![[Valid RSS]](images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Valid RSS")
This is a valid RSS feed.
This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.
line 33, column 0: (11 occurrences) [help]
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">169489720</site> <item>
line 61, column 0: (7 occurrences) [help]
<figure class="aligncenter"><img decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex ...
line 61, column 0: (7 occurrences) [help]
<figure class="aligncenter"><img decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex ...
line 180, column 0: (5 occurrences) [help]
<p>It’s a mess. Fortunately, this <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.or ...
line 180, column 0: (5 occurrences) [help]
<p>It’s a mess. Fortunately, this <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.or ...
<iframe title="Talking TikTok by Techdirt" width="500" height="400" scrollin ...
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" > <channel> <title>Techdirt</title> <atom:link href="https://www.techdirt.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://www.techdirt.com</link> <description></description> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 20:23:02 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en-US</language> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency>  <site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">169489720</site> <item> <title>The REPORT Act: Enhancing Online Child Safety Without the Usual Congressional Nonsense</title> <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/the-report-act-enhancing-online-child-safety-without-the-usual-congressional-nonsense/</link> <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/the-report-act-enhancing-online-child-safety-without-the-usual-congressional-nonsense/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 22:37:54 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[ncmec]]></category> <category><![CDATA[csam]]></category> <category><![CDATA[cybertipline]]></category> <category><![CDATA[jon ossoff]]></category> <category><![CDATA[marsha blackburn]]></category> <category><![CDATA[modernization]]></category> <category><![CDATA[report act]]></category> <category><![CDATA[sex trafficking]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=437342</guid> <description><![CDATA[For years and years, Congress has been pushing a parade of horrible “protect the children online” bills that seem to somehow get progressively worse each time. I’m not going through the entire list of them, because it’s virtually endless. One of the most frustrating things about those bills, and the pomp and circumstance around them, […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For years and years, Congress has been pushing a parade of horrible “protect the children online” bills that seem to somehow get progressively worse each time. I’m not going through the entire list of them, because it’s virtually endless.</p><p>One of the most frustrating things about those bills, and the pomp and circumstance around them, is that it ignores the simpler, more direct things that Congress could do that would actually help.</p><p>Just last week, we wrote about the Stanford Internet Observatory’s <a href="https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io/news/cybertipline-report" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">big report</a> on the challenges facing the CyberTipline, run by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/25/our-online-child-abuse-reporting-system-is-overwhelmed-because-the-incentives-are-screwed-up-no-one-seems-to-be-able-to-fix-them/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">We wrote</a> two <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/25/the-problems-of-the-ncmec-cybertipline-apply-to-all-stakeholders/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">separate posts</a> about the report (and also discussed it on <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/26/ctrl-alt-speech-the-bell-tolls-for-tiktok/">the latest episode of our new podcast, <em>Ctrl-Alt-Speech</em></a>) because there was so much useful information in there. As we noted, there are real challenges in making the reporting of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) work better, and it’s not because people don’t want to help. It’s actually because of a set of complex issues that are not easily solvable (read the report or my articles for more details).</p><p>But there were still a <em>few</em> clear steps that could be taken by Congress to help.</p><p>This week, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/474" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">the REPORT Act passed Congress</a>, and it includes… a bunch of those straightforward, common sense things that should help improve the CyberTipline process. The key bit is allowing the CyberTipline to modernize a bit, including allowing it to use cloud storage. To date, no cloud storage vendors could work with NCMEC, out of a fear that they’d face criminal liability for “hosting CSAM.”</p><p>This bill fixes that, and should enable NCMEC to make use of some better tools and systems, including better classifiers, which are becoming increasingly important.</p><p>There are also some other factors around letting victims and parents of victims report CSAM involving the child directly to NCMEC, which can be immensely helpful in trying to stop the spread of some content (and on focusing some law enforcement responses).</p><p>There are also some technical fixes that require platforms to retain certain records for a longer period of time. This was another important point that was highlighted in the Stanford report. Given the flow of information and prioritization, sometimes by the time law enforcement realized it should get a warrant to get more info from a platform, the platform would have already deleted it as required under existing law. Now that time period is extended to give law enforcement a bit more time.</p><p>The one bit that we’ll have to see how it works is that it extends the reporting requirements for social media to include violations of <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591">18 USC 1591</a>, which is the law against sex trafficking. Senator Marsha Blackburn, who is the co-author of the bill, is claiming that this means that “big tech companies will now be required to report when children are being trafficked, groomed or enticed by predators.”</p><div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter"><img decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/5cc06ed9-f4d3-4699-9c3a-ad7dbf9d7053-RackMultipart20240501-131-2ufa1l.png?ssl=1" alt="Image" data-recalc-dims="1"/></figure></div><p>So, it’s possible I’m misreading the law (and how it works with existing laws…) but I see nothing limiting this to “big tech.” It appears to apply to any “electronic communication service provider or remote computing service.”</p><p>Also, given that Marsha Blackburn appears to consider “grooming” to include things like <a href="https://www.truthnetwork.com/show/the-todd-starnes-show-todd-starnes/52597/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">LGBTQ content in schools</a>, I worried that this was going to be a backdoor bill to making all internet websites have to “report” such content to NCMEC, which would flood their systems with utter nonsense. Thankfully, 1591 seems to include some pretty specific definitions of sex trafficking that do not match up with Blackburn’s definition. So she’ll get the PR victory among nonsense peddlers for pretending that it will lead to the reporting of the non-grooming that she insists is grooming.</p><p>And, of course, while this bill was actually good (and it’s surprising to see Blackburn on a good internet bill!) it’s not going to stop her from continuing to push <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/tag/kosa/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">KOSA</a> and other nonsense moral panic “protect the children” bills that will actually do real harm.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/the-report-act-enhancing-online-child-safety-without-the-usual-congressional-nonsense/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>8</slash:comments> <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">437342</post-id> </item> <item> <title>Regulations For Generative AI Should Be Based On Reality, Not Hallucinations.</title> <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/regulations-for-generative-ai-should-be-based-on-reality-not-hallucinations/</link> <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/regulations-for-generative-ai-should-be-based-on-reality-not-hallucinations/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 20:38:54 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[1]]></category> <category><![CDATA[disclosures]]></category> <category><![CDATA[generative ai]]></category> <category><![CDATA[josh becker]]></category> <category><![CDATA[sb 942]]></category> <category><![CDATA[tom kemp]]></category> <category><![CDATA[transparency]]></category> <category><![CDATA[watermarks]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=437334</guid> <description><![CDATA[In a haste to do something about the growing threat of AI-fueled disinformation, harassment, and fraud, lawmakers risk introducing bills that ignore some fundamental facts about the technology. For California lawmakers in particular, this urgency is compounded by the fact that they preside over the world’s most prominent AI companies and are able to pass […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a haste to do something about the growing threat of AI-fueled disinformation, harassment, and fraud, lawmakers risk introducing bills that ignore some fundamental facts about the technology. For California lawmakers in particular, this urgency is compounded by the fact that they preside over the world’s most prominent AI companies and are able to pass laws more quickly than congress can. </p><p>Take, for example, California <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB942"><u>SB 942</u></a>, which is an attempt to regulate generative AI, but which appears to have hallucinated some of the assumptions on which it’s built. </p><p>In short, SB 942 would:</p><ol><li>Require a <strong>visible</strong> disclosure on images, video, and <strong>text </strong>that the content is AI-generated; a disclosure in their metadata; and an imperceptible disclosure that is machine readable.</li><li>Require AI providers to create a detection tool where anyone can upload content to check if it was made using that provider’s service.</li></ol><p>Sounds pretty good right? Wouldn’t this maybe help fight AI-generated abuse?</p><p>It’s unlikely. </p><p>In a hearing last week, tech and policy entrepreneur <a href="https://www.senate.ca.gov/media/senate-governmental-organization-committee-20240423" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Tom Kemp testified</a> saying that we need this bill. He opened by pointing out how Google CEO Sundar Pichai believes AI will be more profound than the invention of fire or the internet. Then, holding up a pack of gum, said that if we can require a food label for a pack of gum, we should at least also require labels on something as profound as AI. </p><p> He concludes, saying:</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>“In summary, this bill puts AI content on the same level as a pack of gum in terms of disclosures, which is the transparency that Californians need.”</em></p></blockquote><p>Huh? It’s a <em>fun</em> analogy, but not a <em>useful</em> one. The question we should ask is not whether generative AI is like food. After all, the regulation of food products <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/28/no-social-media-is-not-the-same-thing-as-lead-paint/">has different legal considerations</a> than the regulation of expressive generative AI content. </p><p>What we should ask is: <em>Will this policy solve the problems we want to solve?</em></p><p><strong>Visible Disclosures:</strong></p><p>SB 942 requires disclosures for AI-generated text, but there is <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11156">no effective method for flagging and detecting</a> content as being AI-generated. Unlike, say, a watermark for an image, a disclosure for text would need to fundamentally alter the message to communicate its synthetic nature. A written disclosure could precede the generated text, but users could simply cut that portion out.</p><p>This part of the bill made my Trust & Safety senses tingle. <em>Platform policies that are unenforceable erode trust</em> when there is a mismatch between the rules and what consumers expect. Similarly, if there is a law requiring disclosures of AI generated text, it may give consumers a false sense of protection when there is no way to reliably communicate these notices. </p><p>The bill also assumes that generative AI can <em>only</em> be used for malicious purposes. There are many cases where having a disclosure simply doesn’t matter or is even undesirable. For example, if I want to generate an image of myself playing basketball on the moon, there won’t be any question about its inauthenticity. Or if I want to use Photoshop’s generative fill tool for a piece of marketing, I surely don’t want a watermark interrupting my design. To require by law that it all be labeled is a heavy handed approach that seems unlikely to withstand First Amendment scrutiny.</p><p><strong>Detection Tools:</strong></p><p>AI detection tools are actively being researched and developed, but at this point can’t offer definitive answers to questions of inauthenticity. They give answers with widely varying degrees of uncertainty. This nuance sometimes gets ignored to great consequence, as with <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/student-accused-ai-cheating-turnitin-1234747351/">the cases</a> where students were <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/08/14/prove-false-positive-ai-detection-turnitin-gptzero/">falsely accused of plagiarism</a>. </p><p>In fact, the technology is so unreliable that last year OpenAI <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://openai.com/blog/new-ai-classifier-for-indicating-ai-written-text">killed its own detection tool</a>, citing its low rate of accuracy. If a safety-conscious AI company is pulling down its own detection tool because it does more harm than good, what incentive does a less conscientious business have to make their detection tool any less harmful? </p><p>There are already several generative AI detection services, many offered for free, that are competing for this niche market. If detection tools make big advancements in reliability it won’t be because we required generative AI companies to also push one out just to comply with the law. </p><p>It’s worth mentioning that during last week’s hearing, the bill’s author, Senator Becker, acknowledged that it’s a work in progress and promised to continue collaborating with industry to “strike the right balance.” I appreciate his frankness, but I’m afraid that would essentially mean scrapping it. I expect he’ll remove the mention of AI-generated text and hope he gets rid of the detection tool requirement, but that would still leave us with a vague and hard to comply with requirement to label all AI-generated images and video. </p><p>The law should try to account for new and developing technology, but it also needs to operate based on fundamental ground truths about it. Otherwise, it will be no more useful than an AI hallucination.</p><p><em><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/alanpkyle/">Alan Kyle</a> is a tech governance enthusiast who is looking for his next work opportunity at the intersection of trust & safety and AI</em>.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/regulations-for-generative-ai-should-be-based-on-reality-not-hallucinations/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>12</slash:comments> <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">437334</post-id> </item> <item> <title>Justice Alito Won’t Block Texas From Enforcing Internet Age Verification Law</title> <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/justice-alito-wont-block-texas-from-enforcing-internet-age-verification-law/</link> <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/justice-alito-wont-block-texas-from-enforcing-internet-age-verification-law/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 19:12:00 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[free speech coalition]]></category> <category><![CDATA[1st amendment]]></category> <category><![CDATA[age verification]]></category> <category><![CDATA[ken paxton]]></category> <category><![CDATA[samuel alito]]></category> <category><![CDATA[shadow docket]]></category> <category><![CDATA[texas]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=437340</guid> <description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that age verification laws for websites violate the First Amendment. It’s had a couple of shots at this and really seemed to indicate that such laws are unconstitutional because age verification would block First Amendment-protected content from people who should be allowed to see it. So, it […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that age verification laws for websites violate the First Amendment. It’s had <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-218">a couple</a> of <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/96-511">shots at this</a> and really seemed to indicate that such laws are unconstitutional because age verification would block First Amendment-protected content from people who should be allowed to see it.</p><p>So, it was little surprise when a Texas district court ruled that Texas’ law saying adult content websites need to include a form of age verification <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/31/court-says-texas-adult-content-age-verification-law-clearly-violates-the-1st-amendment/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">was unconstitutional</a>. The ruling was detailed and careful.</p><p>Which means it was no surprise when the Fifth Circuit did the Fifth Circuit thing and <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/03/11/5th-circuit-is-gonna-5th-circus-declares-age-verification-perfectly-fine-under-the-first-amendment/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">overturned the lower court decision</a>. I already went into the weeds on how silly the opinion was, but it does this weird tapdance where it pretends it can effectively ignore those cases that discussed age verification, because those cases all involved “strict scrutiny” and the judges on the panel felt that this could use a lower standard of “rational basis.”</p><p>This is wrong for all the reasons we talked about in that last post, and you probably don’t need another 16 paragraphs in this article about the differences between strict scrutiny and rational basis.</p><p>The Free Speech Coalition, who brought the original case, have <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1122.html">filed a cert petition</a> for the Supreme Court to hear the case. On the same day, they also <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a925.html">filed an emergency petition</a> on what is generally known as the “shadow docket,” asking for the court to stop the enforcement of the law, at least until the Supreme Court has reviewed their cert petition.</p><p>Shadow docket applications from each circuit go up to specific Justices, and Justice Alito <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitassignments.aspx">gets to review the 5th Circuit.</a> This seems unfortunate, given he’s the Justice most likely to go along with their nonsense.</p><p>On Tuesday, Alito rejected the request for a stay (without comment).</p><figure class="wp-block-image"><img decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/762c1fef-e881-4b19-aad6-6e15fc12c0a6-RackMultipart20240501-191-3lgqqf.png?ssl=1" alt="Image" data-recalc-dims="1"/></figure><p>The Free Speech Coalition <a href="https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/blog/fsc-statement-on-supreme-court-denial-in-texas-case" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">put out a statement</a>, mostly about the fact that they’re still focused on getting the main show, the cert petition, picked up by the Supreme Court, and this may just be a temporary bump in the road.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>While the Supreme Court has denied our application to stay the Fifth Circuit’s decision upholding age verification requirements in Texas, our petition for full merits review before the Supreme Court remains pending. We look forward to continuing this challenge, and others like it, in the federal courts. The ruling by the Fifth Circuit remains in direct opposition to decades of Supreme Court precedent, and we remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will grant our petition for certiorari and reaffirm its lengthy line of cases applying strict scrutiny to content-based restrictions on speech like those in the Texas statute we’ve challenged. We will continue to fight for the right to access the internet without intrusive government oversight.</em></p></blockquote><p>While perhaps not the most surprising turn of events, it is still a frustrating interim bit of nonsense. Hopefully the petition is granted and the full case can be heard by other Justices who might better remember how the First Amendment works.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/justice-alito-wont-block-texas-from-enforcing-internet-age-verification-law/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>83</slash:comments> <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">437340</post-id> </item> <item> <title>Appeals Court: Just Because Speech Provokes Negative Reactions Doesn’t Mean It’s Not Protected</title> <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/appeals-court-just-because-speech-provokes-negative-reactions-doesnt-mean-its-not-protected/</link> <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/appeals-court-just-because-speech-provokes-negative-reactions-doesnt-mean-its-not-protected/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim Cushing]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 17:53:00 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[1]]></category> <category><![CDATA[1st amendment]]></category> <category><![CDATA[9th circuit]]></category> <category><![CDATA[matthew meinecke]]></category> <category><![CDATA[protestors]]></category> <category><![CDATA[seattle]]></category> <category><![CDATA[seattle police]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=436717&preview=true&preview_id=436717</guid> <description><![CDATA[The best response to speech you don’t like is more speech. It definitely isn’t whatever the hell happened here. And that not only includes the Seattle Police Department’s decision to go after the person being physically harassed by other protesters, but the actions of the protesters themselves, whose physical aggression somehow encouraged police officers to […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The best response to speech you don’t like is more speech. It definitely isn’t whatever the hell happened here. And that not only includes the Seattle Police Department’s decision to go after the person being physically harassed by other protesters, but the actions of the protesters themselves, whose physical aggression somehow encouraged police officers to start violating the First Amendment.</p><p>It’s a mess. Fortunately, this <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24575204/no-incitement-here.pdf" data-type="link" data-id="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24575204/no-incitement-here.pdf">decision</a> [PDF] from the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court cleans it up. (h/t <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/seattle-police-cannot-arrest-street-preacher-for-inciting-hostility-ninth-circuit-rules/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.courthousenews.com/seattle-police-cannot-arrest-street-preacher-for-inciting-hostility-ninth-circuit-rules/">Courthouse News Service</a>)</p><p>The plaintiff is Matthew Meinecke, a self-described “street preacher” who lives in Seattle. On June 24, 2022, Meinecke showed up at a pro-choice protest of the Supreme Court’s <em>Dobbs</em> decision. According to Meinecke, he held up a sign, read from the Bible, and handed out Christian literature.</p><p>This didn’t go well for him, according to his allegations. </p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>Protestors surrounded Meinecke after about an hour. One protestor seized Meinecke’s Bible. Meinecke retrieved another Bible from his bag and continued reading aloud. Another protestor grabbed hold of—and ripped pages from—the new Bible.</em></p></blockquote><p>Things then escalated. Meinecke was then carried across the street by protesters. He immediately returned to where he had been standing. He was once again accosted by these protesters, who took things even further.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>While people gathered on the street, however, some approached Meinecke, knocked him down, and took one of his shoes.</em></p></blockquote><p>That’s when the Seattle PD, which had officers on the scene already due to the pro-choice protest, decided to get involved. The two parties dispute what officers actually told the street preacher. He maintains they told him to go somewhere where no one could hear or see him. The city’s lawyers claim the officers simply told Meinecke to go back across the street to where the protesters had deposited him earlier. Either way, he refused to comply and was arrested for obstruction, mainly this part of the city statute: “<em>[i]ntentionally refuses to cease an activity or behavior that creates a risk of injury to any person when ordered to do so by a police officer</em>.”</p><p>Meinecke appeared to be the only person at risk of injury, but I guess that counts under the law since it says “any person.” Despite this, he was held for two hours at the PD, but ultimately was never booked or charged. </p><p>Two days later, Meinecke did pretty much the same thing while attending the city’s PrideFest. And that incident pretty much ended up the same way.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>Eventually, PrideFest attendees noticed Meinecke’s presence. As the district court found, they began “dancing near him, holding up a flag to keep people from seeing him,” and making “loud noises so he could not be heard.” According to his complaint, “a couple of attendees stood close to Meinecke and howled and barked like dogs, and mocked Meinecke, while he read passages from the Bible. Meinecke did not engage with them.” Another individual poured water on Meinecke’s Bible. Meinecke kept reading aloud.</em></p><p><em>After a couple of hours, more PrideFest attendees gathered around Meinecke and began yelling. This attracted the attention of about ten law enforcement officers, who asked Meinecke “to move to a public area located outside the park.” Meinecke declined and continued to read from his Bible. A PrideFest attendee shouted at the officers, demanding Meinecke’s removal. The officers then told Meinecke “that they were imposing a ‘time, place, and manner’ restriction on him and ordered him to leave the park.” Again, Meinecke declined to leave. The officers told<br>Meinecke “that he was posing a risk to public safety,” and they again demanded he leave the park. Meinecke told the officers that he was not in any danger. The officers then arrested Meinecke for obstruction.</em></p></blockquote><p>This time, however, he was booked, charged, and released on bond. He sued the city, its PD, and the officers involved in his arrests. While Meinecke is seeking an injunction, he is not challenging the constitutionality of the law itself… just the way it was enforced against him in particular.</p><p>The Appeals Court agrees with Meinecke. These two arrests were clear violations of his First Amendment rights. </p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>Meinecke does not bring a facial challenge to the Seattle obstruction ordinance under which he was arrested. It makes little difference to our analysis, however, that the ordinance is facially neutral. If a facially neutral statute “as read by officers on the scene[] would allow or disallow speech depending on the reaction of the audience, then the ordinance would run afoul of an independent species of prohibitions on content-restrictive regulations, often described as a First Amendment-based ban on the ‘heckler’s veto.’” Ctr. For Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t, 533 F.3d 780, 787 (9th Cir. 2008). The City’s enforcement actions against Meinecke are content-based heckler’s vetoes. Our precedent on this point is clear: “The prototypical heckler’s veto case is one in which the government silences particular speech or a</em> <em>particular speaker ‘due to an anticipated disorderly or violent reaction of the audience.’” Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Comm.[…]</em></p><p><em>It is apparent from the facts, including the video available from police body cameras, that the Seattle police directed Meinecke to leave the area because of the reaction his Bible-reading provoked at the Dobbs and PrideFest protests.</em></p></blockquote><p>That’s now how it works. The hecklers don’t get to set the government’s agenda. The city argued that’s not what actually happened — that officers responded to the people responding to Meinecke’s speech with harassment, violence, and theft by deciding Meinecke was the real problem here. The city claimed this was nothing more than the usual “time, place, and manner” restrictions governments can apply when it engages in constitutional regulation of speech.</p><p>But that’s the thing: this isn’t that. This is the other thing, as the Appeals Court points out: </p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>[I]ncanting the words “time,” “place,” and “manner” over a content-based restriction does not transmute it into one that is content neutral. The evidence in the record is indisputable that the officers curbed Meinecke’s speech because of the potential reaction of the listeners.</em></p></blockquote><p>The city also argued that the officers’ commands would have merely <em>inconvenienced</em> Meinecke, rather than <em>silenced</em> him. Ta-da! No First Amendment violation! Wrong again, says the court:</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>Even assuming that the officers simply instructed Meinecke to cross the street, their directions burdened Meinecke’s speech. Meinecke had a right, just as those participating in the anti-Dobbs rally or the celebration of PrideFest, to use public sidewalks and streets for the peaceful dissemination of his views. Like the petitioners in McCullen, Meinecke “hands out literature” and “engages in conversation and answers questions” about Christianity. The evidence is even clearer as to the officers’ restrictions during PrideFest. The district court recognized that the officers “ordered him to leave the park” altogether. When the police single out a nonthreatening speaker for discipline, the government is simply choosing sides in the debate and using the obstruction statute to enforce its choice.</em></p></blockquote><p>Back it goes to the lower court with an order to grant Meinecke’s request for an injunction. And, hopefully, this ruling will deter officers from making the same mistake in the future. As the Appeals Court notes in the decision, the officers had plenty of options when handling these two altercations and chose the worst option both times. If the city wants to enforce its obstruction statute it can still do that. It just can’t do it in a way that violates constitutional rights. And the government should never side with the hecklers and carry out their veto for them.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/appeals-court-just-because-speech-provokes-negative-reactions-doesnt-mean-its-not-protected/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>27</slash:comments> <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">436717</post-id> </item> <item> <title>Daily Deal: DevDojo Pro, Premium Content, Tools, and Courses for Devs</title> <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/daily-deal-devdojo-pro-premium-content-tools-and-courses-for-devs/</link> <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/daily-deal-devdojo-pro-premium-content-tools-and-courses-for-devs/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Gretchen Heckmann]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 17:49:07 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[1]]></category> <category><![CDATA[daily deal]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=437392&preview=true&preview_id=437392</guid> <description><![CDATA[This DevDojo Pro subscription gives you access to a set of tools to help you build your next great idea. Start with the Page Creator, where you’ll find Tailwind CSS Page Builder, a tool for crafting beautiful landing pages. Then, move on to Wave SAAS Starter Kit, where you’ll learn how to build your Software […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This <a href="https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/lifetime-of-devdojo-pro-premium-content-tools-and-courses-for-devs?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown">DevDojo Pro</a> subscription gives you access to a set of tools to help you build your next great idea. Start with the Page Creator, where you’ll find Tailwind CSS Page Builder, a tool for crafting beautiful landing pages. Then, move on to Wave SAAS Starter Kit, where you’ll learn how to build your Software as a Service app and make money from it. With Ninja Training Program, you will learn the basics before you get started building your business. It’s on sale for $150.</p><div class="wp-block-image is-style-default"><figure class="aligncenter size-large"><a href="https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/lifetime-of-devdojo-pro-premium-content-tools-and-courses-for-devs?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown"><img decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/cdnp3.stackassets.com/d5af55719248812ca67e55e85775c8dbcfb10fe4/store/45d9254b52355cb3eaea96caa7dbd472eace957ece8ccf7cfde760484082/product_328982_product_shots1.jpg?ssl=1" alt="" data-recalc-dims="1"/></a></figure></div><p><em>Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.</em></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/daily-deal-devdojo-pro-premium-content-tools-and-courses-for-devs/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">437392</post-id> </item> <item> <title>Section 230, Which Donald Trump Wants Repealed, Protects Donald Trump For Retweeting</title> <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/section-230-which-donald-trump-wants-repealed-protects-donald-trump-for-retweeting/</link> <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/section-230-which-donald-trump-wants-repealed-protects-donald-trump-for-retweeting/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 16:26:57 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[dominion voting systems]]></category> <category><![CDATA[1st amendment]]></category> <category><![CDATA[anti-slapp]]></category> <category><![CDATA[clarence thomas]]></category> <category><![CDATA[colorado]]></category> <category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[donald trump]]></category> <category><![CDATA[eric coomer]]></category> <category><![CDATA[eric trump]]></category> <category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category> <category><![CDATA[retweeting]]></category> <category><![CDATA[section 230]]></category> <category><![CDATA[users]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=436554</guid> <description><![CDATA[Donald Trump, who has demanded both that we “open up our libel laws” and that we “repeal Section 230,” was just protected from a defamation claim thanks to Section 230. How about that? One thing that many people forget (or deliberately ignore?) regarding Section 230 is that it not only protects “Big Tech” as some […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Donald Trump, who has demanded both that we “<a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.techdirt.com/2016/03/02/yes-donald-trump-can-create-problems-free-speech-first-amendment/">open up our libel laws</a>” and that we “<a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.techdirt.com/2020/10/07/donald-trump-now-wants-to-repeal-section-230-which-will-actually-make-stuff-he-complains-about-worse/">repeal Section 230,”</a> was just protected from a defamation claim thanks to Section 230. How about that?</p><p>One thing that many people forget (or deliberately ignore?) regarding Section 230 is that it not only protects “Big Tech” as some people claim, and not just protects “websites,” but it also protects <em>users</em> of websites when they share or repost content. Section 230 protects <em>all of us</em> for when we repost someone else’s content.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>No provider </em><strong><em>or user</em></strong><em> of an </em><a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=47-USC-1900800046-1237841278&term_occur=999&term_src=title:47:chapter:5:subchapter:II:part:I:section:230"><em>interactive computer service</em></a><em> shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another </em><a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=47-USC-10252844-1237841279&term_occur=999&term_src=title:47:chapter:5:subchapter:II:part:I:section:230"><em>information content provider</em></a><em>.</em></p></blockquote><p>Some people feel this is problematic, but it’s actually quite important. People may randomly forward an email or retweet something, and that <em>should</em> be protected under Section 230. In most cases, such email forwarding or retweeting would be unlikely to meet the actual malice standard for defamation. The difference between getting a case dismissed under Section 230 grounds as opposed to having to prove there wasn’t actual malice could be on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars.</p><p>This stuff matters.</p><p>Section 230’s protections for users are an important part of why Section 230 is valuable.</p><p>And now, somewhat ironically, it has protected Donald Trump and his fail-son Eric from defamation claims for retweeting nonsense. Now, folks who dislike Trump may not like this, but it’s the right result. The general retweets should absolutely be protected by Section 230 (and if you’re upset about this, just note that the case includes lots of other statements made by Trump that weren’t tossed out at this stage and will proceed forward).</p><p>Professor Eric Goldman <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/04/section-230-applies-to-tweeted-links-to-defamatory-content-coomer-v-donald-j-trump-for-president.htm">details the Section 230 bits</a> of this case. Both Eric Trump and Donald Trump retweeted or quote-tweeted some nonsense about Eric Coomer, a Dominion Voting Systems employee who became embroiled in a nonsense conspiracy theory after the 2020 election. If you want the full details of the story, the NY Times Magazine did a big feature article <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/magazine/eric-coomer-dominion-election.html">on Coomer’s situation</a> back in 2021.</p><p>Part of the conspiracy theory were the false claims that Coomer was a part of “Antifa” (a thing that does not, in fact, exist) and took part in a phone call suggesting that he had rigged the voting machines. That was absolute nonsense. Coomer had posted some ranty (private) Facebook posts about how Trump was autocratic, narcissistic, and fascist. But conspiracy theorists turned that into a grand conspiracy theory that he rigged the vote.</p><p>Coomer sued a bunch of folks over the defamation, including the Trump campaign, because both Donald and Eric (of course) played up the nonsense conspiracy. Trump filed an anti-SLAPP motion to try to kill the lawsuit. For someone who wanted to open up our libel laws, Trump seems quick to <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.techdirt.com/2018/10/16/will-donald-trump-support-federal-anti-slapp-law-now-that-helped-him-win-stormy-daniels-defamation-suit/">use anti-SLAPP laws</a> to get rid of lawsuits when he’s sued for defamation.</p><p>The district court rejected the anti-SLAPP motion, and the appeals court has now reviewed the case, mostly upholding the lower court’s opinion. This means that <em>most</em> of the defamation claims can move forward, as the anti-SLAPP motion fails.</p><p>However, and this is the important part, the anti-SLAPP motion wins regarding two retweets on Section 230 grounds. As Goldman detailed, the lower court was just fundamentally wrong on the 230 question regarding retweets:</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>In earlier proceedings, the district court denied the Section 230 defense for the Trumps because “the CDA does not apply to information that a user ‘knew or had reason to know was defamatory.’” That interpretation of Section 230 is obviously wrong, and the appeals court simply replies that “case law from other jurisdictions is uniformly to the contrary.” (Cites to </em><a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/09/fosta-claim-can-proceed-against-twitter-doe-v-twitter.htm"><em>In re Facebook</em></a><em>, </em><a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/11/barrett_v_rosen_1.htm"><em>Barrett v. Rosenthal</em></a><em>, and Zeran v. AOL).</em></p></blockquote><p>Goldman dug out the two tweets in question so I’ll just use his screenshots rather than having to go get them myself:</p><div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter"><img decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/12939e1e-477c-47b8-ba3d-d27c5ae1ec0f-RackMultipart20240418-118-c6kfr6.png?ssl=1" alt="Image" data-recalc-dims="1"/></figure></div><div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter"><img decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/66d5459a-48e5-416f-8f71-c8abc80110eb-RackMultipart20240418-112-axve1a.png?ssl=1" alt="Image" data-recalc-dims="1"/></figure></div><p>Now, there is a legitimate question here whether or not the text added by either Trump is defamatory. Because the content that you, yourself, create is not protected by 230. But, here, the court found that the defamatory content was not from either Trump, but from the third party they were quoting/sharing.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>First, neither Eric Trump’s nor President Trump’s tweet included any statement beyond the information in the article and video they shared. See id. (indicating that “[h]ad [the defendant] just posted the link,” the post might be protected under the CDA). Eric Trump’s tweet stated simply, “Eric Coomer — Dominions Vice President of U.S. Engineering — ‘Don’t worry about the election, Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!’” That quote (as well as Coomer’s name and title) was pulled verbatim from the article, which unmistakably attributed the quote to Coomer. The tweet therefore conveyed only “information provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). President Trump’s tweet said even less, merely quoting the segment’s title, “Dominion-izing the Vote,” and making no mention of Coomer at all.</em></p><p><em>Second, the district court’s conclusion that the CDA does not apply to information that a user “knew or had reason to know was defamatory” finds no support in the text of the CDA or case law applying it.18 Indeed, case law from other jurisdictions is uniformly to the contrary. See In re Facebook, Inc., 625 S.W.3d 80, 89-93 (Tex. 2021) (noting “national consensus” and “overwhelming weight of authority” rejecting distinction between liability as a speaker or publisher and liability as a distributor) (citations omitted); Barrett v. Rosenthal, 146 P.3d 510, 517-20, 518 n.9 (Cal. 2006) (citing cases); Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 331-33 (4th Cir. 1997).</em></p></blockquote><p>As the court (and Goldman) note, the district court made a bizarre decision to rely on Clarence Thomas’ <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.techdirt.com/2021/04/05/justice-thomas-goes-weird-again-suggests-twitter-cant-moderate-section-230-violates-1st-amendment/">random, unbriefed blogging</a> about Section 230, as if it were a statement that means anything. And, as the Colorado state appeals court notes, that’s not how any of this actually works:</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>The district court relied exclusively on Justice Thomas’s statement respecting the denial of certiorari in Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group, 592 U.S. ___, ___, 141 S. Ct. 13, 15-16 (2020) (published order). That statement — the statement of a single Justice, not a decision of the Court — is contrary to the position taken by “every existing judicial decision” of which we are aware. In re Facebook, 625 S.W.3d at 91. But even that statement would only support a “know or reason to know” exception for distributors — a term that traditionally encompassed actors like newspaper vendors and booksellers who distribute the publications of others. See Malwarebytes, 592 U.S. at ___, 141 S. Ct. at 15-16; Barrett, 146 P.3d at 513. Whether or not that term might include “[i]nternet platforms” that do no more than host content published by third parties, not even Justice Thomas’s statement extends socalled “distributor liability” to the individual users who post that content. See Malwarebytes, 592 U.S. at ___, 141 S. Ct. at 14-15 (questioning “sweeping protection to [i]nternet platforms”).</em></p><p><em>Thus, because the two tweets by Eric Trump and President Trump consisted solely of “information provided by another information content provider,” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), Coomer’s claim against the Trump Campaign may not be based on those tweets.</em></p></blockquote><p>So, on the whole, this is a good overall ruling. Section 230 continues to protect users (as the law promises!) for retweeting/sharing third-party content. That’s the right result. But the defamation case against Trump for things he actually said himself continues to move forward. This is the proper distinction. You’re not liable for third-party speech, you’re just liable for your own speech.</p><p>That said, as Goldman notes, the ruling is not great in some other regards. Mainly, it doesn’t cite the long list of cases that say that retweeting is protected by 230. Also, the court could have done more to distinguish the different content in the two tweets at issue, as Goldman describes:</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>Bad: The court didn’t distinguish between Eric’s quote of the defamatory line and Donald’s non-reference to Coomer. Another election interference case held that quote-tweeting did not qualify for Section 230 protection when the newly added material was allegedly defamatory (</em><a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/04/section-230-doesnt-protect-quote-tweeting-us-dominion-v-byrne.htm"><em>Dominion v. Byrne</em></a><em>). From my perspective, a tweet that includes a verbatim quote of a third-party linked article should qualify for Section 230. See the very on-point </em><a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/12/no-fee-shift-in-bogus-lawsuit-against-review-website-roca-v-pissedconsumer.htm"><em>Roca v. PissedConsumer</em></a><em> decision, unfortunately not cited by the court. However, the court equated Donald’s non-reference to the defamation and Eric’s repeating of the defamatory claim without justifying that equation.</em></p></blockquote><p>But, there is also a larger point here: Trump himself has been the leader of the pack in calling for the <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.techdirt.com/2020/10/07/donald-trump-now-wants-to-repeal-section-230-which-will-actually-make-stuff-he-complains-about-worse/">repeal of Section 230</a> entirely.</p><div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter"><img decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/lex-img-p.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/img/325bd244-c015-44d7-8127-497dc0fe6820-RackMultipart20240418-164-cejs0y.png?ssl=1" alt="Image" data-recalc-dims="1"/></figure></div><p>And yet, here he is, using Section 230 to protect himself from (part of) a defamation lawsuit (where, again, he had previously asked for harsher defamation laws). It’s almost as if Trump has no idea what he’s advocating for beyond some sort of weird, misdirected rage at anything that momentarily holds him back, without ever considering the larger consequences of his actions. Almost.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/section-230-which-donald-trump-wants-repealed-protects-donald-trump-for-retweeting/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>25</slash:comments> <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">436554</post-id> </item> <item> <title>Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile Finally Fined $192 Million For Abuse Of User Location Data</title> <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/verizon-att-t-mobile-finally-fined-192-million-for-abuse-of-user-location-data/</link> <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/verizon-att-t-mobile-finally-fined-192-million-for-abuse-of-user-location-data/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Karl Bode]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 12:31:25 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[1]]></category> <category><![CDATA[at&t]]></category> <category><![CDATA[t-mobile]]></category> <category><![CDATA[verizon]]></category> <category><![CDATA[fcc]]></category> <category><![CDATA[fines]]></category> <category><![CDATA[location data]]></category> <category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[privacy law]]></category> <category><![CDATA[telecom]]></category> <category><![CDATA[wireless]]></category> <category><![CDATA[wireless phone]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=437248&preview=true&preview_id=437248</guid> <description><![CDATA[For several decades, major wireless carriers AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile collected vast troves of sensitive user location and movement data, then sold access to any random nitwit with two nickels to rub together. The result was a parade of scandals wherein everybody from stalkers to law enforcement (or pretending to be law enforcement) abused the […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For several decades, major wireless carriers AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile collected vast troves of sensitive user location and movement data, then sold access to any random nitwit with two nickels to rub together. The result was a parade of scandals wherein everybody from <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2019/03/11/apparently-easy-to-pretend-to-be-cop-grab-location-data-cellular-carriers/">stalkers</a> to law <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2018/05/14/prison-phone-monopoly-securus-under-fire-again-this-time-doling-out-everybodys-private-phone-location-data/">enforcement</a> (or <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2019/03/11/apparently-easy-to-pretend-to-be-cop-grab-location-data-cellular-carriers/">pretending to be law enforcement</a>) abused the data in problematic ways never made clear to the end user. </p><p>Though this behavior had been going on for years, it only gained mainstream attention thanks to a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/technology/cellphone-tracking-law-enforcement.html">2018 New York Times story</a> showcasing how police and the prison system routinely bought access to this data and then failed completely to secure it. In 2020 the FCC proposed fining wireless carriers $196 million ($91 million for T-Mobile, $57 million for AT&T, $48 million for Verizon). </p><p>After four years of legal wrangling and delays (caused in part by the telecom industry’s <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/29/att-verizon-t-mobile-could-dodge-millions-in-location-data-fines-thanks-to-industry-attacks-on-fcc-nominee-gigi-sohn/">attack on the Gigi Sohn FCC nomination</a>, preventing the FCC from having a working voting majority) the FCC announced they had <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-402213A1.pdf">voted to finally formalize the fines</a>:</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>“These carriers failed to protect the information entrusted to them. Here, we are talking<br>about some of the most sensitive data in their possession: customers’ real-time location<br>information, revealing where they go and who they are.”</em></p></blockquote><p>It should be clear than $192 million (actually proposed by the Trump FCC) is a tiny, tiny fraction of the money these companies made monetizing your every last movement for decades. And it’s still very likely the carriers <em>never get close to paying that amount</em>. All three <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/04/fcc-fines-big-three-carriers-196m-for-selling-users-real-time-location-data/">have promised to appeal</a>, and it’s very likely that after another few years of legal wrangling those penalties are reduced further, if not vacated entirely. </p><p>All three carriers claim they’ve stopped the practice, but it’s extremely likely they’ve just revamped the programs after consultations with company lawyers, calling them something creatively new. It’s not particularly hard to avoid violating internet privacy laws in a country too corrupt to actually pass them. </p><p>While “big tech” gets the lion’s share of policy and press attention these days, telecom privacy violations have a long, rich, multi-decade history. <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2021/10/26/ftc-study-highlights-how-big-telecom-privacy-practices-are-even-worse-than-big-tech/">An FTC study from 2021</a> documented how your ISP collects real-time location data, DNS data, browsing data, and demographic data, sells access in a myriad of creative ways, then routinely lies about what it’s doing, calling the process of “selling” your data, something else. </p><p>The FCC and FTC are too short staffed, under-funded, and boxed in by years of lobbying and dodgy court rulings to police privacy abuses at the scale they’re happening with any consistency. And Congress is too corrupt to pass even a baseline privacy law setting some ground rules and penalties for companies and executives. So this cycle continues until there’s another privacy scandal too messy to politically ignore. </p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/01/verizon-att-t-mobile-finally-fined-192-million-for-abuse-of-user-location-data/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>10</slash:comments> <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">437248</post-id> </item> <item> <title>ESA Once Again Comes Out Against Video Game Preservation Efforts</title> <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/30/esa-once-again-comes-out-against-video-game-preservation-efforts/</link> <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/30/esa-once-again-comes-out-against-video-game-preservation-efforts/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dark Helmet]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 03:15:46 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[1]]></category> <category><![CDATA[esa]]></category> <category><![CDATA[video game history foundation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[archives]]></category> <category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category> <category><![CDATA[libraries]]></category> <category><![CDATA[phil salvador]]></category> <category><![CDATA[steve englund]]></category> <category><![CDATA[video game preservation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[video games]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=436879&preview=true&preview_id=436879</guid> <description><![CDATA[I talk quite a bit about video game preservation efforts for a couple of reasons. First, I’m just a huge gaming nerd and it is almost physically painful to think that the cultural output of this artform can be lost to history at the whim of publishers that have the ability to shutdown backend servers […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I talk quite a bit about video game preservation efforts for a couple of reasons. First, I’m just a huge gaming nerd and it is almost physically painful to think that the cultural output of this artform can be lost to history at the whim of publishers that have the ability to shutdown backend servers or otherwise disappear these games from the universe. Second, those that oppose preservation efforts do so without a coda to their opposition. In other words, they tend to simply say “no!” without offering any alternative methods for preserving this shared cultural history. And, finally, it simply a fact that the loss of this culture almost perfectly negates the bargain that is copyright to begin with. The point of the law is to offer a limited monopoly on artistic content as a financial incentive, but that such content will eventually end up in the public domain. If the content disappears entirely, it never goes into the public domain.</p><p>On the middle point, the Electronic Software Association, a lobbying group for game and software makers, continues to serve as an example of an <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2018/02/26/esa-comes-out-against-allowing-museums-to-curate-online-video-games-posterity/">obstinant force</a> offering no alternatives. The ESA recently <a href="https://readwrite.com/video-games-preservation-dmca-copyright-law-exceptions-esa/">went in front of the Copyright Office</a> for a hearing and reiterated its stance that no carveouts be given to museums and non-profits for the purposes of preserving video game content.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>ESA lawyer Steve Englund told the panel that the ESA is still firmly opposed to allowing libraries to preserve older video games. Video game preservationists have lobbied for exceptions to copyright law that would allow for scholarly or educational access to video games. The ESA’s ongoing concern is that civilians would access these games, whether for their own private collections, or to share them with others in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.</em></p><p><em>Englund said there exists no “combination of limitations [the ESA] would support to provide remote access.” (<a href="https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/esa-org-won-t-cooperate-game-preservation">via GameDeveloper.com</a>.) His remarks came at a hearing on Thursday. Video game preservation advocate Phil Salvador <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/philsalv.bsky.social/post/3kqgfrq3wkl26">posted a Twitch stream of the hearing</a> to Bluesky the same day.</em></p></blockquote><p>Salvador is part of the Video Game History Foundation, a group we’ve talked about in <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/company/video-game-history-foundation/">the past</a> and which has preserving video games as its core mission. While the ESA claims that it should be libraries at universities doing any of this preservation work anyway, Salvador told the Copyright Office that it’s simply not being done. And, even if it were, Englund said that the ESA would still have a concern over copyright issues.</p><p>What is absent from any of this is literally any alternative for how antiquated games should be preserved instead of simply winking out of existence. As of now, this is purely a binary choice thanks to such opposition: either publishers will preserve the games on their own, or they won’t be preserved at all. And, as we have talked about in previous posts, far too often the latter ends up being the case.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>In July 2023, Salvador and the VGHF <a href="https://gamehistory.org/study-explainer/">published a study</a> that said 87 percent of video games released in the United States before 2010 haven’t been preserved in any meaningful way.</em></p><p><em>“Since 2015, libraries, museums, and archives in the United States have been petitioning the Copyright Office for new exemptions that would make it easier for them to preserve games and make those games available to researchers,” the study said. “Each time, game industry lobbyists have opposed these new exemptions.”</em></p></blockquote><p>This is completely nonsensical. If the ESA’s stance is that all of this cultural output should be without preservation in the long term, let them come out and say it. It would be one hell of a stance to take. But stated plainly or not, that is the reality of what the ESA is advocating for.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/30/esa-once-again-comes-out-against-video-game-preservation-efforts/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>27</slash:comments> <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">436879</post-id> </item> <item> <title>Black Cop Beaten By White Cops Awarded More Than $23 Million In Damages</title> <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/30/black-cop-beaten-by-white-cops-awarded-more-than-23-million-in-damages/</link> <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/30/black-cop-beaten-by-white-cops-awarded-more-than-23-million-in-damages/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim Cushing]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:33:00 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[1]]></category> <category><![CDATA[civil suit]]></category> <category><![CDATA[police]]></category> <category><![CDATA[police brutality]]></category> <category><![CDATA[st. louis]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=437101&preview=true&preview_id=437101</guid> <description><![CDATA[Cops will apparently beat their own, especially if they’re bigoted cops and willing to beat the next black person they see. St. Louis police officer was working undercover during protests following the acquittal of Officer Jason Stockley, who had been charged with murder for the killing of a black St. Louis resident, Anthony Lamar Smith. […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cops will apparently beat their own, especially if they’re bigoted cops and willing to beat the next black person they see. St. Louis police officer was working undercover during protests following the acquittal of Officer Jason Stockley, who had been charged with murder for the killing of a black St. Louis resident, Anthony Lamar Smith. </p><p>Officer Hall was just doing his police work when he happened upon five members of the PD’s “Civil Disobedience Team.” Civil disobedience was apparently their directive, not their purview. Four of the officers threw Hall to the ground and beat him severely. All four officers <a href="https://archive.ph/YkaYT" data-type="link" data-id="https://archive.ph/YkaYT">were ultimately indicted and put on trial</a> for the beating of their fellow officer.</p><p>One of those officers, Dustin Boone, made an appearance <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2021/05/20/violent-bigoted-cop-accused-beating-another-cop-is-upset-his-text-messages-expose-him-as-violent-bigot/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2021/05/20/violent-bigoted-cop-accused-beating-another-cop-is-upset-his-text-messages-expose-him-as-violent-bigot/">here at Techdirt back in 2021</a>. During his criminal trial, his lawyer objected to the prosecution’s introduction of his racist text messages as evidence of his intent to do harm to Officer Hall… or at least anyone else who looked like him. They’re quite the read. </p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>It’s already a state of emergency! There are r niggers running wild all across the city and even if/when we catch them….. they don’t get in any trouble because there are plate lips running the CAO!</em></p></blockquote><p>That was sent to a group text that included several other St. Louis police officers. This one was sent to a group text including the names “Kayla, Kelsea, Mom, Ashley Marie, Dad:”</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>What city r we in?</em></p><p><em>These fuckin niggers r the same as St. Louis niggers.</em></p></blockquote><p>The good news is most of the cops involved <a href="https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-courts/st-louis-judge-awards-nearly-23-5m-to-undercover-cop-beaten-during-stockley-protest/article_6598f87c-fb3c-11ee-8d32-ef15bfa7bff5.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-courts/st-louis-judge-awards-nearly-23-5m-to-undercover-cop-beaten-during-stockley-protest/article_6598f87c-fb3c-11ee-8d32-ef15bfa7bff5.html">ended up serving time for this beating</a>. </p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p><em>Boone <a href="https://archive.ph/o/jIDZy/https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/former-st-louis-cop-gets-366-days-for-attack-on-undercover-colleague/article_6f8245a6-12d4-591b-afa6-eb180154fe46.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">was sentenced to a year and a da</a>y in federal prison after being convicted by a jury of a single civil rights charge. [Christopher] Myers <a href="https://archive.ph/o/jIDZy/https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/former-st-louis-cop-gets-1-year-of-probation-in-luther-hall-beating-case/article_115942a3-f57f-53dc-8736-fce2f95e87eb.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">was sentenced to probation</a> after pleading guilty to a single felony charge, and [Bailey] <a href="https://archive.ph/o/jIDZy/https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/ex-st-louis-police-officer-gets-probation-for-lying-to-fbi-grand-jury-in-colleagues/article_2816ca59-89e7-5687-a6ee-74a884b46ed2.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Colletta got probation</a> for lying to the FBI and a grand jury about the attack. [Steven] <a href="https://archive.ph/o/jIDZy/https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/jury-returns-mixed-verdict-in-trial-of-current-and-former-st-louis-officers-accused-of/article_6fcacd9a-8cc3-5acc-9049-bd19cf30eb59.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Korte was acquitted</a> of the charges against him. </em></p></blockquote><p>The former officer being hit with a $23 million settlement is Randy Hays, who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years and four months in prison. Hall’s lawsuit was served to Hays while he was still incarcerated, but Hays failed to respond to it. </p><p>So, the judgment here is a default judgment. And while Hays may have had plenty of time to respond to it, thanks to having nowhere else to go until his time was served, he probably didn’t have a lot of available cash to hire a lawyer to fight the lawsuit. Plus, he had already pleaded guilty and admitted to taking part in the beating, so there weren’t a whole lot of options available to defend himself with.</p><p>Hays will have a year to challenge this default judgment. He probably won’t. While it may look like justice, it’s incredibly unlikely Hays has anywhere near $23 million in assets. And with an actual federal felony on his record, his employment options will be limited. (I mean, at least <em>outside</em> of law enforcement.)</p><p>Hall still has a pending lawsuit against Meyers and Boone. And he’s already secured a settlement from the city for $5 million, so at least he’s getting something out of this beyond two titanium plates in his neck, the removal of his gall bladder, a fused vertebrae, and a deep distrust of law enforcement. That’s how his 22-year career as a cop ended: as the victim of a beating delivered by some members of the “Thin Blue Line” who suddenly decided a black man they didn’t immediately recognize must be on the wrong side of the line.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/30/black-cop-beaten-by-white-cops-awarded-more-than-23-million-in-damages/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>32</slash:comments> <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">437101</post-id> </item> <item> <title>Techdirt Podcast Episode 389: Talking TikTok</title> <link>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/30/techdirt-podcast-episode-389-talking-tiktok/</link> <comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/30/techdirt-podcast-episode-389-talking-tiktok/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Leigh Beadon]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2024 20:37:00 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[1]]></category> <category><![CDATA[bytedance]]></category> <category><![CDATA[tiktok]]></category> <category><![CDATA[tiktok ban]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=437310&preview=true&preview_id=437310</guid> <description><![CDATA[We’ve got one more cross-post episode for you today, then next week we’re back with a brand new discussion. Recently, Mike joined the Daily Beast’s The New Abnormal podcast with host Andy Levy for a conversation about the big news from last week: Biden signing a bill that will ban TikTok in the US if […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="float: right; margin-left: 12px; margin-bottom: 2px; line-height: 1;"><a href="https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=4450624&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Ftechdirt"><img decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/widget-images/become-patron-widget-medium%402x.png?resize=204%2C40&ssl=1" width="204" height="40" data-recalc-dims="1"></a></div><p>We’ve got one more cross-post episode for you today, then next week we’re back with a brand new discussion. Recently, Mike joined <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-new-abnormal/id1508202790">the Daily Beast’s <em>The New Abnormal</em></a> podcast with host Andy Levy for a conversation about the big news from last week: Biden signing a bill that will ban TikTok in the US if owner ByteDance doesn’t divest from it. The <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trumps-campaign-shifts-strategy-for-its-part-time-candidate/id1508202790?i=1000653645212">full episode</a> of <em>The New Abnormal</em> covers other topics as well, or you can listen to <a href="https://soundcloud.com/techdirt/talking-tiktok">Mike’s segment isolated here on this week’s episode</a>. </p><figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-soundcloud wp-block-embed-soundcloud"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper"><iframe title="Talking TikTok by Techdirt" width="500" height="400" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?visual=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F1811363961&show_artwork=true&maxheight=750&maxwidth=500"></iframe></div></figure><p><em>Follow the Techdirt Podcast on <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://soundcloud.com/techdirt" target="_blank">Soundcloud</a>, subscribe via <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/techdirt/id940871872?mt=2" target="_blank">Apple Podcasts</a> or <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://open.spotify.com/show/6qXCFL3MjSpiD8O0pZgcsi" target="_blank">Spotify</a>, or grab the <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.techdirt.com/podcast.xml" target="_blank">RSS feed</a>. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/blog/podcast/">right here on Techdirt</a>.</em></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/30/techdirt-podcast-episode-389-talking-tiktok/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> <post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">437310</post-id> </item> </channel></rss>If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:
Download the "valid RSS" banner.
Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)
Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):
If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:
http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//www.techdirt.com/techdirt_rss.xml
