Posted on Techdirt - 31 July 2015 @ 8:53am
The DMCA takedown notice is a powerful tool. With a minimum of effort, any person can ask for the removal of content or the delisting of a URL. Whether or not they succeed is based on two factors: the relative skill level of the person/bot making the request and the credulity/intestinal fortitude of the receiving intermediary.
In the interest of making the internet a slightly better place to be, here's some guidance of what not to do when submitting DMCA takedown notices.
DON'T MISTAKE "GOOGLE" FOR "THE INTERNET"
Andromedical -- despite its name -- makes a device that has little to do with proven medical science. There's no need to fully describe the device's purpose, as the description of the allegedly-infringing content provided by the company in its takedown request fills in all the mental blanks.
The ilustrations of the penis with a device and the final results in numbers. The ilustration of the cellular multiplication. The photographies of the doctors Dr. Hellstrom or Dr. Moncada or Dr. Gontero or Dr. Gomez or other members of Andromedical Medical Committee. Chart of several parts of the Andropenis device.
The "photographies" and "ilustrations" Andromedical wishes to have removed probably contain some of these (totally SFW):
As you can see, it's highly unlikely anyone would expect these photographs to be owned by anyone other than ANDROMEDICAL. And yet, here we are, watching in fascination as Andromedical asks Google to take down Bing's
Because Bing has yet to offer any sort of transparency on takedown requests, we can't cross-reference this to see if it was just issued to the wrong search engine. But it's not uncommon for people -- even legislators
and lobbyists -- to believe that Google is the whole of the internet. Or if not that, then at least one of the only doors.
DON'T BE THIS GUY
No one needs you to play Internet Batman and act as an anti-piracy vigilante squad
. You're not just wasting your
time, but you're wasting the time of others who could be assisting real rightsholders. You're accomplishing absolutely nothing.
You're not even making a dent in piracy, especially when your takedown requests veer suddenly from file lockers and torrent links to PBS.org and Genius.com. The real rightsholders have automated scripts that can generate bogus hits thousands of times faster than this person can
DO NOT CREATE A BOGUS WORK-IN-PROGRESS NOVEL IN HOPES OF OBTAINING SOME SORT OF RETROACTIVE COPYRIGHT OVER ARTICLES DETAILING YOUR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES BY COPYING-PASTING SAID ARTICLES ONTO YOUR PERSONAL WEBSITE, SURROUNDING THEM WITH "EXCERPTS" OF YOUR "BOOK" AND ISSUING TAKEDOWN NOTICES TARGETING THESE FACTUAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ACTIONS THAT GOT YOU JAILED
Meet Sean Gjerde
. Convicted in 2013 of conspiring to commit mortgage fraud
, he's now hoping to turn over a new leaf... by engaging in fraudulent behavior. In a DMCA takedown notice
targeting multiple news articles about his conviction -- including the FBI's own press release
-- Gjerde claims these news reports are actually excerpts from his upcoming novel.
Following the URL
he provides, one is greeted by Sean Gjerde's inescapable name, a short bit of introductory material designed to throw off anyone trying to verify his takedown request and… entire articles pasted into the body of his single post -- which he is now claiming belong to him because he surrounded them with a few paragraphs he wrote himself. And the few paragraphs he did write portray him as the grammatically-challenged victim.
This is a excerpt from my new book "Grace Under Pressure" coming next sping as a Amazon exclusive for kindle.
I had always done what I thought was right. How could I have gotten caught up in all this. How is it possible that the Bar didn't see what I did, what I did for my client. I did what every attorney is supposed to do, keep quiet.
I kept my mouth shut, and my award was that they went after me. These people were supposed to protect me. I should be rewarded, not implicated.
Renee, she is my friend. They are accusing me of steeling from my friend. I took her to the movies and baseball games for heavens sake. I took care of her cats. I can't believe they would make this all up. I read the lies and could barely continue.
An Elk Grove lawyer already indicted in federal court for conspiracy to commit mail fraud was charged last month by the State Bar with 36 counts of misconduct in which his victims ranged from desperate clients seeking bankruptcy protection to a legal insurance provider.
SEAN PATRICK GJERDE (#217467), 35, misappropriated more than $80,000 from the beneficiary of a trust for which he served as trustee, engaged in a scheme to defraud a legal insurance provider, repeatedly violated a bankruptcy court order, performed incompetently, failed to return unearned fees, lied on court documents and even forged the names of his partner and a client, according to State Bar documents. Many of the charges involved moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.
Of course, his protestations of innocence and good intentions are largely undone by his stupid-ass attempt to fake his way into the "controlling rightsholder" position solely for the purpose of burying press coverage of his fraudulent behavior.
And, along those same lines, one more "don't" for DMCA takedowns.
DON'T IMPERSONATE A FEDERAL OFFICER
This is the United States Secret Service Washington Field Office requesting removal of false report against a federal agency is a federal violation which could put Google company out of business if this report is not immediately removes ripoffreport.com revews complaint/complaint against the united states secret serive. If not remove within 24 hours of this notice all through out the internet should be removed from Google,Yahoo,Aol.com,Altavista.com,Bing.com and all other sites. You are under major violation of infringment rights against a federal agency name. US Secret Service is a Federal Angency and any misuse of the Agencies name for advertisement or for whatever purpose is not allowed at all on the internet or otherwise by Supreme Justice Court Order Remove This Article At Once from all searches or face court violation charges. US SECRET SERVICE/Attorney General Of Va./The House Of Representatives/US Supreme Court
It's well-known that Ripoff Report doesn't humor takedown requests. So, if you wish to be taken more seriously, I guess you escalate until maximum ridiculousness is achieved. Not only does this person claim to be a federal agent, but he also claims to have the weight of Congress and the Supreme Court behind his badly-written, poorly-spelled demands.
And, as if asking for the removal of this link from the entire internet (including Altavista!), "US Secret Service Agent Joe Morrison" does it three more times
. One includes ALL CAPS so you know he means business.
A Public Warning! Ed Magedson is a WANTED FEDERAL FELON AND SO ARE ALL THE AUTHORS OF THE SITE RIPOFFREPORT.COM JUST TYPE IN THE NAME ED MAGEDSON AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES AND HIS ARREST RECORDS!!!!
These easy-to-follow rules should help keep rightsholders (or the severely-misguided, full-blown imposters, etc.) from embarassing themselves while simultaneously raising the estimation and visibility of the content they originally wanted removed. The takedown notice is a tool, not a toy.
(P.S. There is likely a far better way to let everyone know a certain former employee will no longer be welcome at company events/kids' birthday parties than sending a notice to Google, Inc
Vincent Leahy no longer works for our company. He was arrested last year by the FBI on charges of possession and distribution of child pornography. His trial is underway. We do not want to be associated with this individual, as it may affect our business reputation and major losses could be incurred. The web site has already taken down his testimonial but it still appears on the Google search. Any assistance in correcting this problem asap would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Mike
[Note: this may not be an actual DMCA takedown notice. It's simply listed at Chilling Effects as "Other," which it certainly is.])
5 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 30 July 2015 @ 11:02pm
The National Highway Transportation Safety Association (NHTSA) is supposed to be focused on one thing: safety. For crying out loud, it's right in the middle of its cumbersome name. But the federal funding it hands out to state and local governments is being used for surveillance devices with no discernible "safety" purpose: automatic license plate readers.
The NHTSA is funding license plate readers for highway safety purposes only, but it’s far from clear how law enforcement agencies are interpreting this and whether they are using the funding to buy license plate readers for non-safety uses. The NHTSA should not be funding police technology for surveillance purposes and it should not let law enforcement apply for funding to decrease traffic fatalities and then turn around and use those funds to track people not suspected of any crime.
This is how things are supposed
to run versus how things actually
run. This funding dodge is pretty much indiscernible from law enforcement agencies obtaining DHS/DoD grants for Stingrays and Bearcats to combat "terrorism," and then using the equipment to do banal, routine policework
, like tracking down drug dealers.
So, in the name of "safety," local agencies are asking for federal funding, and then using the subsidization to deploy new surveillance tech. Standard operating procedure. And the companies manufacturing this equipment clearly recognize these exploitable funding opportunities and target prospective purchasers accordingly.
Private license plate reader manufacturers have further facilitated NHTSA granting funds for license plate reader systems by connecting state and local law enforcement agencies with the funding streams. In one 2012 email exchange, an employee of an ALPR maker advises the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles that “NHTSA funding is available for traffic safety” and provides contact information. Indeed, the company has a whole page of its website devoted to connecting law enforcement agencies with sources of funding.
In essence, the companies are telling agencies this equipment is pretty much free. And it is, as long as you don't think too hard about the original source of the funding: taxpayers. Exploiting this federal funding allows agencies to claim safety is a priority while not actually moving towards that goal. Instead, they get the location tracking technology they want and allow the public to pick up the tab. Then this equipment is turned around and pointed at the same people paying for it, sometimes literally as a tool of tax collection
And it looks as if this broken, abused system will only get worse. The ACLU reports the NHTSA is soliciting bids
for a study into the use of license plate readers to improve driver safety. That this obviously arrives well after NHTSA funds have been used to purchase plate readers is already problematic. Beyond that, any conclusions drawn from the report will simply provide law enforcement agencies with handy citations to use when requesting funding for equipment they have no interest in using for "public safety" reasons.
16 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 30 July 2015 @ 3:21pm
Late in 2013, the LA Times published information from applications processed by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department that showed the agency was generally unconcerned by past misconduct and illegal behavior by applicants -- especially if those applicants were former police officers or prison guards. This is the government's other revolving door, one that ensures a bad cop won't stay jobless for long.
The local police union and members of the Sheriff's Department tried to get a court to agree to some prior restraint in hopes of preventing this information from being made public. According to the lawsuit, the documents were "stolen" and, as stolen property, the LA Times had no right to hold onto it, much less publish it.
Of course, this assertion is wrong on multiple levels, starting with the fact that it's not illegal for journalists to publish stolen documents. If it was, hundreds of journalists would be in jail. The law cited by the union only prevents law enforcement officers from stealing or disseminating this information. On top of that, while the lawsuit alleged the documents were stolen, no evidence was provided to back up this claim.
This attempt to prevent information of public interest from reaching the public was greeted with an anti-SLAPP motion from the LA Times. This was sustained by the lower court, which found the plaintiffs' arguments severely deficient.
The court noted the Doe declarations ALADS submitted “contain no personal details about the declarants that would relieve them of the obligation of identifying themselves, particularly when the declarations contain the hearsay statement of defendant Faturechi concerning when the article is going to be published and what it will contain -- the evidence most critical to the showing of irreparable harm or immediate danger that plaintiff must make to justify ex parte relief.” The court also observed, “The declarations are also very vague in their reference to the personal information that Faturechi told the declarants he would be publishing.” The court “decline[d] to issue a TRO imposing a prior restraint on defendants’ free speech based on the speculative hearsay testimony of anonymous witnesses.”
The court denied the application on the additional ground that ALADS -- by its own admission -- had known for weeks if not months that the Times had information from the OPS/LASD deputies’ files, that notwithstanding this knowledge it had not proceeded by noticed motion, and therefore that “any exigency appear[ed] to be of [ALADS’] own making . . . . ”
This, of course, led to an appeal.
The appeal, even if successful, would have been a lost cause. By the time it reached the California appeals court, the information had already been published. Once prior restraint was denied, the only thing left for the plaintiffs to do was find some way to punish the paper for its act of journalism.
The appeals court is similarly unmoved
by the plaintiffs' post-publication arguments, which are pretty much mostly a repetition of its previous failed arguments, with the addition of the assertion that the LA Times shouldn't have been able to invoke anti-SLAPP laws because it was trafficking in "stolen" material. Again, the appeals court agrees with the finding of the lower court -- that the plaintiffs make a lot of accusations, but can't seem to be able to back them up.
ALADS asserts the trial court erred in finding the Times had met its burden on the first step of the analysis because the Times obtained the LASD files “through criminal means.” ALADS repeats the allegation from its complaint that the Times reporter “stole, received from someone else who stole, or otherwise unlawfully came into physical possession of the confidential background investigation files...” As the trial court correctly observed, ALADS has presented no admissible evidence that Faturechi or anyone else at the Times stole anything.
And even if the documents were indeed stolen, the LASD officers and police union can't seem to find anything that indicates a law was broken by the LA Times' publication of the material.
ALADS cites -- and miscites -- various statutes it contends are violated by Faturechi’s mere possession of the records. For example, ALADS asserts that section 6200 of the Government Code makes it a crime for “any person” to steal, remove, or secrete “official government documents.” But the statute does not say “any person.” It says “[e]very officer” who has custody of a record “deposited in any public office” shall not steal, remove, secrete, destroy, mutilate, deface, alter, or falsify the record or permit another person to do so. The section is entitled “Custodial officers; theft, destruction, alteration, falsification.” Similarly, ALADS claims Government Code section 3307.5 “makes it illegal, as a matter of law, for anyone” to release a photograph of a peace officer to the public. In fact, that statute concerns officers’ relationships with the agencies that employ them. It says officers shall not be “required as a condition of employment” to consent to the use of their photographs on the Internet.
The court also addresses the "privacy violation" arguments advanced by the police union and the anonymous Doe plaintiffs, finding them similarly weak.
The first problem with ALADS’ argument is that any privacy right in the information contained in deputies’ employment applications belongs to the deputies (and their employer, LASD), not to the deputies’ labor union. “It is well settled that the right of privacy is purely a personal one; it cannot be asserted by anyone other than the person whose privacy has been invaded, that is, plaintiff must plead and prove that his privacy has been invaded.”
Finally, the court takes on the union's claim that its attempted prior restraint wasn't really prior restraint.
[T]he injunction ALADS seeks would not be “content-neutral” at all. ALADS asks the court to enjoin the Times from publishing any article containing any information in 16 listed categories, including the names of any OPS/LASD deputies, their photographs, and their “non-public criminal history.”
In sum, ALADS has cited no case permitting the kind of injunction it seeks here, to restrain a newspaper from publishing news articles on a matter of public concern: the qualifications of applicants for jobs as law enforcement officers. ALADS has cited no case because there is no such case. For more than one hundred years, federal and state courts have refused to allow the subjects of potential news reports to stop journalists from publishing reports about them.
Which is all this actually is. The police union and the Doe officers, too concerned about their reputations to put their name on the lawsuit, wanted nothing more than to bury unflattering information. Neither the union nor the officers seemed to have any problem with former officers fired for misconduct or illegal behavior being allowed back into positions of authority and power, but they had a serious problem with the LA Times letting the public in on its dirty secrets. Fortunately, two consecutive courts refused to buy the plaintiffs' censorious, malformed arguments.
Read More | 9 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 30 July 2015 @ 3:17am
David Colarusso, a public defender turned data scientist, has a fascinating post at Law Technology Today describing the many issues arising from the abusive activities of a single chemist at the Massachusetts state drug lab. The starting point of his post -- and his problems -- trace back a few years.
In 2012, it was discovered that a chemist working at the Massachusetts state drug lab in Jamaica Plain had been falsifying drug tests (e.g., claiming that samples contained narcotics without testing them and even adding cocaine to samples to get a positive result when prior testing came back negative). She had worked at the lab for nearly a decade, and these revelations called into question the outcomes in tens of thousands of cases.
Obviously, this sort of tampering means there are convictions waiting to be overturned. But two years later, little progress has been made. It isn't that the state is obstructing efforts to make the falsely-convicted whole again (there may be some of that, but Colarusso's post doesn't indicate there is), but that nearly a decade's-worth of bogus lab work potentially infects thousands of convictions. Narrowing down this list to those directly affected is an enormous task, one that Colarusso was tasked with making more manageable. Narrowing down "The List" to a single link in the evidence chain -- the drug receipt -- still returned far too many potential matches to be of use. Additional restrictions trimmed the possible matches a bit more, but still left far too many potential victims of the chemist's work.
Staff attorneys take only a small fraction of indigent cases. The majority are handled by private attorneys. So only a subset of defendants on The List would be in our client files. However, given The List contained nearly 40,000 names, this subset was still rather sizable. So we used some nice open source software to look for matches between our clients’ names and those found on the list (this involved some data wrangling in Python and Pandas along with the creation of a nice IPython Notebook or two). This gave us a rough list of clients on The List, and we used these names to create a list of their co-defendants.
The narrowing of the field only did so much. The List remained sizable, thanks to inconsistencies inherent in the system itself.
This gave us a rough list of clients on The List, and we used these names to create a list of their co-defendants. We then checked The List for the co-defendant names. Unfortunately, a lot of these were missing. If we assumed the same rate of missing names across all cases, it seemed The List was missing somewhere between 0 and 9,600 names. Wait, what? That’s right, thousands of potentially missing names. The uncertainty came from the fact that we had to match names. The List did not come with dates of birth, addresses, or Social Security Numbers—just names. So occasionally, we could not find a name we were looking for because the Commonwealth and CPCS disagreed on the spelling of a name or someone made a transcription error.
By this point in the investigation, the master list was still huge and it was obvious the list itself was missing hundreds of names, which meant hundreds of possibly wrongly-convicted citizens. The reality of this situation was this: to track down those missing names and to finally set the wheels of justice in motion, thousands of police reports would need to be read and cross-referenced against those on the master list. But who will do this? And with what funds? That's still unclear. It all depends on who feels justice should be served and who feels justice should be served, but only up to a certain dollar amount.
So, the problem -- which was one
person in one
lab falsifying thousands
of test results -- has become something so unwieldy that it may never result in the exoneration of everyone chemist Annie Dookhan managed to wrongly put behind bars. The problem is too big to solve, and much of that has to do with the efficiency of drug prosecutions versus the much less efficient wheels of bureaucracy. Data wrangling helped determine the size
of the problem and point a way towards a solution, but the solution is still hundreds, if not thousands, of hours away.
But Colarusso points to one aspect that should have been noticed and would have kept this from becoming a 40,000-file catastrophe (and that's without counting the undetermined number of omissions).
The real promise is in catching the next scandal early. This means listening to data and looking for patterns. The rogue chemist had a throughput three times that of the next “most productive” chemist. That should have been a red flag. Data science offers the promise of mining data for signals such as these and sounding the alarm.
But they weren't looking for a problem at the drug lab. They were looking for productivity. Dookhan's suspiciously-fast output wasn't greeted with suspicion. It was greeted with praise and an increased workload
The report shows that the Hinton lab leaned heavily on Dookhan’s productivity. Supervisors lauded her work ethic and assigned her an increasing share of tests.
“From January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2011, Dookhan was assigned 25.3% of all analyses in the Drug Lab and completed 21.8% of all tests conducted by staff,” the report said.
There's a point when a problem is still manageable and there's a point when it becomes too big to correct within the confines of the system that helped create it. The drug lab itself pushed it from solvable to impossible. What happened here isn't an isolated incident. Similar abuses have occurred at the nation's top labs -- those belonging to the FBI. Results of forensic testing were overstated to prosecutors
, who then put these experts on the stand
to help convict hundreds of thousands of people using the questionable results. It's only because of outside pressure
that the FBI and DOJ are even looking into this, and it's easy to imagine "The List" of possibly wrongly-convicted persons here far exceeds the 40,000+ Colarusso tangled with.
In addition to the problem begin ignored for two decades, the effort to right the FBI's wrong isn't being pursued with nearly the same enthusiasm
as the bogus prosecutions. And yet, there were early warning signs that were ignored. Information about the FBI's evidence issues was passed on to prosecutors -- but this information, including exculpatory evidence, was never passed on to defense attorneys.
The time to handle a problem is before it negatively affects thousands by depriving them of their liberty. But the desire to fight a drug war led to the cover up of exculpatory evidence by US prosecutors working with the FBI and the opportunity to fake even more test results in Annie Dookhan's case. Caught in the middle of all of this are thousands who may never see justice done because the problem was ignored until it no longer could be.
80 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 29 July 2015 @ 3:18pm
The "shoot first, ask for immunity later" mentality of today's law enforcement officers is perfectly highlighted in this story about a US military veteran finding himself on the receiving end of a military-style raid… all because a "helpful" neighbor reported him for being in the "wrong" apartment. (via Amy Alkon)
Alex Horton, an Iraq war veteran, was having some work done on his apartment. During the repairs, his landlord put him up in a "model unit." He fell asleep in an apartment otherwise known to be unoccupied. A passing neighbor apparently saw him in the apartment through the cracked door and reported this to the police. What happened next was standard operating procedure -- both for the US military and US law enforcement.
I got home from the bar and fell into bed soon after Saturday night bled into Sunday morning. I didn’t wake up until three police officers barged into my apartment, barking their presence at my door. They sped down the hallway to my bedroom, their service pistols drawn and leveled at me.
It was just past 9 a.m., and I was still under the covers. The only visible target was my head.
In the shouting and commotion, I felt an instant familiarity. I’d been here before. This was a raid.
I had done this a few dozen times myself, 6,000 miles away from my Alexandria, Va., apartment. As an Army infantryman in Iraq, I’d always been on the trigger side of the weapon. Now that I was on the barrel side, I recalled basic training’s most important firearm rule: Aim only at something you intend to kill.
The militarization of police
goes far beyond simply arming them with the military's leftover vehicles and weapons
. It also informs their tactics. But law enforcement only cherry-picks what it likes about the military. Horton's article for the Washington Post points out that law enforcement officers don't handle their weapons like military members do. Soldiers are taught that guns are deadly and should only be pointed at targets the soldier intends to kill. Police officers are taught to use their guns for intimidation, without nearly as much attention paid to drilling home the point that guns are deadly and should be respected -- especially by the ones wielding them.
[Erik] Rhoads, the Fairfax County police lieutenant, was upfront about this mind-set. He explained that it was standard procedure to point guns at suspects in many cases to protect the lives of police officers. Their firearm rules were different from mine; they aimed not to kill but to intimidate. According to reporting by The Washington Post, those rules are established in police training, which often emphasizes a violent response over deescalation. Recruits spend an average of eight hours learning how to neutralize tense situations; they spend more than seven times as many hours at the weapons range.
This is what turns a report of a squatter in an apartment into a fully-armed raid. It didn't have to be this way. This "situation" could have been defused at any point before the officers rushed into the apartment with weapons drawn. The security guard at the complex could have been asked about the person in the model apartment. The apartment's owner and management could have provided helpful information as well. But no one -- not even Shift Commander Erik Rhoads -- even considered arming police officers with additional information. They had guns and the authority to use them. That was enough.
When I later visited the Fairfax County police station to gather details about what went wrong, I met the shift commander, Lt. Erik Rhoads. I asked why his officers hadn’t contacted management before they raided the apartment. Why did they classify the incident as a forced entry, when the information they had suggested something innocuous? Why not evaluate the situation before escalating it?
Rhoads defended the procedure, calling the officers’ actions “on point.” It’s not standard to conduct investigations beforehand because that delays the apprehension of suspects, he told me.
It also delays the apprehension -- the violent
apprehension, I might add -- of non-suspects, as was the case with Horton. It instead expedites the sort of stupidity that would be comical if it weren't so dangerous for everyone involved. The willful ignorance of situations, explained away by the "need" to swiftly apprehend criminals, leads to more death and violence. And not just for "suspects." It makes the situation more dangerous for cops as well. It's as if modern law enforcement agencies view the "fog of war
" as a tactical advantage, even though nothing about the history of that terms suggests it has ever been viewed that way by actual combatants.
This is an astounding admission. Rhoads, a commanding officer, is willing to purposefully endanger his own officers in the pursuit of a few more busts. His officers, apparently, are more than willing to be abused in this fashion, as long as it means they can dress up in tactical gear and yell a lot while pointing guns at people. Beyond that, though, he's willing to willfully endanger the public
by purposefully avoiding any information-gathering that might make these interactions safer for both his officers and those they seek.
Rhoads' statement explains why flashbang grenades get tossed into toddlers' cribs
. In the haste to bust someone responsible for $50 worth of drug sales, facts were withheld and investigative reconnaissance of the residence kept to a minimum. It allowed the raiding officers to operate with a minimum of concern for the occupants. All they had to know was "no-knock" and "drug dealer." Everything else was irrelevant.
Deployed troops are put into extremely dangerous situations every day and yet they are expected to maintain relationships with the people in the areas they patrol and not assume every tense situation can only be defused by gunfire. Back in the US where the streets are infinitely safer
, the opposite is true. Force and aggression are the favored tactics and an officer's life is valued above all others. This isn't how policing is supposed to work and it betrays the public these officers are supposed to serve.
I understood the risks of war when I enlisted as an infantryman. Police officers should understand the risks in their jobs when they enroll in the academy, as well. That means knowing that personal safety can’t always come first. That is why it’s service. That’s why it’s sacrifice.
Here in the US, it's the public that's expected to make these sacrifices. A "civilian" is expected to die before an officer does and collateral damage is not only to be expected, it's wholly encouraged by those with the same mentality as Lt. Erik Rhoads.
126 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 29 July 2015 @ 11:40am
Vizio is the latest consumer electronics manufacturer to announce -- publicly, but not, like, PR-onslaught publicly -- that its TVs will be watching purchasers as much as purchasers are watching them. The details of its strategy to generate the most ROI from each and every purchaser willing to blow past the fine print during setup are contained in the company's SEC filing for its debut as a public company. Engadget's Richard Lawler has the details. (h/t to Techdirt reader MarcAnthony)
According to the filing, Vizio has sold more than 15 million smart TVs, with about 61 percent of them connected as of the end of June. While viewers are benefiting from those connections, streaming over 3 billion hours of content, Vizio says it's watching them too, with Inscape software embedded in the screens that can track anything you're playing on it -- even if it's from cable TV, videogame systems and streaming devices.
Here's the potential shareholder-friendly description included in the S-1 filing:
Our Inscape data services capture, in real time, up to 100 billion anonymized viewing data points each day from our over 8 million VCUs. Inscape collects, aggregates and stores data regarding most content displayed on VCU television screens, including content from cable and satellite providers, streaming devices and gaming consoles. Inscape provides highly specific viewing behavior data on a massive scale with great accuracy, which can be used to generate intelligent insights for advertisers and media content providers and to drive their delivery of more relevant, personalized content through our VCUs.
And here's the grand plan, which is a slice of a multi-billion dollar data sales market:
We believe our business focus enables a self-reinforcing consumer use and engagement model that we expect to fuel our growth while driving revenue. Our connected entertainment products and discovery and engagement software increase usage of our platform, enabling Inscape to gather more anonymized data on viewing behaviors, which we can deliver to advertisers and media content providers. These companies in turn can deliver more relevant and personalized content for viewers, further enhancing the entertainment experience. We believe this self-reinforcing cycle will increase our brand awareness and enhance demand for our connected entertainment products.
What's curious about the wording isn't the gung ho appropriation of viewer data to sell to advertisers. What's curious is Vizio's claim that "anonymized data" will result in "more relevant and personalized content" for purchasers. There may be a certain level of anonymity involved, but Vizio still needs to provide enough defining demographic data to make this information worth purchasing. There is some value in general data like number of viewers of specific content at certain times, but Nielsen has done this sort of thing for years and it's a huge stretch to call anything about TV advertising "personal" or "relevant." So, there's something a bit off about the anonymization claims Vizio is making here.
The other issue is that while Vizio is being upfront with regulators about this aspect of its TV offerings, it's not being similarly explicit with purchasers. It is truly the rarest of customers that seeks out a television for its ability to offer "personalized content" in exchange for the sale of his or her viewing data to marketers.
Will users know Vizio is selling their viewing data, including that generated by third-party devices connected to a Vizio smart TV? Probably not. While Lawler noted on Twitter
than the SEC filing contains 102 mentions of Inscape, the term fails to surface
.It's not as though this is a feature (which many purchasers would find closer to a bug) still in development. Vizio's own filing indicates this is already in use. While it may be proudly trumpeting its built-in spyware to potential shareholders, it seems a bit more reluctant to inform potential purchasers about the company's thirst for sellable data.
67 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 29 July 2015 @ 5:00am
Considering the sort of potentially-offensive content the average Internet holds, it's almost charmingly quaint when this sort of thing happens.
Mr Lake said the police were very gentle when they arrived and asked that the book be removed from the shelf.
Mr. Lake runs Imprints Booksellers in Adelaide, Australia. The book at the center of the "gentle" raid was originally published 24 years ago.
[American Psycho], by American author Bret Easton Ellis, has been classified R18 under national censorship legislation since its release in 1991, requiring it to be sold in plastic and only to those aged over 18.
So, what happened? Two things. First, a new edition was published featuring a foreword by Irvine Welsh -- someone who's no stranger
to plumbing the depths
of humanity. This edition -- which arrived roughly 24 years after the original classification and sans the sealed plastic covering -- was noticed by a local citizen, who then got her third-party outrage on.
He said the raid occurred because somebody complained to police after reading in a weekend newspaper column that the book was being sold by bookshops without plastic wrapping.
"I had a phone call from a lady on Tuesday who was quite aggressive and questioned why we were selling this classified product out of its wrapper," he said.
As per usual, it's the squeaky busybody that gets the grease, despite the book being a good couple of decades past the point of its original outrage and being surpassed in terms of graphic violence several times over, including in plenty of unwrapped
books sold by the same booksellers.
Music (mostly) blog The Quietus has probably the best description of what likely went down
in the this "gentle raid" over the most shocking novel of the early '90s.
Imprint Books in Adelaide (AUS) was ‘gently raided’ by – some apparently very polite, possibly even contrite, hopefully totally fucking embarrassed – police officers for displaying unsealed copies of Bret Easton Ellis’ 1991 satirical (adjective: sarcastic, critical, and mocking another's weaknesses) novel American Psycho.
Now, while Australia -- a nation of adults constantly being treated like children
(and paying far too much
for the "privilege"…) by their government -- has earned a reputation as a busybody in its own right, it's highly doubtful these police officers were very thrilled with this assignment. But ignoring the complaint was likely out of the question. Anyone sufficiently motivated to ring up both the bookshop and the cops because of something they read in the newspaper is the sort of person who won't let the issue go until it's been resolved to their
satisfaction. So, rather than just blow off the misplaced concern, they apologetically and gently "raided" the bookseller. No doubt this was followed by a surreptitious reconnaissance mission by the complainer to verify that the complainee had been sufficiently cowed.
As for the bookseller, he made the sort of assumption anyone would make when the latest edition of a 24-year-old novel arrived without the protective R18 shrinkwrap.
"We just assumed the classification has been lifted," he said.
Because that would make sense. But no, the R18 is still in place and people with nothing better to do but read newspapers and make angry phone calls will continue to put local law enforcers in an unenviable position: Do you raid the bookshop and look foolish? Or do you answer call after call from aggrieved locals until you finally decide to raid the bookshop and look foolish? When your choices are this awful, the best course of action is to just get it over with.
34 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 29 July 2015 @ 3:01am
Automattic, the company behind blogging platform Wordpress, continues to prove that just because the issuing of DMCA takedown notices has largely been handed over to automated processes, the response doesn't need to be similarly robotic.
Its latest transparency report shows it has rejected 43% of the DMCA notices it has received as either incomplete or abusive. Contrast this to almost any other platform where the initial response is to take down content/links first and work backwards from there. (Contrast this further to services like YouTube and Soundcloud, where content is subjected to automated pre-screening that seems to result in just as many illegitimate "removals.")
Automattic's DMCA process is anything but.
We carefully review each notice to ensure it’s formally complete, and includes all information required by the DMCA, before taking action. Notices that don’t meet the requirements of the statute are included in ‘notices rejected as incomplete.’
We also may decline to remove content if a notice is abusive. “Abusive” notices may be formally complete, but are directed at fair use of content, material that isn’t copyrightable, or content the complaining party misrepresents ownership of a copyright.
In an effort to keep the worst abusers "honest" (or at least warn others performing the same intermediary functions), Automattic continues to maintain a "Hall of Shame"
highlighting issuers of bogus takedown notices
So, there's at least one major platform that has its users' backs -- something it has taken as far as the filing of lawsuits
against serial abusers. And it's one of the few that will actually try to determine whether or not the usage of the disputed content falls under fair use. Automattic seems to have learned from its past mistakes
, and now it's attempting to hold rightsholders and their representatives to the same standard it applies to itself. If content is going to be removed, the person(s) making these demands need to hold up their end of the bargain.
DMCA abuse isn't likely to stop anytime soon. The process to issue notices continues to become more streamlined, which puts even more non-infringing content at risk. On top of that, the automated processes
used to compile lists of "infringing" URLs continues to be error-prone
. This wouldn't be an issue if the companies providing these services to rightsholders spent a little (or any
) time giving the notices a once-over before sending them out. The failure to do so not only has the potential to remove non-infringing content, but also to screw the same people they're supposed to be protecting -- not just in terms of reputation, but also financially.
A brief perusal of DMCA notices issued to Google finds multiple examples of non-infringing content being targeted by flaky automated processes. It also shows rightsholders are being billed for largely useless takedown requests filled with URLs covered in previous requests by the same company.
This recent request
by IFPI Latin America contains 237 URLs --- 236 of which were already delisted in response to earlier requests.
This is far from uncommon and pretty much amounts to double billing. Even in cases where rightsholders pay a monthly or yearly fee rather than per DMCA takedown, it's still wasted money. While it's obviously easier to let machines do the work and humans to collect the paychecks, nothing about an automated copyright takedown notice process contributes anything towards healthier respect for the idea itself, or the creations protected by it.
Automattic, on the other hand, will continue to gather respect from its users and potential customers around the world simply by refusing to lay out a WELCOME mat for our new DMCA robot overlords.
20 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 28 July 2015 @ 2:19pm
Student loan debt is a serious problem here in the US as the price of higher education continues to outpace every standard economic yard stick. Lots of people think the government should step in to do something about it. While the administration makes helpful noises and tries to figure out how it can effectively tell Americans it's alright to rack up debt and walk away from it without actually, you know, encouraging Americans to get deeply in debt and walk away from it, one government employee is taking the bold steps the US government won't to eradicate student loan debt… specifically, his.
In a 2014 audit of the DA’s office representing Washington and Nowata counties [Oklahoma], the State Auditor’s Office found that $5,000 in forfeiture funds had been used to make payments on an assistant district attorney’s student loans.
That's a pretty egregious abuse of seized funds, and that's even if you find the whole asset forfeiture
system mostly abuse-free when it comes to seizing
property. Unbelievably, the DA's office defended the use of the public's money to pay off personal student loans.
The report said the district attorney maintained the expense was justified because most of the cases the assistant DA prosecuted were drug cases.
Which means what? That he was involved in several drug prosecutions and therefore entitled to a percentage of the take for his own personal use?
But no need to worry about the misspent $5,000. The DA's office has already "repaid" it using money seized a bit more lawfully via taxation.
After the issue came to light, the Oklahoma District Attorneys Council reimbursed the $5,000 using funds from its own student-loan program, the State Auditor’s report states.
So, everything's cool now. Except:
A 2009 audit of the District Attorney’s Office that represents Beaver, Cimarron, Harper and Texas counties found that a Beaver County assistant district attorney began living rent-free in a house obtained in a 2004 forfeiture. A judge had ordered the house sold at an auction, but the prosecutor lived there through 2009.
A bold new opportunity in real estate! Open to law enforcement members only!
There's so much more.
Schroedinger's seized pickup truck -- listed as "sold" at an auction -- remains in a sold/unsold state as neither the pickup, the paperwork nor the cash generated from the sale can be located. One district further perverted the perverse incentives by spending seized money before it had even been processed by the courts. In other instances, the money made its way onto the ledgers as "seized," but forfeiture cases were never filed. (This is particularly evil because without a filing, there's almost no way to challenge the seizure.)
The violations found by these audits are the sort of thing everyone should have expected when they allowed law enforcement to start seizing property without bringing criminal charges. Guns, vehicles and cash go missing. Proceeds from auctions are used to pay court costs and fund retirement parties. The program basically allows officers to steal from people they've already dehumanized as "drug traffickers." So, if someone's property goes missing and ends up as an off-the-books personal use vehicle/gun for some cop, no one's going to spend too much time worrying about the supposed "criminal" whose property has been seized. That's why the accountability is so lax and that's why the laws granting officers these powers need to be -- at minimum -- rewritten, if not taken off the books entirely.
And, as is always the case when asset forfeiture is attacked by legislators and regulators, there's a caricature of law enforcement on hand to offer homespun words of wisdom in defense of the legalized theft:
“I know for a fact we all try to work very hard to rid this devil’s candy (drugs) off of our state. And for someone to try and push us back — sheriff’s departments, police departments — that’s how we continue our fight, is to take that money and go forward,” Stradley said. “That will set us back many, many, many years.”
Will it set you back to 1990? And put you right in the middle of the crack epidemic? Or will it take you back to the 1920's, when marijuana was making jazz music tolerable and turning non-Caucasian males into rapists? How many years exactly
will forcing Oklahoma law enforcement to accompany seizures with criminal charges set back these agencies? We all want to know. Even those of us who swore off the devil's candy years ago or never made it past anything harder than devil's food cake.
38 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 28 July 2015 @ 11:01am
The Obama administration must be doing a little housecleaning in preparation for the 2016 winner. After months of highly-sporadic and belated responses to We The People petitions, it's answered two big ones (that have been sitting around forever) in a single day. It's also issued a handful of other responses to open petitions, some of which are little more than "we decline to respond," accompanied by a link to the site's Terms of Participation.
It took on two big petitions today. The first was a response to a request to pardon Snowden, which it denied under its "No Good Whistleblowing Goes Unpunished" policy. The second asked for a long-delayed rewrite of an outdated law.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act has been in need of reform for years. If nothing else, the law's misleading name needs to be changed. One of the more notorious aspects of the law is that it gives email less privacy protection than snail mail, which is already an exceedingly low bar.
The administration agrees that reform of this law -- which treats email older than six months as "abandoned" and thus easily-accessible by law enforcement -- is needed. However, it does so both belatedly, vaguely and disingenuously.
The We The People petition calling for ECPA reform was posted November, 12, 2013. It passed the 100,000-signature threshold roughly 30 days later. At that point, a response was "required." 593 days later, that response has finally arrived.
It's obvious that many -- and arguably, most -- Americans today use email as one of their primary means of communication. Particularly in an era where we keep so much of our lives online, the content housed there deserves strong privacy protections -- which is at the core of what ECPA was designed to do. But over time, technology has evolved.
Which is why our policy teams agree with you: ECPA is outdated, and it should be reformed.
This is good news. Or it would be if there were any particular plan to get something done. While the response agrees that the outdated law's take on email privacy protection is pretty much terrible, the administration doesn't seem too willing to push for any specific reform effort.
We know there are still important details being worked out across government and in the halls of Congress. We aren't going to endorse a single ECPA-reform bill at this time. As any given bill goes through committee and makes its way to the House and Senate floors, the draft is negotiated and modified to address concerns and strengthen the bill.
In other words, we like the idea of reform so much we're going to do nothing about it. While efforts have been made over the past few years
, they've been stalled/gutted to appease law enforcement and (yes, really) regulatory agencies'
interests. Very little forward motion
has been made and without something stronger than "we'll probably support whatever actually makes its way to the President's desk" propelling this reform, it could still be several more years before the already-outdated law is rewritten to properly address a communication method that originated nearly 45 years ago.
Finally, the response sends a mixed message about reform in the very last sentence.
That said, we're encouraged by the strong bipartisan support for updating this legislation in both chambers of Congress, and are looking forward to seeing this law address today's technological realities while preserving the interests we must protect.
This seems to indicate it will be more supportive of a bill that has the backing law enforcement and other government agencies. A warrant requirement for emails older than six months isn't that much of an imposition, but so far, it's been a tough idea to sell. This last sentence shows the administration finds the government's "interests" worth protection. The privacy interests of millions of Americans? Not so much.
5 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 28 July 2015 @ 9:59am
The White House has finally responded -- more than two years later -- to a petition asking for a pardon of Edward Snowden. The petition surfaced soon after Snowden went public with his identity. Less than three weeks later -- June 25, 2013 -- it had passed the 100,000-signature threshold.
Understandably, the administration was in no hurry to respond to this petition. In the immediate aftermath of the first leaks, no entity was more unpopular than the NSA. Snowden, on the other hand, probably could have won a number of local elections as a write-in candidate at that point. So, the administration sat on it, as it has sat on a great many petitions not particularly aligned with its desires.
Unfortunately, the public's opinion hasn't shifted much. As other agencies have become more plaintive in their requests to undermine privacy and safety to keep criminals from "going dark," the public has become less and less enthusiastic about being forced to make more sacrifices in the interest of security. The NSA also hasn't become more popular in the interim. So buying time by cherry-picking We The People petitions to respond to hasn't made answering this petition any easier for the administration.
More than two years later -- 763 days past the point it became a viable petition -- the administration has answered. And the answer could have been written two years ago, as it refuses to acknowledge Snowden's contribution to recent surveillance reforms. The response was written by Lisa Monaco, the president's advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Considering the source, the response is unsurprising. But it starts off with a lie:
Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe.
Wrong. The "appropriate reforms" have been forced into existence by leaked documents Snowden provided. This "conversation" the President keeps claiming he always wanted to have only took place
because he could no longer ignore it. This opening sentence is worse than merely disingenuous. It's a complete rewrite of Obama's civil liberties legacy. Before the Snowden leaks, Obama's stance on surveillance was "whatever Bush did, only more."
Next, Monaco goes on to say that no matter how instrumental Snowden was in the recent surveillance reforms (without ever actually saying that), he's still a just a criminal and should be treated as one.
Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it.
Except that this administration is no friend
to whistleblowers. Snowden knew this. Snowden also knew the "proper channels" were mostly there to ensure whistleblowers were silenced and punished. So he ran. This administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined
. When Snowden took off, it was five years into Obama's presidency, plenty of time to gauge what sort of odds the "proper channels" offered.
From that point, Monaco goes on to claim that the only legitimate act of civil disobedience is a punished act of civil disobedience.
If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions.
First off, this is wrong. As has been explained countless times, under the Espionage Act, which is what Snowden would be charged under, he is not allowed
to present the evidence in his defense that he was blowing the whistle on an illegal program (and yes, it has been ruled illegal). Nor is he allowed to argue that the leak was in the public interest. In other words, the law is stacked such that he cannot present his argument fairly. The deck is stacked and Monaco knows
the deck is stacked and ignores that -- which is exceptionally dishonest.
I would imagine Monaco -- and by extension, the administration -- would also feel that those who hacked Hacking Team
are the real
criminals here, not the company that sold surveillance software and zero-day exploits to governments known for widespread abuse of their citizens. "Look, we appreciate them highlighting these dubious and likely illegal contracts. But to move forward, we really need to put the hackers who obtained the documents on trial."
But, honestly, no one expected this response to go any other way. No one who holds the top office in the nation is going to sell out the rest of the government for a whistleblower. So, it could have saved everyone the trouble and posted this answer June 26, 2013.
77 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 28 July 2015 @ 8:51am
Just as James Clapper's office was officially announcing the death of the bulk phone metadata program (ending November 29th, with three months of post-wind-down wind-down for data analysts), the DOJ was filing a motion in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals basically arguing that its finding that the program was illegal really doesn't matter anymore.
According to the DOJ, there really is no program -- at least if you don't count the six months the NSA has to make the move to the more targeted USA Freedom version. So this discussion about which program isn't authorized by which PATRIOT Act provision is… well, not completely moot, but like pretty much literally weeks away from moot, so why are we wasting our time here [EXASPERATED SIGH].
Plaintiffs’ claims will be moot when the bulk collection of telephony metadata under Section 215 ends on November 29, 2015, though they are not moot right now. On that date, the statutory authority for the Section 215 bulk telephony-metadata program will expire, and the data previously collected and held under that program will not be used in the future for intelligence-gathering or law-enforcement purposes. In the meantime, however, the Court should respect Congress’s decision to create an orderly transition away from the Section 215 bulk telephony-metadata program. Especially in light of Congress’s considered judgment that this program should continue for this limited period, plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the relief they request.
In support of its argument that the court should ignore its own findings and just listen to what the FISA Court said (and what legislators didn't
say, but obviously intended
), the government points to its own Tumblr post (certainly a historical moment in its own right) detailing the specifics of the end of Section 215.
On July 27, 2015, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) issued a public statement that the NSA has determined that “analytic access to that historical metadata collected under Section 215 . . . will cease on November 29, 2015,” at the end of the transition period. See Statement by ODNI on Retention of Data Collected Under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, available at http:// icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/125179645313/ statement-by-the-odni-on-retention-of-data (ODNI July 27 Statement). Thus, after that date, no further bulk collection of telephony metadata will take place under the Section 215 program, and the historical telephony metadata will not be used for intelligence or law-enforcement purposes and will not be disseminated.
To sum up: these past abuses should no longer be of concern as the data is going to be flushed (for the most part) within the next nine months. To better enable said data flush, the Second Circuit Court might want to wrap up the ACLU's suit
(and hasten the end of the EFF's
) so that no data is still being "preserved" past the November 2015 dump point.
To that end, the DOJ constantly reminds the Second Circuit that the FISA Court really has a handle on these sort of things and why don't we just leave it to the pros.
The FISC was right that Congress authorized the Section 215 bulk telephony-metadata program to continue during the six-month transition period. [p. 6]
As the FISC correctly noted, Congress’s decision to delay that ban for six months is a powerful indication that it intended to permit bulk collection in the interim period. [p. 9]
The FISC was thus correct when it observed that “after lengthy public debate, and with crystal clear knowledge of the fact of ongoing bulk collection of call detail records” Congress “chose to allow a 180-day transitional period . . . .” June 29 FISC Op. at 11. This Court need not and should not determine whether Congress “ ‘ratif[ied] the FISA Court’s interpretation of ’ ” Section 215. [p. 11]
This filing, like its Tumblr statement announcing the official end of the collection, emphasizes the single aspect of the Section 215 bulk collections that has been the focus of this litigation and most legislative efforts: phone metadata. The authorization, even in its altered, post-USA Freedom Act form -- provides for much more than just this one type of collection. The DOJ goes so far as to call the USA Freedom Act a "ban" on bulk, untargeted collections, when it actually doesn't go quite that far.
Marcy Wheeler points out that the DOJ may be less interested in the outcome of this ruling as it is with the implications of the EFF's litigation
. What could be uncovered if the NSA is forced to turn over relevant records from its bulk metadata collection is more illegal -- or at least unauthorized -- collection activity.
I believe both ACLU and EFF’s phone dragnet client Counsel on American Islamic Relations, had not only standing as clients of dragnetted companies, but probably got swept up in the two-degree dragnet. But CAIR probably has an even stronger case, because it is public that FISC approved a traditional FISA order against CAIR founder Nihad Awad. Any traditional FISA target has always been approved as a RAS seed to check the dragnet, and NSA almost certainly used that more back when Awad was tapped, which continued until 2008. In other words, CAIR has very good reason to suspect the entire organization has been swept up in the dragnet and subjected to all of NSA’s other analytical toys.
EFF, remember, is the one NGO that has a preservation order, which got extended from its earlier NSA lawsuits (like Jewel) to the current dragnet suit. So when I Con the Record says it can’t destroy all the data yet, it’s talking EFF, and by extension, CAIR. So this announcement — in addition to preparing whatever they’ll file to get the Second Circuit off its back — is likely an effort to moot that lawsuit, which in my opinion poses by far the biggest threat of real fireworks about the dragnet (not least because it would easily be shown to violate a prior SCOTUS decision prohibiting the mapping of organizations).
This announcement by Clapper's office, followed shortly thereafter on the same day by the filing of its response in the Second Circuit case, certainly gives the appearance that the NSA has lifted the corner of the rug and is just waiting for the signal to start sweeping any undiscovered abuses -- along with those previously exposed -- under it. That the expiration of the authority and the passage of the USA Freedom Act may have provided it with a better broom is unexpectedly fortuitous.
Read More | 25 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 28 July 2015 @ 7:35am
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has issued a statement addressing the inevitable shutdown of the Section 215 bulk phone metadata program.
NSA has determined that analytic access to that historical metadata collected under Section 215 (any data collected before November 29, 2015) will cease on November 29, 2015. However, solely for data integrity purposes to verify the records produced under the new targeted production authorized by the USA FREEDOM Act, NSA will allow technical personnel to continue to have access to the historical metadata for an additional three months.
Caveats apply. Data will still be held as required by a handful of ongoing lawsuits
. With the "bulk" part of the bulk records program shut down (but not completely), the government is obviously hoping for a speedy end to the litigation resulting from the Snowden leaks. That's the other motivating factor behind this public statement that not only states an end date, but the additional restrictions past that point.
This is a pretty remarkable moment in the security v. privacy battle, but there are still reasons to be concerned. The bulk telephony metadata program has received a majority of the focus since Snowden's initial leak and the NSA, at times, has seemed almost too
willing to let this program act as a scapegoat for its multiple privacy-violating surveillance programs.
Not that there haven't been seriously heated (and seriously misguided) arguments offered in support of this program, but if you take a close look at the history of the debate over Section 215, the most-spirited defenses
have not been raised by the NSA, but by legislators and former intelligence officials
. The program appears to have been sacrificed in order to prevent more intrusive surveillance programs from being subjected to more intense scrutiny.
And it's not even the totality of what can
be collected under Section 215. The statement from the ODNI specifically addresses only one kind of "tangible thing."
The telephony metadata preserved solely because of preservation obligations in pending civil litigation will not be used or accessed for any other purpose, and, as soon as possible, NSA will destroy the Section 215 bulk telephony metadata upon expiration of its litigation preservation obligations.
We don't know what else is being collected in bulk under the PATRIOT Act provision -- the same authority that expired this year and was replaced with the stipulations of the USA Freedom Act -- but we know it's more
than just "telephony metadata." "Tangible things" encompasses far more
than phone metadata ("books, records, papers, documents, and other items"), but this statement -- as well as arguments it's made in court in support of the six-month wind-down period -- only address phone records.
The Second Circuit Court found that the bulk collection of records under Section 215 was likely illegal
. That opinion called into question anything
collected under this authority, but the government here (and in its recent filing
in the Second Circuit Court) acts as though the "illegal" collection activity is limited solely to phone records.
Other NSA programs are going to be far more useful in gathering data and intelligence than the collection of phone records. Phone calls may never go away entirely, but the shift to mobile communications (followed shortly thereafter by the shift to feature phones and smartphones) has made phone calls the least used feature on these devices. Messaging programs and social media platforms now carry the bulk of everyday communications. And the NSA has programs in place to sweep up these as well, whether as content or metadata. So, all of this focus on "telephony" only serves to obscure
what else it may still collect with the revamped program, as well as everything else it does under much more secretive legal authorities.
9 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 27 July 2015 @ 10:35am
It's taken former Valdosta State University (VSU) student Hayden Barnes most of a decade and two trips to the 11th Circuit Appeals Court, but his efforts to hold the school accountable for its abusive behavior have finally paid off.
Today, more than eight years after his unjust expulsion, student Hayden Barnes’ federal civil rights lawsuit against Georgia’s Valdosta State University (VSU) and former VSU president Ronald Zaccari concluded with the announcement of a $900,000 settlement…
“After eight years, and one of the worst abuses of student rights FIRE has ever seen, Hayden Barnes has finally received justice,” said FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff. “Thanks to Hayden’s courageous stand, would-be censors at public universities nationwide have 900,000 new reasons to respect the free speech and due process rights of their students.”
We've covered multiple
cases of universities overstepping
when it comes to free speech, but VSU's case is particularly stupid. VSU president Ronald Zaccari didn't care for Barnes' peaceful protest of the school's 2007 plan to use $30 million in new student fees to erect two parking garages. Barnes posted fliers and sent emails to the student body and staff stating his objections to the plan. He also crafted a sarcastic photo collage titled "S.A.V.E. - Zaccari Memorial Parking Garage" and posted it to his Facebook page.
Soon after that, the school -- led by Pres. Zaccari -- expelled Barnes
, claiming his Facebook collage was evidence he posed a "clear and present danger" to the university.
As a result of recent activities directed towards me by you, included but not limited to the attached threatening document, you are considered to present a clear and present danger to this campus. Therefore, pursuant to Board of Regents' policy 1902, you are hereby notified that you have been administratively withdrawn from Valdosta State University effective May 7, 2007.
The letter also informed Barnes that the only way he would be readmitted to VSU would be if he underwent a psychiatric evaluation and submitted to ongoing mental health therapy.
Attached to the letter was a screenshot of Barnes' "threatening document" (the Facebook post), which obviously contains nothing approaching a threat. Presumably, Zaccari read the word "memorial" and conveniently decided this troublesome critic wanted him dead, rather than considering it might be a light slam referencing Zaccari's concern about his VSU "legacy."
Well, Zaccari has managed to secure his legacy… as well as a bill for damages he's personally responsible for paying
Zaccari [...] used this bogus rationale to expel Barnes without a hearing. Barnes sued Zaccari and other VSU administrators in 2008, and in 2013 a federal district court found that Zaccari had violated Barnes’s due process rights. Barnes was awarded $50,000 in damages for which the court determined that Zaccari was personally liable, sending a message to public college administrators that there can be real, personal costs for abuses.
Despite this win, the university continued to fight against Barnes' claims, sending it back to the 11th Circuit Course twice
. All it managed to do was increase the amount of legal fees it could potentially be held liable for. With a loss all but assured, the school finally fell on its $900,000 sword on July 23, 2015.
It's not that VSU doesn't care about its students' rights or doesn't provide them with avenues of recourse. It's that in this case the school, led by Zaccari, did everything it could to prevent Barnes from availing himself of these options. The most recent decision
by the 11th Circuit Court contains a detailed recounting of the events leading to the long-running lawsuit that shows Zaccari actively pushing for a form of expulsion ("administrative withdrawal") that would allow the school to bypass Barnes and his right to a more adversarial process.
It was this abuse of due process -- and Zaccari's guiding hand -- that led to him being held responsible for $50,000 in damages.
The court ruled that because Zaccari ignored Barnes’ “clearly established constitutional right to notice and a hearing before being removed from VSU,” Zaccari could not shield himself with the defense of “qualified immunity.” In other words, Zaccari’s abuse of power was so egregious that the Eleventh Circuit found he could be held personally liable for his wrongdoing.
$900,000 may seem like a decent payout, but it has to be spread over eight years of litigation. At best, this possibly puts Barnes at break-even. It will likely come with stipulations stating that it is not an admission of wrongdoing by VSU administration. It may prompt the university to more closely inspect its expulsion policies and address due process concerns in the future, but the school has issued no statement on its participation in the lawsuit nor its official position on the outcome.
The settlement is far more useful as a warning to other schools and administrators who may be considering ditching due process niceties in their haste to expel/shut up students that don't agree with their positions or activities. Even more effective than the $900,000 handed over to Barnes by the school is the $50,000 the school's president is personally on the hook for. There are few things more powerful than the direct targeting of an abusive individual's wallet, especially when that person had likely assumed his position would insulate him from being held accountable for his actions.
Read More | 32 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 24 July 2015 @ 6:25pm
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report on the DEA's use of confidential informants has been published. (We're still an unknown amount of time away for his report on the agency's use of administrative subpoenas.) And it's still incomplete. Horowitz has been fighting the FBI and DEA every step of the way, as both agencies have proven not only unwilling to turn over needed documents, but thoroughly resistant to DOJ intervention or threats against their collective wallets.
The opening of the OIG report gives some insight into the months of DEA interference and recalcitrance.
Our audit work thus far has been seriously delayed by numerous instances of uncooperativeness from the DEA, including attempts to prohibit the OIG’s observation of confidential source file reviews and delays, for months at a time, in providing the OIG with requested confidential source information and documentation. In each instance, the matters were resolved only after the Inspector General elevated them to the DEA Administrator. As a result, over 1 year after we initiated this review, the OIG only has been able to conduct a limited review of the DEA’s Confidential Source Program.
This makes the concluding sentences of this same paragraph seem particularly hopeless.
Nevertheless, we have uncovered several significant issues related to the DEA’s management of its Confidential Source Program that we believe require the prompt attention of DOJ and DEA leadership, as identified in this report. We will continue to audit the DEA’s Confidential Source Program to more fully assess the DEA’s management and oversight of its confidential sources.
If you can't get the DEA to turn over existing documents, it's highly unlikely Horowitz's recommendations will be implemented with any expedience. The DEA has already shown complete disdain for its oversight. Putting this in print won't change that.
The problems begin with the DEA apparently cherry-picking which Attorney General guidelines it will follow when dealing with confidential sources. Rather than add the guidelines as its own section of the DEA's policies, the DEA instead chose to fold in certain recommendations. This has created two sets of policies -- the DEA's and the (supposedly overriding) AG's. It hasn't gone well… at least in terms of cohesiveness. But it has
worked out perfectly if you consider "thwarting oversight" to be an essential part of drug enforcement.
The DEA’s differing policies have resulted in DEA personnel being able to use high-risk individuals as confidential sources without the level of review as would otherwise be required by the AG Guidelines for high-level and privileged or media-affiliated sources. These categories include individuals who are part of drug trafficking organization leadership, as well as individuals who are lawyers, doctors, or journalists. The AG Guidelines provide a special approval distinction for these individuals because the use of them as confidential sources poses an increased risk to the public and DEA and creates potential legal implications for DOJ. The exemption of the DEA from these requirements results in a relative lack of DEA and DOJ oversight…
And what has this lack of oversight led to? All sorts of fun stuff. The DEA has shown little interest in thoroughly reviewing its informants' "conduct authorization." By failing to stay current on what informants can commit what criminal acts, illegal activities are occurring with the implicit approval of the agency -- whether or not they contribute to ongoing investigations.
These sources may be committing not-directly-approved Otherwise Illegal Activity (OIA - yes, it's an official DEA term) for years after they've contributed to any DEA investigations. The DEA is also apparently unwilling to keep its sources' files up-to-date, meaning it could be years before the agency cuts a useless source loose. This lack of attention has resulted in DEA sources becoming the subject of other law enforcement agencies' investigations.
In some cases, the DEA continued to use, for up to 6 years without any DOJ intervention, individuals who were involved in unauthorized illegal activities and who were under investigation by federal entities.
While committing criminal acts in the service of the Drug War, these sources were also availing themselves of additional taxpayer funds -- again without proper oversight -- in the form of federal benefits.
We estimated that, in just the 1-year period from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014, the DEA paid 17 confidential sources or their dependents FECA benefits totaling approximately $1.034 million.
The DEA's oversight-dodging is more than just its ad hoc meshing of pertinent rules. It also involves using a completely different categorization process for its informants. Certain informants working with other federal agencies are designated "high level" and must be directly approved by the DOJ and US Attorney's Office. The DEA avoids this outside approval process by using its own rubric, which doesn't contain the "high level" designation and appears to have very flexible sitpulations. This includes policies pertaining to informants whose communications may fall under the heading of "privileged."
Other DEA headquarters’ officials acknowledged that Special Agents are permitted to establish as a confidential source a privileged or media-affiliated status individual, such as a doctor or lawyer, to obtain information not related to the source’s employment. In these cases, the DEA’s legal staff would review the proposed utilization of the privileged or media-affiliated individual to ensure there is not a breach of privilege. However, this requirement and process is not included in the DEA Special Agents Manual section on confidential sources. Thus, the DEA solely relies on the discretion and judgment of its special agents to identify occupations that necessitate additional review and seek that from DEA legal staff.
The agency's approval of Otherwise Illegal Activities is similarly flawed, again allowing the agency to avoid oversight. (As well as any perception of the DEA as a competent, well-run crime-fighting machine.) For a drug-targeting agency, it certainly takes a very hands-off approach to drug-related activity.
[T]he DEA Special Agents Manual section on sensitive activities explicitly excludes drug buys and other routine confidential source activities, and the DEA Special Agents Manual section on confidential sources does not provide detail on the process for using confidential sources to perform illegal acts such as drug buys, does not require SAC approval for larger drug deals, and does not reach smaller ones…
These inadequate DEA policies and procedures related to OIA greatly increase the risk to the DEA, the U.S. government, and the public from the involvement of DEA confidential sources in OIA. DEA confidential sources could engage in illegal activity that has not been adequately considered, or become involved in additional illegal activities beyond those that have been considered with the mistaken belief that they are doing so with the authorization of the DEA.
This lackadaisical approach is likely costing the DEA drug busts. Because it shows almost no interest in policing approved criminal activity, it could find itself struggling when attempting to prosecute former informants or their conspirators.
And its own internal oversight policies are a complete joke. No matter what the policies state, actual
review of informants' files has long been nothing more than a swift rubber-stamping. Up until the OIG started looking into its confidential source program in 2012, the DEA, for the most part, spent only 15-30 seconds
examining each confidential source file.
On top of all this, there's a strain of unearned credibility given to the DEA and the sources it employs by other government agencies. Despite a complete lack of documentation, claims submitted to the Department of Labor seeking compensation for injuries or death were routinely approved.
The DEA submitted and DOL accepted a claim for a confidential source who was presumably killed overseas in 1991. However, according to the file, there were no witnesses to the confidential source’s death and the source’s body had not been recovered.
The DEA submitted and DOL accepted a claim for a confidential source who was shot and injured at home in 2002. However, the file indicates that there were no witnesses to the shooting and the file contained no evidence of a link between the shooting and the individual’s status as a DEA source.
In addition, the DOL considered anything the DEA forwarded to it to be perfectly accurate, resulting in "disabled" confidential sources drawing paychecks from both the DEA and
the DOL for years at a time.
Considering what's in the report, it's of little surprise the agency fought Inspector General Horowitz for as long as it did. And it's still fighting. This report is based on an incomplete survey of pertinent files. The DEA is still holding some stuff back, claiming it needs to protect the sources it can't be bothered to keep an eye on.
Read More | 19 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 24 July 2015 @ 3:57pm
Update: In writing this post the original link to Alex Howard's piece at Huffington Post, which makes up the majority of quotes here somehow slipped. We apologize to Alex for the error..
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is looking to revamp its FOIA system, which is not only suffering from the over-redaction common to intelligence/security agencies, but also from a massive backlog of unfulfilled requests. As befits an agency that often can't tell the First Amendment from a terrorist threat, the effort is going badly.
First off, the DHS recently debuted its mostly-nonfunctioning FOIA request app, which would probably have added to its backlog if only it worked. But it's a move in the right direction -- greater transparency -- even if in practice, it's pretty much the equivalent of tripping over something and calling it "forward progress."
The DHS has similar problems with its internal technology.
A November 2014 report from the General Accountability Office found the DHS duplicates efforts when processing FOIA requests. Holzer acknowledged the issue in a memorandum that said different departments of the DHS are using FOIA software that fails to meet federal standards.
The Holzer quoted here is the current senior director of FOIA operations at the DHS, James Holzer. Under his direction, the DHS has moved ever so slightly towards the "responsive agency" ideal. But every small step forward continues to be undermined by the agency's desire to keep its documents to itself. It currently has the greatest number of partially-filled requests of any government agency.
Part of this is due to the fact that the agency receives more requests than any other agency. And part of this is due to the government talking big about transparency, but refusing to put federal money where its mouth is.
According to the Department of Justice's annual report, there were 3,838 full-time FOIA staff members in 2014. In 2011, there were 4,396.
But part of this is due to Holzer himself, who has erected fee barriers
to further distance requesters from the documents they seek.
Holzer wrote a 2014 letter that MuckRock, which provides a FOIA request and hosting service, was "not a member of the news media," though it featured journalists like Michael Morisy and Shawn Musgrave publishing journalism on matters of public interest, like domestic drone programs.
According to Holzer, MuckRock is a "commercial" entity -- apparently basing his determination solely on the fact that MuckRock has a website and internet users visit it to view FOIA documents.
Making documents available on MuckRock's website, even at no charge, drives traffic to the website and furthers its commercial purposes.
On top of all this, the DHS has also been found to censor FOIA responses
for purely political reasons and has occasionally handled its massive backlog of unanswered requests by tossing thousands
of them into file boxes and forgetting about them.
So, given this background, it's a little disheartening to hear that Holzer is being promoted to a position that will give him even more control over the government's end of the FOIA process.
This week, Archivist of the United States David Ferriero announced that James Holzer would be the new director of the Office of Government Information Services at the U.S. National Archives, beginning on August 9.
"Dr. Holzer’s experience administering FOIA and his demonstrated commitment to transparency will benefit OGIS, the National Archives, and the American public," said Ferriero.
Well, "commitment to transparency" means only as much as the administration itself
is committed to transparency -- which isn't much
. The promotion of an insider like Holzer to this post means FOIA requesters should expect little more than the status quo for the duration of his tenure. The government isn't imaginative enough to explore the areas outside its confines while filling an open FOIA oversight slot. This is the sort of job that shouldn't be left to a company man, as HuffPo's Alexander Howard points out.
It's hard to find a positive interpretation of the fact that a FOIA officer from DHS has been appointed ombudsman. FOIA requesters will need a strong advocate to arbitrate disputes and push for their requests to be addressed. A candidate from the nonprofit, academic or media worlds would be much more likely to do that than a DHS staffer.
The FOIA program will never approach the ideals of the law as long as it continues to be overseen only by government officials. Their interests are at odds with the public's in most cases. It's yet another area of government that would be better served by an advocate for the public, drawn from the public.
6 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 24 July 2015 @ 11:38am
The local police union defended the indefensible: the burning/maiming of a toddler with a flashbang grenade, delivered during a no-knock raid in service of the Drug War. According to the union rep, burned toddlers are just the price society has to pay to keep the streets relatively free of criminals.
"You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.
Thanks, but no thanks. Not only did the union defend these Georgia police officers' needlessly aggressive tactics, but it attempted to lay the blame for a burned toddler at the public's feet. And now, with a grand jury indictment being handed down, it appears the union was also defending a liar
According to the indictment, [Deputy] Autry falsely claimed a confidential informant who had provided reliable information in the past had bought methamphetamine from Wanis Thonetheva at his mother's house in Cornelia. In truth, the informant was newly minted, and it was his roommate who claimed (without verification) to have bought drugs at the house. That lie was the basis for the early-morning, no-knock raid during which 18-month-old Bounkham "Bou Bou" Phonesavanh, Thonetheva's cousin, was nearly killed by a flash-bang grenade that landed in the playpen where he was sleeping.
Any CI that can put a no-knock raid in motion is inherently trustworthy. Except when they aren't. So, much like the toddler's family's lawsuit
alleged, the impetus for the raid that saw SWAT members tripping over children's toys in the yard on their way to tossing a flashbang grenade into a crib was nothing more than some random citizen "helping" keep his neighborhood safe.
All that investigative work and "upon information and belief" was actually Habersham County Deputy Sheriff Nikki Autry spinning a tale
of small-time drug running in exchange for the permission to perform the law enforcement version of a home invasion.
Specifically, Defendant Autry provided and swore, in pertinent part, (1) that she conducted an undercover drug investigation during which time CI #1459 was able to purchase a quantity of methamphetamine from [W.T] at [W.T.'s] residence; (2) that CI #1459 [was] a true and reliable informant who provided information in the past that led to criminal charges on individuals selling illegal narcotics… and (3) that she confirmed that "there [was] heavy traffic in and out of the residence."
This information that Defendant Autry provided and swore to was false, because, as Defendant Autry then well knew: (1) CI #1459 did not purchase a quantity of methamphetamine from W.T. during her investigation; (2) CI #1459 had not provided information in the past that led to criminal charges on individuals selling illegal narcotics… and (3) she had not confirmed that there was heavy traffic in and out of the residence.
accompanying the grand jury's findings suggest several improvements for drug enforcement activities, starting with dialing back the "gung-ho" aspects of drug warring.
Some of what contributed to this tragedy can be attributed to well-intentioned people getting in too big a hurry, and not slowing down and taking enough time to consider the possible consequences of their actions. Without serious supervision and constant vigilance, the work of drug enforcement, like many other jobs, can unfortunately become routine and lead to complacency and lack of attention to detail. The difference in this type of work is that the consequences can be devastating to both citizens and law enforcement when things go wrong.
Making thing go "right" more often means bringing SWAT teams and tactics back in line with their original intentions: for use only the most dangerous operations. Over the past few decades, SWAT teams have gone from seldom-used specialists who dealt with shootouts and hostage situations to routine -- but extraordinarily violent -- delivery services for unremarkable search/arrest warrants. The presentment points out law enforcement agencies have several options that don't involve violently raiding residences during odd hours.
We recommend that whenever reasonably possible, suspects be arrested away from a home when doing so can be accomplished without extra risk to law enforcement and to citizens. Going into a home with the highest level of entry should be reserved for those cases where it is absolutely necessary. This is to protect both citizens and law enforcement officers.
We have heard evidence that many drug suspects often initially believe a law enforcement entry is in fact a drug robbery. In an instant, they reach for a weapon or take an action that makes a situation escalate. This is dangerous to all involved, and neither the public nor law enforcement officers should be in this dangerous split second situation unless it is absolutely necessary for the protection of the public, which is the highest concern for our lawenforcement officers under their duty.
It's a nice set of words, but the real test will be the application of these principles -- principles that never should have been abandoned in the first place. To start with, it's rare to find an officer who places protection of the public over protection of themselves
. Almost every act of unwarranted violence is defended by the words "feared for my safety." We don't ask that officers become punching bags and bullet-catchers, but there's a lot of leeway between a "furtive motion" and emptying
a service weapon into an unarmed person. (Or tossing a flashbang through the nearest window with little regard for what lies behind it.)
The standard MO for drug-related warrants is to deliver them with as much violence, force and noise as possible, under the assumption that every drug dealer -- no matter how small -- awaits the arrival of police with barricades and an arsenal. This simply isn't borne out by the results of these raids, which often fail to turn up any weapons -- or at least none being wielded by the residents of the home. In some cases, there are also no drugs to be found, but this result rarely leads to the turfing of a CI or a less-violent entry when serving the next warrant.
The deaths and injuries caused by drug enforcement aren't in danger of approaching the death and injuries caused by the drug trade, but the former is more disturbing than the latter. While we might expect a certain amount of violence from purveyors of illicit substances, we don't really expect as much from law enforcement. And yet we're seeing it occur on a far too regular basis.
Read More | 48 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 24 July 2015 @ 8:17am
Copyright troll Malibu Media would prefer the many courtrooms it uses as speculative invoicing middlemen to be free of disparaging statements. To that end, it has filed a motion that specifically asks that certain blogs not be brought up nor discussed nor quoted extensively from by the defendant or his counsel. (h/t to Raul)
The Court should preclude Defendant from referring to copyleft blogs for any purpose, including specifically references to fightcopyrightrolls.com and dietrolldie.com. Plaintiff expects Defendant may attempt to reference these blogs at trial in an effort to introduce unsubstantiated allegations against Plaintiff. The blogs target Plaintiff and its counsel with vitriolic hate speech and contain comments that are biased, slanderous, and prejudicial, and should not be referred to at trial for any purpose. “Many internet blogs commenting on this and related cases ignore the rights of copyright owners to sue for infringement, and inappropriately belittle efforts of copyright owners to seek injunctions and damages.” Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1, 6, 13, 14, 950 F. Supp. 2d 779, 781 (E.D. Pa. 2013).
Yes, we can't have sites that expose
the immoral and illegal activities of copyright trolls exposing the immoral and illegal activities of copyright trolls, can we? We'll just have to see what the judge has to say about this exclusionary motion. And in support of its allegations about the content of these blogs, Malibu Media cites a friendly footnote from one of its rare wins
[p. 2] -- a derogatory phrase penned by Judge Michael Baylson and co-opted in its entirety by Dallas Buyers Club for use in its threatening letters to alleged infringers
Rather hilariously, Malibu Media uses an infrequently-used term to describe these blogs, in an equally-sad attempt to appear evenhanded.
Plaintiff, Malibu Media, LLC (“Plaintiff”) by and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves for the entry of an order precluding Defendant Michael Harrison (“Defendant”) and his counsel from referring to copyleft blogs at trial for any purpose...
Sensing the court may not be familiar with the concept of "copyleft," it is more fully described in the attached footnote:
“Copyleft” is the polite way of describing an anti-copyright ideology. “Freetards” is the degrading equivalent of “copyright trolls” when used in association with copyright producers.
With this handy guide to the nuances of the copyright debate now on the record, the case can presumably proceed safely. According to Malibu, the blogs that have long tracked its legal efforts have "no probative value" and the mere mention of the forbidden sites may "provoke" jurors into browsing these blogs during their downtime... which obviously won't win Malibu any new
All in all, it's pretty much a vindication of the efforts made by Fight Copyright Trolls
and Die Troll Die
. If these were nothing more than storehouses for hyperbolic statements and woodchipper discussions
, it's highly unlikely Malibu would be attempting to preemptively banish them from court.
Read More | 27 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 23 July 2015 @ 1:57pm
It's extremely difficult to win a defamation suit when the allegedly defamatory statements are THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
It was, on the surface, a bit ironic. A pro se plaintiff who was mentioned in an article about serial filers of lawsuits sued the article's authors and the newspaper that printed it.
But the New London Day newspaper, reporter Karen Florin, executive editor Timothy Dwyer and Wyatt Kopp, who was interviewed by the newspaper, prevailed when a judge ruled that no one was defamed in an article that focused on the costs incurred by the court system and defendants when low-income plaintiffs whose court fees are waived file dozens of dubious claims.
"After viewing all the revised complaints and evidence in this case, the court cannot identify any statement by Kopp that can be legally construed as defamatory," wrote New London Superior Court Judge Terence Zemetis, who added that "stating that a lawsuit is frivolous is an expression of opinion and is not defamatory."
The plaintiff was Sylvester Traylor, a frequent pro se filer whose legal battles (mostly losing) can be found here
, as well as other places
around the internet
. The article at the nominal center
of this lawsuit
(which was also filed against numerous other parties covering the same proposed bill targeting the abuse of in forma pauperis
[waived fees] filing) didn't make any
Everything Traylor took offense to was the direct result of Traylor's own litigious activities. The article simply cites his multiple filings, as well as judges' reactions to his "protracted legal battles." It even directly quotes court orders
and opinions -- which are far more damning than anything posted at the New London Day.
In July 2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed one of Traylor's filings and warned him that "the continued filing of duplicative, vexatious, or frivolous appeals, mandamus petitions or motions may result in sanctions, including a leave-to-file sanction requiring Traylor to obtain permission from this Court prior to filing further submissions in this Court."
In a November 2012 order dismissing a case Traylor brought against 12 state legislators, court officials and an insurance company, Hartford Superior Court Judge Carl J. Schumann wrote that Traylor's "litigious ferver is perhaps understandable, but it has clearly reached the point of becoming unnecessarily costly, wasteful and fruitless."
In true "vexatious litigant" style, Traylor accused the paper of making "selective and calculated statements to slant the characterization of the plaintiff's legal cases," claiming its failure to cite the three
judgments in his favor was some sort of defamation-by-omission. Even more legally-unsound, Traylor argued that the paper said something it didn't actually say.
[T]hough the article did paint a picture that Traylor's lawsuits were "frivolous," it was clear that it was Kopp—not the newspaper—drawing that conclusion, the judge ruled.
Not that Traylor has anything to worry about. The article he sued over (along with journalists covering the same bill for local TV stations) discussed an attempt to curb serial litigants who "abused" in forma pauperis
privileges granted to indigent filers. The first sought greater legal review prior to allowing cases to advance. The latter suggested litigants could work off their comped filing fees by performing community service. Neither bill went anywhere, so Traylor is free to continue filing "frivolous" lawsuits until informed otherwise by presiding judges.
He's also free to fight speech with speech, which the New London Day allowed him to do by printing his short editorial
against proposed limitations to waived-fee filings. It also contacted him for the January article he sued over, posting his defense of his actions. And none of that was enough to prevent Traylor from filing another lawsuit.
The ultimate defense against defamation accusations is the truth. This will probably be lost on Traylor as it's been lost on far too many serial litigants
. If a person wants to complain (via the courtroom) that they've been misrepresented by "slanted" statements, they should at least have the self-awareness to recognize it's their actions
that are creating this negative perception.
6 Comments | Leave a Comment..
Posted on Techdirt - 23 July 2015 @ 12:48pm
Documents pertaining to the accidental killing of two men by US drone strikes in Yemen can continue to remain unacknowledged by the agencies guiding the strikes.
A federal judge has ruled the CIA and Defense Department (DOD) do not have to confirm or deny whether they have records on the “factual basis for the killing” of either Samir Khan or Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who were killed in two separate drone strikes in September and October of 2011.
The heavily-redacted order
does contain some good news, however. The presiding judge ordered the Dept. of Defense and the CIA to turn over FOIAed documents to the ACLU that contain "previously acknowledged facts," thus preventing the Dept. of Justice from turning real life into a bizarre fantasy world
where previously disclosed information can be treated as though it was still locked up in the agency's "TOP SECRET" digital filing cabinet.
But the obvious downside is this: because the government has been given permission to avoid confirming or denying the existence of the documents the ACLU is seeking, the search for more information on accidental deaths and collateral damage will still consist of issuing speculative FOIA requests, which will then result in more lengthy, expensive litigation.
I'm pretty sure the involved agencies believe they can outlast FOIA requesters, especially if they continue to receive mostly-favorable decisions from judges who place more faith in the government and its assertions about national security than in those who view government secrecy with considerably more skepticism. The problem is that the government has the resources to fight long legal battles. Most FOIA requesters do not.
This decision also further insulates the government from the repercussions of its own actions. By allowing the agencies to neither confirm nor deny the existence of these documents, it gives the government permission to deflect further inquiries into the oversight governing drone strikes -- and what it does when it suspects a strike has killed the wrong people.
If one accepts the government’s claims that Khan and Abdulrahman’s deaths were “accidental,” one at least has to believe the government did some kind of review after the strikes once they recognized two US citizens had been killed. This is what the ACLU suspects.
The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights have pursued a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the strikes, which killed the three US citizens. And, in this lawsuit, the ACLU has challenged the right of the government to keep information related to their deaths secret.
This sort of information is definitely of the "public interest" variety and should be given more heft when weighed against national security concerns. The American public isn't necessarily supportive of this highly-secret program and considering its complete lack of say in the matter, the least it should be given is the opportunity to more closely examine the accountability process.
Instead, the opinion allows the government to redact much of what it can't Glomar into nonexistence with the most abused
FOIA exemption: b(5). Nominally for "deliberative process" documents only, the exemption has expanded to cover almost anything the government doesn't want to (immediately) reveal. About the only way to remove a b(5) exemption is through the courts -- an expensive process with low odds of success.
Read More | 12 Comments | Leave a Comment..
More posts from Capitalist Lion Tamer >>