About Techdirt.
Started in 1997 by Floor64 founder Mike Masnick and then growing into a group blogging effort, the Techdirt blog relies on a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies’ ability to innovate and grow. As the impact of technological innovation on society, civil liberties and consumer rights has grown, Techdirt’s coverage has expanded to include these critical topics.
The dynamic and interactive community of Techdirt readers often comment on the addictive quality of the content on the site, a feeling supported by the blog’s average of ~1 million visitors per month and more than 1.7 million comments on 73,000+ posts. Both Business Week and Forbes have awarded Techdirt Best of the Web thought leader awards.
You can also find Techdirt on Twitter and Facebook.
About Floor64
Floor64 has been generating insights and developing insight platforms for over 22 years — and doing so in unique and innovative ways designed to help drive businesses forward, rather than keeping them tied to the past. We manage both Techdirt and the Copia Institute.
Floor64’s offices are located in Redwood City, CA. Please see our Contact page, if you’d like to get in touch with us.
Bill Limiting Data Broker Sales To Law Enforcement Moves Forward
from the little-bit-more-Fourth-for-everyone dept
The Supreme Court made it clear in 2018 with its Carpenter decision: gathering historical cell site location info in bulk was impermissible under the Fourth Amendment. If law enforcement wanted to engage in third-party-enabled long term tracking of suspects via this info, it needed to get a warrant first.
That ruling seemed to make everything crystal clear. But it didn’t. Law enforcement sought other ways to obtain this same data without having to run anything by a judge. Central to the Carpenter decision were cell service providers. This was the government approaching these providers to obtain location data dating back to whatever data investigators thought might be useful.
The Carpenter decision rolled back a bit of the Third Party Doctrine. The Supreme Court said in this ruling that people may be aware cell service providers are gathering this data (something essential to ensuring cell service), but that wasn’t the same thing as giving the government permission to access weeks or months of this data without a warrant.
With this one subset of third parties excised from the Third Party Doctrine, government agencies began looking for other sources not specifically referenced by this ruling. And they found them. Any number of data brokers harvest location data from cell phone apps and sell access to this data to the government.
As it stands now, this is still technically legal. But it’s only technically legal because no one has had an opportunity to directly challenge this warrantless acquisition in court. Meanwhile, data brokers continue to give the government what it wants: lots of data at low, low prices, all of it accessible by utilizing nothing more than a cleared check and laptop.
Courts can’t change this new status quo on their own. They need a suppression request worth considering before they can do anything about it. And even if they could do something about it, they might not because the Carpenter decision only deals with cell phone providers, rather than app developers and their data brokering remoras.
In many cases, courts are content to declare their hands are tied and suggest everyone take it up with Congress. That’s not much help to criminal defendants, who not only can’t approach Congress directly, but are likely to lose their voting privileges if convicted.
Fortunately, there’s still a handful of people on Capitol Hill willing to take matters into their own hands. Leading the way is fervent Fourth Amendment defender Ron Wyden, who first introduced a bill in 2021 that would codify a warrant requirement for acquiring Americans’ cell phone data from data brokers. Thanks to Wyden and bill co-sponsors/supporters Rand Paul, Zoe Lofgren, Warren Davidson, and Jerry Nadler, Wyden’s “Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act” has moved to the next level.
The bill passed out of the House Judiciary Committee, heading one step up the ladder towards the President’s desk. We’ll have to see if it goes to the full floor of the House or what the Senate decides to do with the bill, but for now there’s progress being made. As Wyden points out in his press release, the government should have to hand over more than a handful of taxpayers’ cash to obtain data that basically acts as a long-term tracking device.
“The Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale Act will restore Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights and stop the government from using its credit card when it should be getting a warrant,” Wyden said. “Regular Americans who use their phones on a daily basis are not consenting to send all their movements, contacts and web browsing information to the government. I applaud the Judiciary Committee for advancing our bill on a bipartisan basis, and look forward to following suit in the Senate.
And that’s the way it should be. The government shouldn’t be allowed to bypass the Fourth Amendment just because it’s not acquiring this data explicitly from cell phone service providers. The data serves the same purpose and provides the same kind of evidence law enforcement desires. And if it’s the same thing as cell site location info, it should need a warrant to gather it in bulk.
Filed Under: 4th amendment, data brokers, jerry nadler, privacy, rand paul, ron wyden, warrants, warren davidson, zoe lofgren
Telecom Stocks Plummet After Report Shows Many Cables Lined With Lead
from the comes-around-goes-around dept
While the telecom industry did manage to successfully defang U.S. consumer protection regulators for the better part of the last decade, they’re still facing some notable headwinds. Broadband growth has dramatically slowed, their cable TV customers are leaving in droves, and while they are getting a ton of new subsidies via the infrastructure bill, a lot of that is going to very popular new publicly-owned competitors.
But there’s another major worry: a new report by the Wall Street Journal (paywalled) showed huge swaths of telecom cabling installed years ago was coated in lead, posing significant health concerns. In response, AT&T did was AT&T always does, which was basically pretend that none of it was real:
Based on information shared by The Journal, it appears that certain of their testing methodologies are flawed and one of the companies responsible for the testing is compromised by a conflict of interest.
But the pressure is on to remove and re-install any lead-coated cabling, and the mounting costs of such a project (estimated to be somewhere around $60 billion) pummeled already reeling telecom stocks for most of last week:
The telecom stocks were already having a rough year. Over the past 12 months, including today’s results, AT&T’s stock is down 34.1 percent. Verizon is down 37.4 percent over the past year. Lumen and Frontier are down 84.2 percent and 52.8 percent during the past 12 months, respectively.
There’s some irony here given that the telecom industry has successfully engaged in one of the most successful lobbying campaigns in recent memory. The Trump FCC was basically a puppet for industry, and the Biden FCC has lacked any competent voting majority thanks to both inherent fecklessness and the industry’s assault on the nomination of Gigi Sohn. Lobbying couldn’t conquer reality, though.
With AT&T’s network being the oldest, they likely face the greatest costs. And while consumers will inevitably be the ones to pay for it (either through higher rates or the government bailing AT&T out with taxpayer money), maybe we could instead use some of the money AT&T reportedly stole from the U.S. school system to fund the repairs instead?
Filed Under: dsl, health, lead, networks, phone, public, telecom
Elon Musk Can’t Pay Twitter Severance, But He And The Tesla Board Just Agreed To Pay Back $735 Million In Excess Compensation
from the soon-we're-talking-about-real-money dept
Apparently, Elon Musk has little to no interest in paying ex-employees the $500 million in severance he owes them (which was included in the purchase agreement he signed, but which it’s unclear if he ever read), but he (and the close friends and family he stuffed the Tesla board with) need to pay back $735 million in excess compensation that Tesla paid them.
This is the result of a settlement in a years long case, initially filed by the Police and Fire Retirement System of Detroit, which was a Tesla shareholder, which sued, claiming that the board was a bunch of Musk cronies who overpaid themselves. And while the case has gone on for years, it’s now reached the settlement stage, with Musk and the board saying they’ll pay back a bunch of money, and limit their own compensation for a few years as well.
Using the valuation methods set forth in this Stipulation, Director Defendants shall deliver to Tesla the value of the Settlement Options, which is equal to $735,266,505 (seven hundred thirty-five million, two hundred sixty-six thousand, five hundred five U.S. Dollars) (“Settlement Option Amount”). The Settlement Option Amount consists of (i) $458,649,785 in Returned Options, using the valuation method for Returned Options set forth in Section 2.3 of this Stipulation, and (ii) $276,616,720 in Returned Cash and/or Returned Stock, combined, using the valuation methods for Returned Cash and Returned Stock set forth in Sections 2.4 and 2.5, respectively, of this Stipulation. In the event that Director Defendants return a different combination of (i) Returned Options and (ii) Returned Cash and/or Returned Stock than what is reflected in this Section 2.6, such adjustment shall not decrease the Settlement Option Amount, and Director Defendants shall inform the Court of any such adjustments no later than five (5) Business Days prior to the Settlement Hearing.
The money just goes right back to Tesla, so it’s not like this has a big impact directly on Musk, but it’s still a fair bit of cash. Of course, I do wonder how the directors implicated here will split the bill (since they’re “jointly and severally” they are all responsible for paying up the whole amount, and no one can walk away saying the others need to pay). But, of course, between just Musk and Larry Ellison they can pay the money back.
The settlement also says that compensation for the next few years should be voted on by all shareholders, rather than just the board rewarding itself:
On an annual basis, Tesla shall submit the proposed annual compensation to be paid to Non-Employee Directors to an approval vote of the majority of Unaffiliated Tesla Stockholders present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote on such decision. For purposes of this Stipulation, “Unaffiliated Tesla Stockholders” means all Tesla stockholders of record other than (i) Defendants and (ii) Other Tesla Directors (but only while such Other Tesla Directors serve on the Tesla Board). For the avoidance of doubt, Defendants and Other Tesla Directors (but only while such Other Tesla Directors serve on the Tesla Board) shall (with respect to any and all shares over which they hold beneficial ownership, as that term is defined in 17 CFR § 240.13d-3(a)) abstain from voting in their capacity as stockholders on the votes required by this Section and shall not be counted as shares present or entitled to vote for purposes of determining the majority.
It also says that Tesla’s board will also lose out on 2021 through 2023 compensation.
Director Defendants shall forego permanently the 2021 and 2022 Foregone Options (to the extent Director Defendants served on the Tesla Board during such period) and shall not hereafter receive any compensation for Tesla Board service for 2021 or 2022. The Current Director Defendants shall also forego permanently any compensation for Tesla Board service for 2023.
On an unrelated note, is Elon still the only Board member for Twitter?
Filed Under: board compensation, elon musk
Companies: tesla
Apple Says It Will Exit The UK Market If Government Passes Update To Investigatory Powers Act
from the you've-been-warned dept
Apple fought the law and — contrary to the song lyrics — it won. Years later, Apple decided it would get ahead of the law enforcement curve by attempting to engage in client-side scanning of iPhone users’ content. That worked out less well for Apple, which (at least momentarily) decided making governments happy was more important than protecting its customers.
Since setting itself on fire, Apple has reverted to its former self: the company that prides itself on user privacy and security. Plenty of world governments hate Apple for doing this. But they don’t have any leverage. Apple products and services are far more popular with government constituents than the governments themselves. So, when governments start making unreasonable demands, the simplest solution is to GTFO.
Apple has consistently opposed the act, originally dubbed a “snooper’s charter” by critics. Its submission to the current consultation is nine pages long, opposing:
- having to tell the Home Office of any changes to product security features before they are released
- the requirement for non-UK-based companies to comply with changes that would affect their product globally – such as providing a backdoor to end-to-end encryption
- having to take action immediately if a notice to disable or block a feature is received from the Home Office, rather than waiting until after the demand has been reviewed or appealed against
Apple says:
- It would not make changes to security features specifically for one country that would weaken a product for all users.
- Some changes would require issuing a software update so could not be made secretly
- The proposals “constitute a serious and direct threat to data security and information privacy” that would affect people outside the UK
This is Apple’s response to proposed changes to the “Snooper’s Charter,” a.k.a. the Investigatory Powers Act. Apple has already expressed extreme reluctance to engage in encryption breaking or client-side scanning as proposed by the European Union.
Amendments to the IPA would undermine Apple’s security features. Because of that, Apple’s comment submission lets the UK government know that if it moves ahead with these changes, UK customers will no longer have access to FaceTime or iMessage. And if those two offerings aren’t available, it hardly makes senses for UK residents to purchase iPhones if they wish to have access to secure communications options.
And this latest government intrusion would be on top of whatever eventually makes its way into the Online Safety Act, a parallel bit of legislation which would impose client-side scanning on service providers. And that imposition means those offering end-to-end encryption would have to weaken or break their encryption to spy on users’ communications. This proposal has also faced heavy resistance, but proponents of the law seem pretty fucking resilient and have refused to back down from these demands, unlike the EU Commission, which has pretty much abandoned its demands for broken encryption. (Also of note: the EU Court of Justice found IPA’s predecessor to be unlawful back in 2016. Brexit makes this meaningless, but it does demonstrate how far outside the bounds of respected rights this proposal treads.)
If the UK government decides it’s more important to give the government power than give constituents secure communication options, UK residents will end up having to utilize whatever options remain. And those options will be far less secure and far more sketchy than those long-offered by tech companies who have spent years improving the security of their offerings.
Filed Under: encryption, investigatory powers act, security, snooper's charter, surveillance, uk
Companies: apple
Daily Deal: HomeSpot Rugged Waterproof Bluetooth Speaker
from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept
The HomeSpot Rugged Waterproof Bluetooth Speaker was built to keep up with your adventures. It deflects dust, dirt, and water – and is coated with a rubberized surface that you’ll feel comfortable bringing camping, rafting, and beyond. Best of all, this speaker truly delivers powerful sound that will fill even outdoor spaces with impressive audio. It’s on sale for $30.
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.
Filed Under: daily deal
Once Again, Mainstream Media Falls For A Fake TikTok Challenge, Creating Yet Another Moral Panic
from the the-moral-panic-challenge dept
It seems to happen over and over again, and the mainstream media always makes it worse. The mainstream media hears about a “TikTok challenge,” reports on it like crazy, and people freak out that TikTok is destroying the children or some such.
And every single time, it turns out that the media got the story wrong. Often ridiculously so. There was the “devious licks” challenge, which at least had some basis in truth, but which TikTok cracked down on almost immediately. But when good reporters scratched the surface they found that it was mostly kids pranking adults, making them think that something bad was going to happen.
But, even worse, there was a big moral panic about the “slap a teacher” challenge that the media got up in arms about. Only, that one turned out to have been literally made up by some random adult and then spread by a school cop on Facebook, claiming that it was an upcoming TikTok challenge. Or the “school violence challenge,” which was reported all over the media, causing many schools to shut down entirely for the day, where there is no indication that it was ever actually a thing. And, if it was, the news was spread much more widely by TV news anchors freaking out about it without any evidence that it was real. And, no, the NyQuil chicken challenge was never actually a thing.
And now there’s been another one. At the Washington Post, Taylor Lorenz highlights how the Today Show did a segment about “the boat jump challenge” in which kids were allegedly jumping from moving boats into the water for clout on TikTok. Only problem it was all made up.
But it was all untrue. There is no boat jumping challenge on TikTok. Before the media frenzy, no boat jumping videos had gone viral on TikTok, and no hashtag related to jumping off boats had ever been popular on TikTok, according to the company. Not a single trending audio on TikTok has ever been linked to jumping off boats.
The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency issued a statement denouncing the story. “On Monday, July 3, a news story was shared regarding ‘first responders warning against a deadly boating TikTok trend after recent drownings’ in Alabama,” the organization tweeted on Monday. “Please be advised that the information released to the news outlet was incorrect. The ALEA Marine Patrol Division does not have any record(s) of boating or marine-related fatalities in Alabama that can be directly linked to TikTok or a trend on TikTok.”
The story is even worse than that. While the original comments from Jim Dennis, captain of the Childersburg Rescue Squad claimed that there were four drownings this year that were directly attributable to this “TikTok challenge,” he later walked back those comments, saying his comments were “blown way out of proportion” and that he couldn’t “say that’s the reason they died.” But the later statement from the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency actually said no one died. One person died jumping from a boat in 2020 and one more in 2021. No one died that way in 2022 or this year, let alone four people.
So, no death, no TikTok challenge.
Of course, that didn’t stop tons of news reports from running with it.
Dozens of stories followed. People, Forbes, the Daily Mail, the New York Post, and countless other outlets repeated what the Today Show had claimed, that at least four people’s deaths were directly tied to this alleged “TikTok challenge.” Right-wing internet commentators who have been critical of TikTok amplified the misinformation. “Four people have died from TikTok’s latest challenge,” tweeted conservative influencer Ian Miles Cheong in a tweet that received 4.7 million views. “ … And those are just the four police know of.”
Thankfully, after Alabama officials said the story was bullshit, the Today Show retracted their story. People also retracted its story. Others simply deleted their stories.
Of course, about the only good thing here is that at least a few more people are looking more skeptically at some of these stories. One journalism professor in Alabama issued the “don’t fall for social media challenges challenge” which I’m guessing won’t get that much attention.
Filed Under: boat jumping challenge, mainstream media, moral panic, tiktok challenge, today show
A Ton Of Folks Don’t Know What ‘Right To Repair’ Is, But Strongly Support It Once They Do
from the fix-yer-stuff dept
In just the last five years, the “right to repair” movement has shifted from nerdy niche to the mainstream, thanks in part to significant support from the Biden FTC and efforts in states like Minnesota and New York to pass new right to repair laws, making it easier and less expensive for consumers and independent repair shops to gain affordable access to manuals, tools, and replacement parts.
Surveys continue to indicate the majority of consumers support such efforts. But a significant number of folks don’t even know what the concept is, or how it applies them.
A new survey by Windows Report of 1,281 consumers found that 45 percent had never even heard of “right to repair.” Another 22 percent had heard of the concept but really had no idea how it applied to them personally:
But when consumers were asked if they would be more likely to purchase a device that is easier to repair, 80 percent said yes. And 83 percent stated that legal regulations should enforce the right to repair computers, “reflecting a desire for government intervention in promoting repair-friendly practices.”
Automakers, electronic manufacturers, and others have shown no sign of slowing down when it comes to monopolizing repair, whether that comes in the form of ham-fisted DRM, attacks on independent repair shops, or just making parts, manuals, and tools expensive and scarce.
But the harder they try to squeeze the more annoyed consumers get, and the more likely they are to support legislative right to repair reforms on either the state or federal level. It’s a hard debate for corporations to spin, so such policies continue to have overwhelming bipartisan support, and there’s clearly a lot of room left to grow when it comes to public education campaigns.
Filed Under: consumer rights, drm, environmental waste, right to repair, tech
___________________________________________________________________________________
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment