Law
What's better for free speech on reddit, saving a single thread or getting the whole site unbanned in Russia?
If the choice is between all of reddit remaining banned in most of Russia and IP-blocking access to one thread about mushrooms, I’d block access to the thread. I think there’s a far stronger “pro-free-speech” argument for restoring access to 99.99% of reddit for Russians rather than inciting a total ban by refusing to restrict access to a single post.
Photo by Kirill Vinokurov, from Wikimedia
Facial Recognition Software Moves From Overseas Wars to Local Police
Facial Recognition Software Moves From Overseas Wars to Local Police
This is troubling:
Lt. Scott Wahl, a spokesman for the 1,900-member San Diego Police Department, said the department does not require police officers to file a report when they use the facial recognition technology but do not make an arrest. The department has no record of the stops involving Mr. Hanson and Mr. Harvey, and Lieutenant Wahl said that he did not know about the incidents but that they could have happened.
Should police departments be allowed to use facial recognition?
Yes.
Should they be able to use it with minimal consent, oversight and reporting requirements?
No.
Image from Wikimedia
Can the FTC ban digital goods?
Can the FTC ban digital goods?
Brent Kendall, writing at The Wall Street Journal:
The current case is about patents, but the ITC also can take action against goods that infringe copyrights, an issue important to Hollywood and other rights holders. They are eyeing the ITC as a new venue for combating foreign websites that trade in pirated digital material and the ability of U.S. consumers to access them.
If the court hearing this case on August 11th upholds the FTC’s decision to exercise its import ban authority in the digital realm the ramifications will be far-reaching and almost immediate. Music and movies, 3D printing, and perhaps even digitally transmitted and executed software code would be among the items open to FTC authority. The Federal Trade Commission has very little expertise in the digital space, so making the arbiters of what digital imports are okay and which are not may not be an intelligent approach.
Do we need a Digital Transmission Commission? If the FTC is to get digital ban authority it will need strong oversight.
Photo by Uberpenguin at Wikipedia
Federal Court's data breach decision shows new tilt toward victims, class-action lawsuits
Federal Court’s data breach decision shows new tilt toward victims, class-action lawsuits
John Fontana writes at ZDNet:
In an interesting twist, the Court said the fact Neiman Marcus offered free credit monitoring services was evidence that there was harm to these victims. The ruling turned on its head the way courts historically view such services as compensation for harm while negating a victim's right to file a lawsuit (re: standing).
This may get very interesting very fast: if companies are at risk of being held ot have tacitly admitted liability by offering credit protection services to potential breach victims, they will stop offering that stuff.
The possibility of class actions instead of free credit monitoring may appeal to those whose data has been stolen, but it’s not really a great trade at all. Credit monitoring is expensive and the industry is still suffering growing pains, but class actions usually net plaintiffs an insignificant amount of money in damages while making lawyers very, very rich.
"Happy birthday" lawsuit takes a(n unexpectedly interesting) turn
“Happy birthday” lawsuit takes a(n unexpectedly interesting) turn
Did you know copyright lawyers have waged a legal battle over ‘Happy Birthday’ for a long time? They have, and, somehow, it recently got interesting.
If this proposition is accepted by the judge, Warner/Chappell may lose out on a cash cow that is reported to reap $2 million a year in revenue. Filmmakers like the named plaintiffs — and others who have forked over as much as six figures to license — would no longer have to pay a penny to feature "Happy Birthday" in motion pictures and television shows.
If the copyright the company has been using for years to charge people licensing fees is invalidated, we may see a whole lot of lawsuits aimed at the would-be copyright holders to recoup those licensing fees.
"Birthday candles," Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
China-Tied Hackers That Hit U.S. Said to Breach United Airlines
China-Tied Hackers That Hit U.S. Said to Breach United Airlines
This is starting to look like a concerted effort to gather a specific data set for some sort of coordinated use:
The previously unreported United breach raises the possibility that the hackers now have data on the movements of millions of Americans, adding airlines to a growing list of strategic U.S. industries and institutions that have been compromised. Among the cache of data stolen from United are manifests -- which include information on flights’ passengers, origins and destinations -- according to one person familiar with the carrier’s investigation.
Drone regulation, firefighting and basic decency
Drone regulation, firefighting and basic decency
Michael Martinez, Paul Vercammen and Ben Brumfield report at CNN:
Five such "unmanned aircraft systems" prevented California firefighters from dispatching helicopters with water buckets for up to 20 minutes over a wildfire that roared Friday onto a Los Angeles area freeway that leads to Las Vegas.
This is an inappropriate use of drones, wholly lacking in basic decency. It’s not impossible, or even implausible, that a drone-related delay will some day result in the destruction of one or more homes or even get someone burned to death.
It’s not far removed from scumbaggery like the Ohio jackass who filmed the aftermath of a fatal car accident instead of helping the victims. Drone enthusiasts who want to minimize regulation already have a tough road ahead, so they would be wise to engage in some self-regulation.
Connecticut lawyer and commercial drone lobbyist Peter Sachs created the Drone Pilots Association to advocate for more commercial drone use. There is even video on his website of his using a drone to assist the volunteer fire department he works with.
The difference between sachs and the California morons is that Sachs offered his drone to the department for its use in battling a blaze. So it’s clear that drones can be a useful tool in fighting fires, they just shouldn’t be used for fire tourism when firefighters, homes and civilians are potentially in danger.
Photo of a 2008 California wildefire via Wikimedia Commons
Democracy.io - Contact your Members of Congress
Democracy.io - Contact your Members of Congress
Great stuff from the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
Failure to effectively reach members of Congress has disastrous consequences. Studies show that politicians fundamentally misconceive their constituents’ views, making it harder for them to represent us in the lawmaking process.That’s why we built Democracy.io: a new tool to put you in touch with your members of Congress—with as few clicks as possible.
Google's alleged gender-based pay disparity
Ex-Googler says she exposed company-wide pay inequality with crowdsourced spreadsheet
Kristen V. Brown wrote for Fusion about Googler Erica Joy’s recent salary spreadsheet. Google had no response to her request for comment, which is the worst kind of response to something like this. Apple released, deliberately, a dismal diversity report (read: majority male, majority white) last year, and Tim Cook took responsibility for fixing it.
If there is a pay disparity problem at Google, or even the illusion of a pay disparity problem, Google PR needs to be on top of this story. The only time silence is ever okay is when you’re prepping a statement that will include unequivocal evidence that there is no disparity.
Antitrust official inappropriately lauds Amazon's "disruptive business model"
Antitrust official inappropriately lauds Amazon’s “disruptive business model”
DOJ antitrust head William J. Baer, speaking at a London antitrust conference:
By conspiring with Apple, which was seeking a fail-safe way to enter the market, five major publishers and Apple reached an agreement to drive the industry to an agency sales model and seize back control over and raise retail pricing of e-books. The department successfully challenged this conspiracy to quash Amazon’s disruptive business model, forcing the defendants to terminate the contractual agreements they had used to effectuate the conspiracy. Since then, Amazon’s disruptive business model has continued to stoke competition in the e-books marketplace.
That is an inappropriate way for a federal antitrust official to speak about a major market participant. Amazon did not make noise about Apple’s ebooks collusion for the good of its customers. They did it because low prices keep them on top, and because no other company is willing to bear the losses Amazon can endure, there is no end to their dominance in sight.
Apple’s attempt to raise prices in cooperation with five publishers did not end well for the Cupertino company and rightly so, but their motivations were logical. Amazon maintains low prices and therefore the illusion that they are doing customers a favor, and in the long run doing authors and publishers a favor by expanding the pool of would-be customers who can afford ebooks.
However, there is at least some truth to the concerns authors and publishers have expressed about Amazon’s dominance. The company is in a position to decide what books a large majority of book buyers can access. It’s a wise short-term strategy both business-wise and legally because it is as quiet and passive as Apple’s conspiracy was bold and aggressive. But long-term it’s likely to expose the company to regulatory inquiry at a time when Amazon is contemplating things like drone delivery, which will likely face stiffer regulation sooner than later, especially when put to retail use.
Of course based on Assistant Attorney General Baer’s comments at the Chatham House Annual Antitrust Conference, Amazon has at least one friend in a position, and a mindset, to lionize them despite questionable competition strategies.
Obama Plans Broader Use of Clemency to Free Nonviolent Drug Offenders
Obama Plans Broader Use of Clemency to Free Nonviolent Drug Offenders
Peter Baker of The New York Times:
In his second term, Mr. Obama embarked on an effort to use clemency and has raised his total commutations to 43, a number he may double this month. The initiative was begun last year by James M. Cole, then the deputy attorney general, who set criteria for who might qualify: generally nonviolent inmates who have served more than 10 years in prison, have behaved well while incarcerated and would not have received as lengthy a sentence under today’s revised rules.
Overincarceration is a real problem. Like any decent lawyer, I’ll cite a few reliable sources.
I don’t have an answer. Longtime readers will know I’m a cynical bastard, despite my best efforts to the contrary. It seems to me like this move is more for the “optics” and less for real effect, but I’d love to be wrong.
Primary source: White House press release
Photo by me
The Verge made a FAA drone exemption search engine
The Verge made a FAA drone exemption search engine
Ben Popper reports at The Verge:
We have partnered with the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College to collect data on every commercial exemption the FAA grants. It's a fascinating snapshot of a fast-growing industry still in its infancy. [The result] is an interactive database that allows you to drill deeper into details, exploring the companies that have been given permission to fly and what they are planning to do with their drones. You can also search by state and figure out who near you is planning to put a drone in the sky.
Photo by Capricorn4049
.jpg){kind=link}
When a Company Is Put Up for Sale, in Many Cases, Your Personal Data Is, Too
When a Company Is Put Up for Sale, in Many Cases, Your Personal Data Is, Too
I have written about this before, but it’s worth reminding you. These days many companies offer an official privacy policy and an easier-to-read but not so official abridged version. Sometimes the two do not agree:
One example is Nest, an Internet-connected thermostat company that enables people to control their home energy use via their mobile devices. Acquired by Google for $3.2 billion last year, Nest has different online privacy pages with seemingly conflicting statements.One page, in colloquial English, says that the company values trust: “It’s why we work hard to protect your data. And why your info is not for sale. To anyone.”
Another page, containing Nest’s official privacy policy, however, says: “Upon the sale or transfer of the company and/or all or part of its assets, your personal information may be among the items sold or transferred.”
I know privacy policies are long and boring, but it’s worth at least scanning them to get a sense of what will happen to the information the company collects about you if they ever sell or go under. You may not like what you find.
Photograph by KylaBorg, of graffiti by Zabou
.jpg){kind=link}
Philly diner's SCOTUS-inspired brunch menu following same-sex marriage ruling
Philly diner’s SCOTUS-inspired brunch menu following same-sex marriage ruling
Oh Philadelphia, how I miss you sometimes. Danya Henninger writes at Billy Penn:
Over the weekend, Sam’s Morning Glory Diner ran a pair of specials that sold out faster than any dish in the South Philly restaurant’s 17-year history. It wasn’t the ingredients that made them a hit — although they were reportedly delicious — it was their titles, which referenced the Supreme Court’s historic June 26 ruling that the right to same-sex marriage is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
I’m not going to tell you here, so go read Henninger’s article. The menu items are, appropriately, glorious. And the best part? The owner of the Morning Glory, who approved the names before they went on the menu, is a lawyer.
Modern Law for the Week Ending June 26, 2015
This week I devote the entire newsletter to the Supreme Court decision declaring bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. I try to provide a variety of viewpoints despite the fact that I agree with the general assertion that the Constitution does not permit bans on the marriage of two consenting unrelated adults.
I also thought it prudent to include in this week’s introduction my own in-depth legal analysis of the ruling, which I have worked on for years in anticipation of today’s decision and present now in its voluminous and intellectually unassailable entirety:
Huzzah!
Now, on with the links.
Monster sues their way out of Apple's licensed accessories program
Apple Revokes Monster’s Authority to Make Licensed Accessories
Daisuke Wakabayashi writes at The Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Tognotti said he told Apple that the move would significantly disrupt Monster’s business and that the two companies had worked well for years, with Monster paying Apple more than $12 million in licensing fees since 2008. Monster said roughly 900 of its more than 4,000 products were made through the MFi program.
Lawyers are paid to be good at chess. Monster’s counsel should have seen this coming and advised executives that they should pursue their lawsuit against Apple only if the potential upside would vastly outweigh the likely downside of a licensing termination.
Photo of Monster’s HQ courtesy Wikipedia user Coolcaesar
Petraeus' preferential punishment
Petraeus' preferential punishment
Mitch Weiss of the Associated Press reports:
A federal judge in Charlotte unsealed the documents Monday, two months after the retired four-star general was sentenced to two years of probation and fined $100,000 for unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.
Once again, it’s hard to see this as anything but hypocrisy from the letter-writers. After all, he didn’t merely disclose classified information, he did it in the context of moral turpitude (providing it to his then-mistress/biographer), and then he lied about it.
Speaking of context, here’s a bit more about someone who only disclosed classified information, with no moral turpitude or subsequent lying:
Supporters of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer convicted of giving a New York Times reporter classified details of an operation to derail Iran's nuclear ambitions, had noted the Petraeus case. Sterling was sentenced last month to 42 months in prison, but federal prosecutors in Virginia had been urging a stiffer sentence.
Perhaps some people will agree Petraeus, a retired four-star general, should get more latitude than mere officers and analysts would get. But he was the head of the CIA at the time of his offense, and should have been a shining example of perfect adherence to national security classification regulations. Isn’t it possible that the head of the CIA had information even more sensitive than the anti-nuclear Iran operation disclosed by Sterling?
Of course it is possible, and likely. So it’s hard to see justice in an outcome that results in zero jail time for Petraeus.
Previously: Petraeus reaches plea deal with Justice Department - joeross.me/blog
Public domain CIA-produced image found at Wikipedia
Crisis shelter workers want Google Maps to hide the locations of their shelters
Crisis shelter workers want Google Maps to hide the locations of their shelters
Selena Larson reports at The Daily Dot:
Crisis shelters provide a safe haven for victims and their families; they are a refuge away from abusers. By publicly listing shelter locations online, Google is endangering victims of domestic abuse, says Jeremy Janice, a facilities coordinator at a Louisiana crisis center.
It’s yet another example of my white American cis-male privilege that it never even occurred to me that this is problematic. I hope Google comes up with a solution that helps keep people safe. I’m not sure how effective Change.org petitions really are, but you can sign the one relevant to this issue here.
The image is a blurred Google Maps image depicting domestic violence shelters in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York.
Appeals court keeps immigration policy on hold
Appeals court keeps immigration policy on hold
Lyle Denniston writes at SCOTUSBlog:
Under the policy, some 4.3 million individuals who entered the country illegally and remained without permission would be given a status of “lawful presence” in this country — well short of citizenship, and with no guarantee that they could stay even for the three-year delay period specified — and would qualify for both some federal benefits, like work permits, and some state benefits, like drivers’ licenses.
I spoke with immigration attorneys recently about the avalanche of work this policy is expected to generate if it ever goes into effect. There are many people whose future depends largely on the outcome of the ongoing dispute about the legality of the program.
Image by Gulbenk at Wikipedia
