn that if the plan to transition authority on Oct. 1 is delayed, countries like Russia and China could try to shift domain name responsibilities to the United Nations, giving those nations more influence over global internet policy.Or, how about Milton Mueller? The guy who literally wrote the book on internet governance. He's now being quite vocal about how ridiculous the latest plan to block the transition via Congress is:
"Any delay would add a degree of instability and make the prospect of government control of the internet more likely, not less," said Kathryn Brown, president of the Internet Society, a nonprofit organization that advocates open internet policies.
It vaguely suggests that the transition might create “an opportunity for an enhanced role for authoritarian nation-states in Internet governance,” but provides no evidence as to how or why it does. In fact, if the U.S. is forced to abort the transition now it would play right into the hands of authoritarian states. Killing ICANN’s reforms through impulsive and arbitrary American action would fatally undermine the global Internet governance model rooted in nonstate actors. It would strengthen the case for national sovereignty-based Internet models favored by authoritarian states. “Look,” they will say, “the U.S. wants to control the Internet, why can’t we?” ICANN’s independence from unilateral U.S. government control is a logically and politically necessary consequence of its independence from all governments. By getting in the way of that, it is the Congressmen, not the Commerce Department, who are creating an opportunity for authoritarian states to enhance their influence in Internet governance.And so forth and so on. Part of the attempt to throw a wrench into the transition was Cruz claiming that Congress needs to approve the transition, as it has the power to determine if the government can "dispose of... property." But the Government Accountability Office (GAO) just released a report basically saying that doesn't apply here and the Commerce Dept is free to move ahead with the transition. Specifically, the GAO finds it to be ridiculous that the entire domain name system should be considered "property of the US government" because it's not.
The Congressmen suggest that “this irreversible decision could result in a less transparent and accountable Internet governance regime.” But how? No reference is made to the actual reform plans. In fact, the transition brings with it major corporate governance changes that would significantly improve ICANN’s accountability and transparency. The transition brings with it a new set of bylaws that gives the public enhanced rights to inspect ICANN’s books, the right to remove board members, and the power to prevent the board from unilaterally modifying its bylaws. Under U.S. government supervision for the past 18 years, ICANN has been almost completely unaccountable – yet this is the status quo they want to retain. By opposing the transition, the Congressmen are getting in the way of reforms that address the very things ICANN critics have been complaining about.
The congressmen claim that “Questions have been raised about ICANN’s antitrust status.” Well, what questions, and what are their implications for the future of Internet governance? No answer. This is a phony issue. ICANN is not, and never has been, exempt from antitrust liability.
It is unlikely that either the authoritative root zone file—the public “address book” for the top level of the Internet domain name system—or the Internet domain name system as a whole, is U.S. Government property under Article IV. We did not identify any Government-held copyrights, patents, licenses, or other traditional intellectual property interests in either the root zone file or the domain name system. It also is doubtful that either would be considered property under common law principles, because no entity appears to have a right to their exclusive possession or use.In short, there's a legitimate concern that Russia and China would like more control over the internet. But that's the only point that Trump and Cruz get right. What's astounding is that their preferred course of action -- delaying or even blocking the IANA transition away from the Commerce Dept actually supports Russia and China in their efforts to gain control over the internet. So if you care about the future of the internet and how it is governed, could someone please educate Cruz and Trump that they're doing exactly the kind of damage they claim to be trying to stop?
by Karl Bode
Thu, Sep 22nd 2016 6:22am
from the one-for-you,-three-for-me dept
The FCC's total inaction on this front has also emboldened AT&T, which recently began exempting its own DirecTV streaming video app from the company's usage caps while still penalizing customers that use competitors like Netflix, Hulu or Amazon. But as we warned then -- AT&T isn't done. This week it confirmed that it will also zero rate its upcoming DirecTV Now streaming video service, which is AT&T's massive new entry into the streaming video market:
“We’ll be rolling it out in a couple of months,” Stephenson told attendees at an investors conference. “We’re talking 100-plus channels at a very, very aggressive price point. And when you buy this content, the data required to stream it onto your mobile device is incorporated into the price of the content…. If you choose to use that in a mobile environment on AT&T, your data cost is incorporated into your content cost."That's a pretty clever logical tap dance. AT&T isn't unfairly giving its own content a leg up in the streaming video market, you see, it's just "incorporating" the cost of wireless data into your content costs. Either way you slice it, AT&T is using its stranglehold over the fixed and wireless markets to give its own content an unfair advantage, and you'd be pretty hard pressed to find too many tech beat writers, customers, or regulators that seem to give much of a damn. Why? Because under superficial inspection it looks like customers are getting something for free, even if usage caps are artificial and arbitrary constructs to begin with.
That said, AT&T is making it pretty clear it doesn't think regulators will do much about its latest anti-competitive gambit. Speaking at the recent CTIA wireless trade show in Las Vegas, AT&T Mobility President Glenn Lurie proclaimed that the company isn't worried about a regulatory crackdown:
“We have no regulatory concerns about it. We feel very good about it from that aspect. We’re not prioritizing [data], we’re treating it all the same,” Lurie told FierceWireless here on the sidelines of the CTIA Super Mobility trade show. Lurie is president and CEO of AT&T’s mobility and consumer operations. “So we’re not worried about that.”Even though AT&T's tactic here is to basically lie and say it's treating "all data the same," it doesn't think the FCC will act. That means it's either emboldened by the FCC's apathy on this front, or it has received private indications from the agency that it doesn't intend to tread into the zero rating waters. But with large, incumbent broadband providers now using their monopoly over the last mile (and spectrum) to give their own content a leg up, you'll soon find many consumers wondering why the hell we have net neutrality rules in the first place.
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Sep 22nd 2016 3:24am
Chelsea Manning Facing Indefinite Solitary Confinement For Attempting Suicide, Possessing A Book On Hackers
from the wtf dept
What about this time? Well, Fight for the Future has posted the details including the charge sheet and it's ridiculous. She's charged with "resisting" when the "force cell team" went to her cell to respond to her suicide attempt. "Resisting" in this case being that she was unconcious. Really.
This charge stems from the “force cell team” being activated. They were called to respond to her suicide attempt, though there were no obstructions to the door and Chelsea was unconscious and unable to resist when they arrived. The charge sheet itself specifies on page 5 that “Inmate Manning did not resist the force cell move team.”And yet, she's still charged with resisting. Next up "conduct which threatens." That's a pretty broad term -- especially for someone who is unconscious from a suicide attempt. And yet... conduct which threatens. It seems the only thing being "threatened" here is basic human dignity. And then we've got another "prohibited property" claim, just like last year:
On July 6th, Gabriella Coleman’s book “Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy” was found in Chelsea’s cell, allegedly not properly marked with Chelsea’s name and inmate number on the inside cover. (A new regulation, that appears to have been crafted in response to Chelsea’s confiscated books/expired toothpaste incident from last summer.) In fact, this book was one of the books confiscated from Chelsea’s cell last summer.Huh? First of all, this is a great book -- one that we've recommended and whose author, Gabriella Coleman, we've had on our podcast. But the fact that this was one of the books that was confiscated last year and then was still in her cell suggests the kind of messed up rules that are used to always have to charge someone with if they don't like you. What a fucked up system.
And people wonder why Ed Snowden doesn't think he'd get a fair trial.
It appears that Manning is resigned to the fact that she's being railroaded and there's little she can do to stop it.
Manning, who is serving a 35-year sentence at the US Army's Fort Leavenworth prison in Kansas, will have to defend herself at the hearing, and told VICE News she's not feeling optimistic. "It doesn't matter what I say or do," she said, through an intermediary, as she's not allowed to speak directly to the press. "The outcome is going to be the same."Yup, great way to "punish" a suicide attempt: to take away people's hope even more. I'm sure that'll work. Manning's hearing will be held later today and, hopefully someone with some level of common sense is involved in the decision making process.
Feelings of "hopelessness and helplessness" are hard to shake, she says.
by Karl Bode
Wed, Sep 21st 2016 11:23pm
from the welcome-to-the-new-normal dept
Enter Tesla, which, while indisputably more flexible in terms of technology, finds itself no less vulnerable to being embarrassed. Reports this week emerged that Chinese white hat hackers discovered a vulnerability in the Tesla S series that allowed an intruder to interfere with the car’s brakes, door locks, dashboard computer screen and other electronically controlled systems in the vehicle. In a video, the hackers demonstrated how they were able to target the vehicle's controller area network, or CAN bus, from up to twelve miles away:Fortunately in this instance, the attack required a fairly strict set of circumstances, including fooling the car's owner into first connecting the vehicle to a malicious hotspot -- while the car's internet browser was in use. Also, unlike some vulnerabilities, which have taken traditional automakers up to five years to patch in the past, the researchers said in a blog post that Tesla was quick to update the car's firmware and fix the vulnerability:
"Keen Security Lab appreciates the proactive attitude and efforts of Tesla Security Team, leading by Chris Evans, on responding our vulnerability report and taking actions to fix the issues efficiently. Keen Security Lab is coordinating with Tesla on issue fixing to ensure the driving safety of Tesla users."That said, this isn't the first time that hackers have highlighted vulnerabilities in Tesla vehicles. A group of hackers earlier this year demonstrated how they were able to use about $100,000 in radio equipment to fool the Tesla S model's autopilot feature into perceiving obstacles that technically didn't exist, or obscuring obstacles the car would normally avoid:
"A group of researchers at the University of South Carolina, China’s Zhejiang University and the Chinese security firm Qihoo 360 says it’s done just that. In a series of tests they plan to detail in a talk later this week at the Defcon hacker conference, they found that they could use off-the-shelf radio-, sound- and light-emitting tools to deceive Tesla’s autopilot sensors, in some cases causing the car’s computers to perceive an object where none existed, and in others to miss a real object in the Tesla’s path."Comforting! Obviously these are just the vulnerabilities we know of, and there's likely a very hot zero day market for car vulnerabilities, with state actors willing to pay top dollar for exploits allowing the staging of "accidents" local yokel investigators aren't likely to ferret out as malicious. Alongside the even worse security in many "smart" (read: wholly idiotic) internet of things appliances, we've been happily introducing tens of thousands of new network attack vectors annually. As we rush unpatched toward the driverless future of tomorrow, what could possibly go wrong?
Wed, Sep 21st 2016 4:18pm
from the beep-boop-boop dept
You might be forgiven if you were under the impression that the Russian government is a bit behind the times when it comes to modern technology and its never ending desire to stifle every last bit of dissent possible. Between the bouts its had with internet censorship and some strange claims about how binge-watching streaming services are a form of United States mind-control, it would be quite easy to be left with the notion that this is all for comedy. Alas, blunders and conspiracy theories aside, much of this technological blundering is mere cover for the very real iron grip the Russians place upon free speech, with all manner of examples in technology used as excuses to silence its critics.
And now it's no longer just human beings that need fear the Russian government, it seems. Just this past week, a robot was arrested at a political rally. And, yes, I really do mean a robot, and, yes, I really do mean arrested.
A robot has been detained by police at a political rally in Moscow, with authorities attempting to handcuff the machine. The rally was for Valery Kalachev, a candidate for the Russian Parliament, who had rented the robot for his campaign.
Police have not confirmed why they detained the machine named Promobot, but local media was reporting the company behind the robot said police were called because it was "recording voters' opinions on [a] variety of topics for further processing and analysis by the candidate's team".
In other words, it sounds like the robot was acting as something of an automated pollster at a political rally. Given how much pollster data is fed directly into computers and machines upon its gathering, a robotic pollster is probably something of a natural next step. But not if the Russian government has its way, apparently. Yes, the same government that is busy happily hacking into all the things outside its country is busy keeping a robot from doing a menial task within it.
Based on my quick research, I'm not absolutely certain that this is the first formal arrest of a robot in history, but I can't seem to find any others. In which case it seems perfectly on point for that historic moment to be achieved by the Russian government and the fact that they tried to slap handcuffs on iRobot is absolutely perfect. Free Promobot!