Last year, Chicago proudly declared that the city would be expanding its 9% amusement tax (traditionally covering book stores, music stores, ball games and other brick and mortar entertainment) to online streaming services and cloud computing. While Chicago was hungrily pursuing the $12 million in additional revenue the expanded tax would provide, it ultimately faced a lawsuit questioning the legality of Chicago’s move. The ongoing lawsuit by the Liberty Justice Center claims Chicago violated city rules by not holding a full vote on the changes, and is violating the Internet Freedom Tax Act.
Legal or not, Chicago’s push to impose a Netflix tax has opened the floodgates.
Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania legislature expanded the state’s 6% sales tax to cover digital downloads and subscription services like Netflix and Hulu — but also music, e-books, apps, online games, and ringtones. And now Pasadena, California, has joined the fun, applying its own 9.4% tax on streaming video providers such as Netflix, HBO Go and Hulu. In fact, Pasadena is one of 46 total California cities that are rushing to embrace the tax to help shore up city budget shortfalls. But much like Chicago, there are a number of groups ready to sue over the move, claiming these cities don’t have the authority:
“Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, called the tax ?very suspect.? The association?s legal team is currently investigating the legality of the new interpretation of the tax.
“We will be taking a very close look at this,? Coupal said. ?If we determine this is an extension of an existing tax, then under the Constitution, they need voter approval. They can put as much lipstick on this pig as they want, but the pig is still a tax increase.”
“Pasadena?s Finance Director Matthew Hawkesworth made his determination Thursday that the tax applies to video games and streaming services similar to cable ?regardless of the content of such video programming, or the technology used to deliver such services,? according to a memo to City Manager Steve Mermell.
“It?s our interpretation because of our code, these types of video services have always been eligible to be taxable,” Hawkesworth said. “The administrative ruling is instructing the various companies that offer video service that the tax includes their services as well, and it will be incumbent upon them to collect the tax and remit it to the city.”
The efforts to tax all cloud services are creating an absolute legal minefield over determining exactly where a cloud-based transaction is taking place, when to apply said tax, and who intends to collect it. Who pays sales tax when an app developer in New York relies on a cloud computing provider in New Jersey, and sells to customers in Illinois? Nobody appears to know and the answer may differ state by state. But one thing’s for sure: lawyers certainly won’t be going to bed hungry as cities rush to cash in on the rise of the internet video revolution.
Did you come out of last night’s debate feeling thrilled about your choices for president? No? What a surprise. Though there are fans on both sides declaring victory, most of the thinking/awake public saw what we expected: an intolerable buffoon babbling on one side, and the resultant lack of scrutiny for the hard-to-like career politician making worrying statements on the other. Perhaps nowhere was this clearer than on an issue of importance here at Techdirt: would you prefer Trump’s directionless ramblings about “the cyber”, or Clinton’s coherent but terrifying overtures of war with Russia? Take your pick, America. And when you do, we’ve got a shirt for you.
There’s less than a week left to order your Vote2016() gear. The campaign ends on Oct. 3rd so you can get it just in time for election day — and then it’s gone for good!
Look at the mess that we’re in. Look at the mess that we’re in. As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what secretary Clinton said, we should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t know if we know it was Russia who broke into the DNC.
She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia. Maybe it was. It could also be China, it could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds…
Look, anyone who refers to cybersecurity or cyberwarfare as “the cyber” is probably better off not discussing this. But Donald Trump, in last night’s debate, felt compelled to further prove why he’s in no position to be offering guidance on technological issues. And anyone who feels compelled to portray hackers as 400-lb bedroom dwellers probably shouldn’t be opening their mouth in public at all.
With this mindset, discussions about what “the Google” and “the Facebook” are doing about trimming back ISIS’s social media presence can’t be far behind. Trump did note that ISIS is “beating us at our game” when it comes to utilizing social media. Fair enough.
But Trump’s cybersecurity “plan” isn’t actually a plan. What there is of it has to be compiled from a string of random, semi-related sentences. Apparently, the next cyberwar will pit tweens against 400-lb Russians…
I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it’s hardly do-able. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing, but that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester and certainly cyber is one of them.
The problem isn’t so much that Trump plainly has no idea what he’s talking about or even the coherency to bluff his way through it. No one expects presidential candidates to be experts on every possible issue that might come up. But this has been the government’s primary focus in recent years, and multiple high-profile hackings have only intensified that.
The problem is that Trump clearly has no interest in discussing these issues with those who can offer coherent, possibly-useful cybersecurity strategies. The more he speaks, the more he exposes his ignorance. Ignorance isn’t unfixable. But Trump has done nothing over the past several months to close these (often significant) gaps in his knowledge. That’s the scariest aspect of his presidential run — the unwillingness to handle the boring but essential work of creating a platform composed of something more than half-formed thoughts and severely misguided jingoism that blames the rest of the world for somehow making America a worse country.
The mitigating factors are these:
Hillary Clinton’s response may have been more coherent but hers suggests we should probably engage in more actual war than cyberwar to handle ISIS — something’s that gone oh so well for the past couple of decades. And she was ready to declare cyberwar on Russia after the DNC hacking, an idea that’s not only stupid (seeing as the entity behind the hacking is still unknown) but an indication she’d be willing to wield government power to avenge embarassment.
Trump’s power in office is likely to be far less than he obviously envisions it. Trump may be a rather extreme form of populist but those popular votes will be about as useful as Facebook likes when it comes to attempts to push his agenda past far more level-headed advisors and legislators.
Either way, voters are faced with choosing between the devil they sort of know and the devil other devils have been distancing themselves from for several weeks. In both cases, we’re going to end up with a president who doesn’t have the technical knowledge to deal with today’s realities.
So, the CFAA strikes again, and this time right in the heart of a Silicon Valley political fight. If you live in or around the Silicon Valley tech industry, you probably know who Ro Khanna is. He’s often been described as the “candidate for Congress that Silicon Valley prefers.” It feels like he’s been running for Congress against incumbent Rep. Mike Honda forever, but it’s really just in the past two elections. Here’s a big Bloomberg profile of him from 2013 when he first challenged Honda, losing narrowly to him in the 2014 election, despite having support from many Silicon Valley tech industry stars. This year, he’s running again, and in the primary, Khanna narrowly beat Honda, suggesting good things in the general election in November (the top two candidates in the open primary move on to the general election, regardless of party).
Khanna is known for his pro-internet views, while Honda has a reputation for not really understanding or caring very much about the internet.
And now… Honda has sued Khanna under one of the most hated laws on the internet, the CFAA (Computer Fraud & Abuse Act). As we’ve discussed for many years, the CFAA was supposed to be an “anti-hacking law” that was created by politicians who were (literally, no joke) scared by the fictional movie War Games into writing an anti-hacking law in the 1980s. The law has many, many, many problems, but the biggest one, which comes up again and again in cases, is that it has a vague standard of “unauthorized access” or “exceeding authorized access.”
Not surprisingly, that’s the issue in this case as well. In short, Brian Parvizshahi was (until Thursday night) Khanna’s campaign manager. Way back in 2012, Parvizshahi had briefly (as in, for just a few weeks) worked at Arum Group, an organization that helped Mike Honda with fundraising. After he left Arum Group, apparently no one at the company thought to turn off his access to the Dropbox where they stored all their info about donors. Now, to most people, you’d think that the issue here would be Arum Group’s bad policies. But, under the CFAA some can argue that continuing to access that file is a form of “unauthorized access.”
And that’s the central claim here in the lawsuit. Honda claims that Parvizshahi continued to access that Dropbox folder that he was given access to four years ago and which Arum Group never shut down — and thus he, and the whole Khanna campaign — violated the CFAA. You can see the full filing here.
Now, we can say that Parvizshahi continually accessing this info — especially after starting to work for Khanna — was really, really dumb. Especially since his actions were clearly viewable in Dropbox — including cases where he supposedly “edited” the files. From the lawsuit, here’s just one of many, many images:
It is worth noting, though, that some of the screenshots merely show Parvizshahi “adding” the document to his desktop, which might have happened automatically if he was syncing his Dropbox account to his computer, which is the way many people set things up.
One other sketchy thing here is that someone sent a copy of Honda’s donor list to San Jose Inside magazine in late 2015 — and apparently the file they got matched a file in the Dropbox folder that Parvizshahi had accessed.
So while it may have been dumb for him to do so, the real fault here would seem to lie with Arum Group for (1) giving Parvizshahi access on what appears to be his personal Dropbox account, rather than adding a professional account that it controlled and (2) failing to revoke his access after Parvizshahi left, and not even noticing it for years. That seems to be the really negligent move here.
But, with the way courts have been interpreting the CFAA, it does seem entirely possible (if ridiculous) that a California court could interpret this to be a CFAA violation for Parvizshahi at the very least. If that also applies to Khanna, that would seem doubly ridiculous. Either way, as far as I can tell, while Khanna has taken a position on a number of issues related to tech policy, I don’t see anything about the CFAA. Perhaps this particular episode will change that.
So, yesterday, we noted that the Senate at least seemed to come (at least somewhat) to its senses in choosing not to include the ridiculous and dangerous proposal from Ted Cruz (and supported by Donald Trump) to block the transition of the IANA functions of internet governance away from the Commerce Department. I won’t go into (once again) why this is important and not a problem, or even why Cruz’s objections to it are so backwards that his plan will actually make it more likely that the “bad” result he keeps warning about will actually come to pass. You can reread the older articles on that.
However, with Democrats complaining about the Senate’s Continuing Resolution and a vote on it being pushed off, the debate over the possibility of blocking the transition is still going on. Hell, Ted Cruz even pointed to Donald Trump’s support of his plan as a reason to finally endorse Trump:
Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama?s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.
Except, none of that is true. First, the plan does not hand over control to Russia, China and Iran — and keeping IANA under the Commerce Dept. makes it A LOT MORE LIKELY that that coalition of countries is able to grab control of the IANA functions from ICANN and the US. But, uh, even more importantly, claiming that Trump is in favor of “free speech online” is laughable. This is the candidate who has repeatedly talked about “opening up our libel laws” to go after speech he doesn’t like, has threatened to sue many publications for protected speech, and has flat out declared that we should turn off parts of the internet and anyone who responded with “freedom of speech” was “foolish.”
But, that’s still not the craziest argument I’ve heard recently concerning the transition. The award there goes to Theresa Payton, who was a top IT staffer at the White House under George W. Bush and now runs a “cybersecurity” firm. She wrote a bizarre opinion piece in The Hill that, frankly, calls into question whether she understands what ICANN even does. She tries to argue that the transition will somehow make it easier for Russia to hack our election… because [reasons].
Changing who controls the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) so close to our presidential election will jeopardize the results of how you vote on Nov. 8 unless Congress stops this changeover. When the calendar hits Sept. 30, a mere 6 weeks before our election, the United States cannot be assured that if any web site is hacked, the responsible party will be held accountable. We cannot be sure if a web site is a valid. We cannot be sure if one country is being favored over another. These are all the things ICANN is responsible for and has worked perfectly since the Internet was created. Why change it now and so close to the election? Why does that matter to you as a voter?
Take a look at recent cyber activity as it relates to the election. The Democratic National Convention was breached comprising the entire party?s strategy, donor base, and indeed, national convention. Everything the DNC had done to prepare for a moment four years in the making (if not longer) was undermined by a hacker who had been in their system for some time but waited for the optimal moment to spring it on the DNC ? opening day of the convention. The FBI and other U.S. agencies, as the headlines blare, suspect Russia is responsible for the hack. Recently, Vladimir Putin went so far as to say, “Does it matter who broke in? Surely what’s important is the content of what was released to the public.?
Except, uh, ICANN has nothing to do with figuring out who hacks who. Nor is it the party that’s figuring out if one country “is being favored over another” or if a “website is valid.” That’s not ICANN’s job, and has nothing to do whatsoever with the IANA transition — which will leave the internet working exactly as it has before. Honestly, this opinion piece does nothing to call the transition into question, but does a tremendous job in calling Theresa Payton’s knowledge of technology and cybersecurity into question.
ICANN does more than just assign and/or approve your website?s domain. ICANN has its own Security and Stability Advisory Committee, which ?engages in ongoing threat assessment and risk analysis of the Internet naming and address allocation services to assess where the principal threats to stability and security lie, and advises the ICANN community accordingly.? They are equivalent to your security guard at the bank. Why change the security guard now when voter data is more vulnerable ? and prized – than ever?
If ICANN changes hands, so do the security measures taken to protect the rightful owner of your web site. If a site was hijacked today ? not an uncommon crime in the cyber world – to reassert yourself as the rightful owner, you would go through law enforcement channels, your domain provider, and yes, ICANN.
First of all, the “transition” in question isn’t about transitioning all of ICANN. Just its IANA functions, which only have a symbolic connection to the US government. Second, Payton seems to not understand what ICANN does, what the ICANN SSAC does, or how internet security works. They are not the equivalent of the “security guard at the bank.” You’d think the CEO and founder of a “cybersecurity” company would know that. And, after the IANA transition takes place, ICANN itself doesn’t “change hands” nor does it change what the SSAC does, which isn’t anything even remotely close to what Payton seems to think it does.
Don’t trust me? How about Stephen Crocker, who heads ICANN’s Board of Directors — and also helped create the damn internet. You know how much of the internet was designed through “RFCs” — “Requests for Comments” — well, Crocker invented the RFC and wrote the very first one. I think he knows what he’s talking about. And he and the head of ICANN’s SSAC, Patrik Fallstrom, have responded to Payton with a nicer version of “you have no idea what you’re talking about.”
The SSAC is not a ?security guard? for the Internet. The SSAC has no enforcement power, and the value of its advice is based on the strength of the facts underlying such advice.
The Security and Stability Advisory Committee advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet’s naming and address allocation systems. Our recent work include advisories on a wide range of topics such as internationalized domain names, protecting domain name owners and operators, best practices for domain name registrars, analysis on the changing nature of IPv4 address semantics, and advice on matters pertaining to the correct and reliable operation of the root name system and other issues (see https://ssac.icann.org/ for more details). The SSAC neither operates as a security guard for the Internet, nor does it aspire to.
The IANA transition has no practical effect on the work and activities of the SSAC. Nor does the transition have any effect on the security and stability of website owners worldwide. The risk of compromise of a website owner does not increase as a result of the IANA transition, since ICANN and IANA do not control either the ownership of websites or the content on websites. Leading technical experts, industry associations, and civil society groups agree that allowing the IANA contract to expire is the best possible way to protect and promote the continued integrity of the Internet.
There is simply no relationship between ICANN and the current U.S. election process. Assertions of this sort are misleading and irresponsible. On the other hand, attempt to connect ICANN to the U.S. political process play directly into the hands of the enemies of an open Internet who would like to see ICANN and other Internet bodies put under the control of the United Nations or, worse yet, broken up into separate, government-controlled networks that do not interoperate smoothly around the world.
So, yeah. It seems that as we get closer to the transition, and since this issue has become “political,” we’re seeing stupider and ever more clueless attacks — but they seem to only serve to make the people behind them look worse and worse. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. It shouldn’t be a political issue. It shouldn’t be an issue. Severing the minor link connection between IANA and the Commerce Department changes nothing practical in how the internet is governed, but takes a big weapon away from Russia and China in their quest to take control over those functions.
So, just a few hours ago, the reports were still spreading that the Senate would absolutely include Ted Cruz’s preferred language that would block the (largely symbolic, but really important) transfer of control over the IANA functions of ICANN away from the Commerce Department. We’ve explained over and over and over again why this is important — including once this morning in response to Donald Trump suddenly taking a stand (an incredibly ignorant one, but a stand) on the issue.
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.
It often seems like the modern cable industry often goes out of its way to remain decidedly un-modern. Thanks to regulatory capture and limited competition, the sector consistently ranks among the very worst industries in terms of customer satisfaction and support. And whether it’s opposing net neutrality or fighting efforts to bring competition to the cable box, you’ll often find the industry’s top lobbying organization — the National Cable and Telecommunications Association at the forefront of fighting nearly every pro-consumer initiative that comes down the pike.
That’s why it’s more than a little amusing to see the NCTA announce this week that it’s eliminating the word “cable” from its branding and overall vernacular, apparently as an attempt to modernize the cable sector’s image in the Netflix age. According to a statement by the NCTA, the migration away from even using the word cable (despite coaxial very much remaining in use) is a reflection of “how the marketplace is no longer defined by silos of the past.” This is how former FCC boss turned top cable lobbyist Michael Powell explained the shift:
“Just as our industry is witnessing an exciting transformation driven by technology and connectivity, NCTA?s brand must reflect the vibrancy and diversity of our members,? Powell said. ?While our mission to drive the industry forward remains the same, our look now reflects a renewed proactive and energized spirit.”
And by “driving the industry forward,” Powell of course means supporting initiatives that do the exact opposite.
Most recently that has included using a massive sound wall of disinformation (including some help from the US Copyright Office and the likes of Jesse Jackson) to demonize attempts to bring competition to the cable box. The NCTA has also been busy working overtime to derail the FCC’s attempt to apply some relatively basic privacy protections to the cable sector, has also supported protectionist state laws that hinder broadband competition, and has even fought raising the base definition of broadband to 25 Mbps. “Proactive and energized,” indeed.
And while the cable industry is quick to argue it’s facing more direct competition than ever before, the reality is notably different. As AT&T and Verizon give up on unwanted DSL customers, it’s creating a stronger cable monopoly than ever before in many areas. As cable providers consolidate and their telco competitors crumble, cable is seeing 99% of the broadband net additions each quarter. The end result is a cable industry that intends to take full advantage of this lack of competition to impose draconian usage caps on consumer broadband connections in the hopes of thwarting Internet video competitors like Netflix.
All told it’s going to take a lot more than a vernacular change to shift consumer and cross industry perception away from the reality that the cable industry — and specifically the NCTA — is an anti-consumer, anti-innovation, antiquated turf protection machine.
?The recruitment and radicalization that goes on online has to be much more vigorously intercepted and prevented. I have been saying this for quite some time,? the Democratic presidential candidate said at a news conference Monday during which she responded to the bombings in New York and New Jersey over the weekend.
?The government cannot do this without the close participation of tech companies and experts online who can give us the tools and lead us to those who are attempting to promote attacks like we?ve seen.?
Let’s leave aside, first of all, the fact that (as of this writing) there hasn’t been any evidence that the individual arrested and charged with this was recruited and radicalized online. Instead, let’s focus on what’s being asked here: to “intercept and prevent” certain forms of speech online. Not only does this seem… to go completely against American values around freedom of expression, it’s also impossible. Sure, you can kick people off of services, but anyone with an ounce of understanding of how the internet works will recognize how ineffective that is.
Not only would such a system fail to stop people who wish to plan attacks from communicating, such a plan would, inevitably, also block perfectly normal and protected speech. Even worse, it would likely block important counterspeech in which people are able to respond to calls for violence and terrorism with arguments as to why that approach is a bad idea.
It remains amazingly troubling that both of the major party candidates for President seem to think that a good response to attacks in this country is to silence people online. Putting the onus on Silicon Valley to magically “fix” this by “preventing” bad people from talking to one another online is not a credible, reasonable or workable strategy for dealing with those who wish to attack the US.
Lots of people have expected President Obama to push for a Congressional vote on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) ratification in the “lame duck” session after the election, but before the new administration takes over. Last week, the President made it pretty clear that he was planning to do exactly that, and magically a bunch of “business groups” that make up the “President’s Export Council” are suddenly pushing for a lame duck TPP vote, and lots of old school business lobbying groups are out talking to the press about how totally amazing the TPP is. Meanwhile, on the flip side, TPP opponents are (not surprisingly) gearing up to oppose a lame duck vote.
It’s still not clear if there are enough votes in Congress, but of course, no one wants to talk about it before the election, because there’s so much populist anti-TPP feelings from the public on both parties that speaking up in support of TPP now may harm election chances. Of course, after the election, when elected officials can go back to ignoring the will of the people, things may miraculously shift back to the way they were before.
Meanwhile, the other big “trade” plan that was supposed to be a part of Obama’s legacy is the deal with the EU, known as the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership). That’s run into lots of trouble as well, and there are serious concerns on both sides of the Atlantic about how it will work. With time running out on the clock, apparently the USTR is now pushing for a “light” version of the agreement so that something is accomplished:
The U.S. and EU countries supporting free trade are increasingly worried that the landmark Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will collapse if they do not secure a preliminary accord before U.S. President Barack Obama leaves office in January.
They now accept that a full agreement will not be possible by the end of 2016 because of an impasse over agriculture and public procurement, but they don?t want to surrender what they regard as concrete progress made in other fields over the past three years of negotiations.
So to “lock in” something, they are looking at taking the pieces they have agreed on, and coming up with a simplified deal. What’s interesting here is that the agreed upon parts are the ones that are normally used as the example of why we need TTIP in the first place. In the past, we’ve joked about how frequently those defending TTIP point to the single example of different automobile standards, such that automakers need to build different cars for each market. And it looks like that issue might make it in TTIP-lite:
U.S. and Italian officials are now weighing the option of a ?Step 1? deal to lock in elements that can be finalized by December, possibly including joint testing regimes and mutually agreed upon standards for cars, pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
So, uh, that sounds good. Why do we need the rest of the crap that they’re debating, around corporate sovereignty ISDS provisions — especially since the entire basis for those kinds of agreements was supposed to be to encourage investment in developing countries. The EU and the US have perfectly decent court systems, so any dispute shouldn’t need a special tribunal.
But, of course, those who have relied on shoving all sorts of pork and special interest protectionism through trade deals do not like the idea of a “lite” agreement that covers the officially discussed reasons for a trade deal. Why, that would be horrible! How could they continue to hide all the sneaky stuff they want to get in?
The idea has sparked immediate skepticism in the European Commission and in some EU member countries, which argue that any form of a downgraded deal will be very hard to sell politically, particularly after French Trade Minister Matthias Fekl and German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel turned hostile on the negotiations.
And, of course, anything that’s “rushed” through may have problems on its own, so there are legitimate reasons to be wary of a “lite” deal anyway. But it is kind of amusing that they might dump all the “good” reasons for TTIP into a deal, and then have to continue to try to justify the rest of the stuff.
John McCain — fighting for the government’s right to get all up in your everything — has decided to embrace the “grumpy” part of his “grumpy old legislator” personality.
Back in July, McCain expressed his displeasure with Apple declining his invitation to show up and get yelled at/field false accusations at his hearing on encryption. He dourly noted that he was “seeking the widest variety of input,” but his invited guests included Manhattan DA Cy Vance, a former Bush-era Homeland Security advisor and former NSA deputy director Chris Inglis. Not having Apple to kick around peeved McCain, who finished off the “discussion” with subpoena threats.
His tertiary point seems to have been to attack Apple and Twitter for making efforts to protect their customers. After getting a witness to comment about Twitter’s long-term refusal to let Dataminr to sell Twitter data to the CIA, he suggested perhaps the response should be to “expose” the company.
“Expose” how? This was “exposed” already, with the aftershocks of the exposure being “so what?” and “who cares?” Twitter simply enforced a pre-existing policy, pointing out to a third-party data mining company that it wasn’t allowed to sell Twitter data to the government for surveillance use. This blocked the CIA from drinking from the Dataminr/Twitter firehose, which made the CIA sad and Twitter look stalwart and — generally speaking — didn’t prevent the government from using any number of other methods to scoop up public tweets for surveillance purposes.
It also made McCain mad and he’s still aching about it three months later. So, Wheeler has decided to help McCain out by publicizing Twitter’s decision to hold a third-party social media data miner to the terms of its agreement with the government. Two more headlines have been added to her post, both breaking the news that was broken months ago and did little to appreciably nudge surveillance/outrage needles in any direction.
But it’s still a big deal to McCain. He spent a little over two minutes (starting about 46:50 in the recording posted here) crafting his molehill into a mountain before cajoling NSA director Michael Rogers into answering what should have been a hypothetical question. While Admiral Rogers uncomfortably admitted he “didn’t understand” why Twitter would enforce a pre-existing policy, McCain was unable to get anyone in the room to say anything on the record about “exposing” Twitter for its apparently nefarious decision to enforce the rules of Dataminr’s agreement.
Wheeler has a better question:
Of course, you might ask why McCain is demanding that our tech companies to make money off of surveillance of you. And why he considers Twitter such an exception.
