White House Plan To Reduce Drug Prices... Is To EXTEND Patents?

from the that's-not-how-it-works-at-all dept

While Congress is still doing its thing to try to make the US healthcare system an even bigger laughingstock around the world, the White House is apparently considering an executive order targeting high drug prices. Of course, it handed this power over to Joe Grogan, a (very recent) former lobbyist for a giant pharma company, Gilead, that has been at the center of some controversy over its highly priced drugs. Grogan is apparently leading this effort despite not having an ethics waiver, which means he's supposed to recuse himself from these discussions, rather than lead them. But, you know, that's not happening in the swampy, swampy waters of Washington DC. So just what would Grogan suggest as a way to lower drug prices? How about extending pharmaceutical patents? Yes. Extending.

The documents reveal behind-the-scenes discussions influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Joe Grogan, associate director of health programs for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has led the group. Until March, Grogan served as a lobbyist for Gilead Sciences, the pharmaceutical company that priced its hepatitis C drugs at $1,000 per pill.

To solve the crisis of high drug prices, the group discussed strengthening the monopoly rights of pharmaceuticals overseas, ending discounts for low-income hospitals and accelerating drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration. The White House declined to comment on the working group.

In what world does anyone with even the slightest economic knowledge think that extending/expanding monopoly powers would bring prices down rather than up? Want to know one of the reasons why drugs are so crazy expensive right now? It's because those monopoly rights have already gone way too far. If you want lower prices, you want competition in the market, not monopoly suppliers who know they're dealing with major health issues -- and the willingness of insurance companies to pay through the nose.

You can criticize all sorts of things about the way healthcare is handled in this country, or how drug prices are determined. But, it's impossible to see how anyone with a straight face could possibly claim that increasing patent rights would lead to lower prices. Of course, the argument here is effectively that by making patent powers greater overseas, the big pharma companies can milk foreigners for higher drug prices... which would make it easier for them to drop drug prices at home. Here are the details from the report:

Extending the patent life of drugs in foreign markets to “provide for protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.” This will ensure “that American consumers do not unfairly subsidize research and development for people throughout the globe.”

Except, raise your hand if you think that drug companies would voluntarily lower drug prices in the US, just because they can now also price gouge sick people in other countries? Yeah, didn't think so. If you want to lower drug prices, the way to do it is to cut back the monopoly powers of Big Pharma so that they're actually forced to compete more. This isn't a theoretical or academic claim. Just look at the price of drugs after one goes off patent. They immediately drop. Want cheaper drugs? Ditch the patents and watch the market do its thing.

Filed Under: drug prices, drugs, enforcement, joe grogan, omb, patents, pharmaceuticals
Companies: gilead sciences

As UK Piracy Falls To Record Lows, Government Still Wants To Put Pirates In Jail For 10 Years

from the maybe-there's-another-way dept

Last fall, our think tank, the Copia Institute, released a paper, The Carrot or the Stick? which detailed how innovation in the form of convenient, appealing and reasonably priced legal content streaming services appeared to be the most powerful tool in reducing piracy. The report looked at a number of different data sources and situations in multiple different countries. And what we found, over and over again, was pretty straightforward: ratcheting up enforcement or punishment did not work -- or, if it did work, it only worked exceptionally briefly. However, by introducing good, convenient authorized services, piracy rates fell, like off a cliff. We saw this pattern repeated over and over again.

And yet... instead of seeing policymakers and legacy content companies pursue strategies to encourage more innovation and more competition in authorized services, they continually focus on enforcement and punishment. This makes no sense at all. Take the situation in the UK, for example. Last week, the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) came out with a report noting that piracy in the UK had dropped significantly in the wake of authorized streaming services like Spotify and Netflix entering the market. The full report is worth reading and pretty clearly suggests -- as our own report last year did -- that having good authorized services in place is the best way to reduce piracy.

The IPO’s report, carried out by research group Kantar Media, suggested a strong link between the rise of such services and falling piracy. 80pc of music listeners now use exclusively legal means, up from 74pc a year ago

This is all great and consistent with what we found in basically every country we looked at. But that's why it's equally troubling that, rather than supporting that innovative ecosystem that is successfully diminishing piracy, the UK's IPO has moved forward with its ridiculous plan to jail pirates for 10 years. As we described in great detail a few months ago, the IPO's support of 10-year prison sentences for copyright infringement was not only based on no actual data, and pulled out of thin air, but it directly contradicted numerous studies on the deterrence effect of longer prison sentences.

I spoke to people at the IPO (many of whom are quite reasonable) after the recommendation came out, and they insisted that the 10-year prison sentence would only be used for "true criminals" and not just people sharing files online. They apparently also promised Open Rights Group that the specifics would be clarified in the final bill so as not to target ordinary people file sharing online -- but that's not what happened:

Partly in an attempt to deal with headlines that this was “10 years for filesharing", the IPO has rewritten the definition of criminal liability. They told us during meetings that the new definition would make it very clear that ordinary internet users - including filesharers - would not be targeted, and raising the penalty would also mean narrowing its application to real criminals. Unfortunately the final draft appears to be as bad or worse than the original, with a very low threshold of “having a reason to believe” that the right holder will be exposed to “a risk of loss”.

So, what the hell is going on at the IPO over there? They have clear research showing that a massively effective way to reduce piracy is to get more good, convenient authorized services. And they have no research backing up the idea that increased prison sentences will reduce infringement. And yet, which one have they doubled down on?

This is why people have so little respect for copyright law and why we so often refer to it as "faith-based" policy making. The evidence clearly points in one directly, and the powers that be, instead, go in the other direction, against all the evidence, because some people "feel" that piracy must be punished to make it stop.

Filed Under: carrot, competition, copyright, enforcement, innovation, ipo, piracy, stick, uk

White House Threatens To Veto Bill Attempting To Gut Net Neutrality, Defang FCC

from the sing-for-your-supper dept

As we just noted, the House has been pushing yet another bill that attempts to punish the FCC for its uncharacteristic new habit of actually standing up to giant ISPs. The "No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act" (pdf) professes to be a bill focused on curtailing government run amok; with a particular eye on preventing the FCC from being able to regulate broadband rates (not-coincidentally just as ISPs begin heavily pursuing usage caps). But the bill uses a unique definition of "rate regulation" to, in reality, ban the FCC from doing, well, pretty much anything.

Given that in the last year-and-a-half the FCC has passed neutrality laws, finally stood up for municipal broadband, raised the definition of broadband to 25 Mbps (to emphasize competitive shortcomings), and is now pondering both new broadband privacy rules and opening the captive cable set top box market to competition, you can kind of see why the bill was a priority for both large ISPs and their Congressional allies. Stopping this new, uncharacteristically pro-consumer and pro-competition FCC has become a priority.

Bills like this one do a great job riling up those upset about numerous, other instances of actual government overreach -- especially folks that don't understand the broken telecom market or the nuances of net neutrality, or that the FCC under Tom Wheeler has actually been doing some non-idiotic things for arguably the first time in twenty years. But such bills are empty showmanship in that they require a President's signature to pass.

And according to a new statement of administration policy by the White House (pdf), that's simply not happening:

"H.R. 2666 is overly broad and extends far beyond codifying the FCC's forbearance from applying provisions of the Communications Act related to tariffs, rate approval, or other forms of utility regulation. Even as amended, H.R. 2666 would restrict the FCC's ability to take enforcement actions to protect consumers on issues where the FCC has received numerous consumer complaints. The bill also would hamstring the FCC's public interest authority to review transactions....If the President were presented with H.R. 2666, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

There remains only a few ways to defang the FCC and/or truly gut net neutrality.

ISPs could get Congress to pass a new law that enshrines net neutrality rules that are weaker than what the FCC has proposed, though Senators John Thune and Representative Fred Upton tried this and it went nowhere. ISPs could also still win the ongoing lawsuit against the FCC, which would gut some or all of the rules (a ruling is expected shortly). Or ISPs could work to elect a President who opposes net neutrality and will set about making sure the FCC returns to its more traditional role of being a toothless, gutless, shell of a regulator dedicated to protecting the telecom status quo.

The House, of course, knows their options are limited, and that bills like this -- and the constant parade of taxpayer-funded FCC "fact finding" hearings -- don't actually accomplish anything. They do, however, rile up the uninformed, and do a fine job reminding giant telecom companies that Congress is ready and willing to dance on command for continued telecom campaign contributions.

Filed Under: congress, enforcement, fcc, net neutrality, veto, white house

MPAA Whacs A Few More Moles, Declares Premature Victory While Making Movie Fans Worse Off

from the good-luck-with-that-strategy dept

The MPAA gleefully announced on Tuesday that it had shut down the main fork of Popcorn Time along with torrent site YTS (and its associated release group YIFY). Of course, if we go back through the history of file sharing, we can find plenty of times when the MPAA similarly declared victory over the shutdown of other file sharing sites -- and not a single one did a damn thing to slow down piracy rates. People just move on to something else. And yet, the MPAA thinks that it did something important here:

“This coordinated legal action is part of a larger comprehensive approach being taken by the MPAA and its international affiliates to combat content theft,” said Chris Dodd, chairman and chief executive of the MPAA, in a statement.

Dodd also says, "By shutting down these illegal commercial enterprises, which operate on a massive global scale, we are protecting not only our members’ creative work and the hundreds of innovative, legal digital distribution platforms, but also the millions of people whose jobs depend on a vibrant motion picture and television industry.”

Dodd is wrong. He's not protecting anything, other than perhaps his own job. Shutting down these sites doesn't decrease infringement -- the infringement just moves elsewhere. It's a giant game of whac-a-mole that the MPAA (and RIAA) have been playing for over a decade, and never seeing any kind of different result.

We highlighted this just last month with our Carrot or Stick research report, which made it clear that these enforcement efforts don't do a damn thing to slow down piracy, and don't do anything to help content creators or the wider creative ecosystem to get paid. You know what does do that? Allowing more innovation to flow. Popcorn Time was popular not just because it was "free" but because the interface and usability were incredible. The MPAA should be learning from that, in understanding how to help offer better products rather than celebrating shutting it down.

Again and again we've seen that when people are presented with good, convenient and reasonably priced options, they massively decrease their infringing activities. But the MPAA has actually made that difficult by burdening most services with ridiculous requirements (like forcing people to watch a movie within 24 hours, or limiting things so that the market becomes fragmented and people can't find the content they actually want to see). If the MPAA were truly concerned with making sure that revenue was supporting the creative ecosystem it would be looking at what Popcorn Time did right, and creating a legal service based on it. Cheering on the fact that you whac'd another mole, while everyone's already moved on to something else is hardly something worth celebrating.

Filed Under: copyright, enforcement, file sharing, innovation, popcorn time, takedowns, yify, yts
Companies: mpaa

Our Response To The White House's Request For Comments On Its Intellectual Property Enforcement Strategy

from the be-careful-with-that-hammer dept

Last month, we noted that the new IP Enforcement Coordinator, Danny Marti, is now accepting comments for the administration's next "Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement" plan. While I know it's easy to roll your eyes at participating in these things, in years past we sent in comments and were pleasantly surprised to see the resulting plan actually take many of those comments into account, and turn out to be something that was mostly reasonable. We do have some concerns about Marti, given that the comments he's made to date seem to reflect a very... one-sided view of copyright enforcement. However, we're hopeful that he's open to evidence and reason. Below are the comments that we're submitting, much of which was based on the Carrot & Stick research report we released last week. If you'd like to submit your own comments, all the details are here. The deadline is today, October 16th.

Re: Comments on the Joint Strategic Plan

Daniel Marti
Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
Filed via email

Dear Mr. Marti:

I write to you today in response to your request for comments on the administration's next Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property Enforcement. As both a long-time professional content creator myself, who relies on my content to make a living, as well as someone who studies innovation, works with startups and entrepreneurs on a regular basis, I have grave concerns that the focus on enforcement is too narrowly tailored, such that it may have a negative impact on the overall goals of nearly everyone involved. It is convenient to portray debates about enforcement as being one industry's views v. another, but the more you look, that's rarely the case. Instead, the problem is often that policy makers become too focused on the "enforcement" tool, without looking at the actual evidence of the impact.

Last week, the think tank I run, the Copia Institute, released a new report, entitled The Carrot or the Stick, which looked closely at the actual impact of increased enforcement on piracy around the globe. What we found in every country that we looked at was that ratcheting up enforcement efforts never seemed to show the intended effect. While they may have shown a brief decrease in piracy rates, that decrease was always temporary (often no more than a matter of months). However, when new and innovative services were introduced, the impact was much clearer and long-lasting. As an example, piracy rates for all kinds of content in Sweden were quite high, which might not be a surprise, given that the Pirate Bay started in Sweden. However, piracy rates for music dropped rapidly and permanently when another Swedish business was able to offer service: Spotify. Notably, while music piracy rates dropped massively, the same was not true for movies and television.

Sweden then passed its IPRED law, to ratchet up enforcement, with greater criminal penalties. While piracy rates did drop after IPRED went into effect, the impact was short lived and studies showed that piracy rates quickly returned to normal. Yet, well after that, Netflix entered the Swedish market, and, again, piracy rates dropped precipitously for movies and television.

While some have argued that the greater enforcement works hand in hand with such innovation, the evidence we looked at suggested that was not true at all. In most areas we looked, the rapid innovation cycles (indicated by a rapid increase in authorized services) pre-dated the increased enforcement efforts.

In short: greater enforcement did not decrease piracy rates, while innovation did.

Even worse, it appears that by focusing too much on enforcement, it can actively harm or slow down that very necessary innovation. The MPAA's Jack Valenti once famously declared that "the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." That was in the midst of the MPAA's heated legal and legislative battle to stop such home video machines. Yet just four years later, revenue to Hollywood from home video surpassed box office revenue. If Valenti had succeeded, things would have been worse off for the very industry he represented.

Time and time again, we've seen that a focus on enforcement often means trying to kill off necessary innovations. Innovations such as the radio, television, the MP3 player, TiVo and more have been sued in an attempt to "enforce" the law, when all that was really needed was for the industry to figure out ways to incorporate them into their business models. A decade ago Viacom sued YouTube for a billion dollars, claiming that it was a piracy site. Yet, just this week, Viacom's movie studio, Paramount Pictures, announced that it was releasing over 100 of its films for free on YouTube. Things change quickly.

Historically, the pattern is clear, however. When new innovations threaten old business models, the solution is not to reach for the hammer of "enforcement." It's to learn from what's happening, to understand what the public is seeking, and to innovate to provide it in a better way. Time and time again this strategy has worked, and it's important to be careful that if you focus solely on the ability to increase "enforcement" that you actually end up with a worse result: destroying the innovation that helps provide the very tools for creating, distributing, promoting and monetizing new content.

Your role and the focus of this report is on "enforcement," but it needs to be viewed in the wider context of "promoting the progress." Rather than falling for the easy story line of two industries at war with one another, it's time to recognize that the best "enforcement" is often in crafting policies that allow for more innovation, that enable more startups and more competition, rather than just looking at what things can be shut down or sued or seized.

Sincerely,

Michael Masnick
Copia Institute

Filed Under: carrot and stick, copyright, danny marti, enforcement, innovation, ip czar, ipec, joint strategic report, piracy

IP Enforcement Czar Wants To Hear From You About Government's IP Enforcement Plan

from the speak-up dept

It's that time again. The White House's IP Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) -- often called the IP Czar -- is asking for public input on the upcoming "Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement" that it will be releasing next year. The Joint Strategic Plan comes out every three years and is supposed to guide the federal government in how it handles priorities around intellectual property enforcement. Now, I recognize that the cynical among you will already be insisting that there is no value in responding to this, because the government is going to simply repeat the arguments of the legacy industries and its copyright extremists. However, in the past, these open comment periods have actually helped, and the two previous Joint Strategic Plans have not been as bad as expected. In 2010, we sent in our feedback and was pleasantly surprised that at least some of it was reflected in the plan. It recognized the importance of fair use and encouraging innovation. It also admitted that most studies on the impact of intellectual property on the economy were bogus.

Then, the second report, issued in 2013, was even better and presented a much more balanced understanding of intellectual property law, and how over-enforcement and over-expansion could create real harms as well. It also points out that truly the best way to deal with problems around "piracy" is through greater innovation, rather than relying on enforcement. It doubled down on supporting fair use, and noted that it was working with the Copyright Office to release an "index of major fair use decisions" -- something that finally came out just a few months ago and is actually pretty damn good.

In other words, this report need not just be a playground for Hollywood types looking to ratchet things up.

Still: there are concerns. The first two reports were done by the original IPEC, Victoria Espinel, who left the office a few years ago. This latest report will be overseen by the new IPEC, Danny Marti, who has only been in the job a few months. And, unfortunately, in one of his first speeches, he trotted out pretty much all of the ridiculous and debunked copyright extremist tropes about the need for greater protection, exaggerating the economic impact of intellectual property and demanding more "respect" for intellectual property (rather than earning more respect for it).

It's also somewhat concerning that in his blog post asking for public comments, he cites one of the most debunked statistics around, from the US Chamber of Commerce, concerning the "worldwide market for counterfeit and pirated products," which he argues is $1.8 trillion. Having spent years debunking earlier claims of $200 billion, the idea that it's magically shot up to $1.8 trillion is insane. What's incredible is that the "methodology" for the $1.8 trillion is laughable, and it's a shame that Marti would cite it. The Chamber of Commerce just took the already debunked numbers from 2008 (which, in case you are wondering were actually based on a number someone just made up in the 1980s and which has never been checked) and then "projected" out to 2015. Really. And Marti quotes it as if it has some validity.

And he does this despite the fact that actual credible sources like the Government Accountability Office and the OECD have both insisted that there is no evidence that the issue of counterfeiting is anywhere near as big as the earlier problems stated. Furthermore, multiple studies have further shown that counterfeiting is very rarely a true "economic loss" as it's almost never a substitution good, but rather an aspirational purchase. That is, the person buying the fake Rolex isn't taking any money away from Rolex, because they can't afford to buy a real one. In fact, multiple studies have found that those who buy counterfeit products regularly go on to buy the real product later, when they can afford to. In fact, it appears the purchase of a counterfeit often gives them a closer bond with the brand itself. And, in the end, estimates have suggested that actual counterfeiting is probably somewhere around 2 to 3% of the big numbers thrown around by the Chamber of Commerce.

So, you have to wonder, if Marti is tossing around numbers from one of the world's largest lobbying organizations, the US Chamber of Commerce, rather than from well respected and credible sources like the Government Accountability Office and the OECD, just where he's coming from as he puts together this report.

Hopefully, people can submit thoughtful and well-argued comments based on the details set forth in the Federal Register and help point Marti and the IPEC office in the right direction. Such comments are due by October 16th.

Filed Under: copyright, counterfeiting, danny marti, enforcement, ipec, joint strategic plan, losses, patents, piracy, public comment, trademark

TPP Leaks Shows US Stands Firm That Companies Should Be Free To Abuse Patents & Copyrights

from the go-home-ustr,-you're-drunk dept

Last week, as you might have heard, negotiators on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement gathered in Maui to try to finalize the agreement. Many believed that negotiators would more or less finish things up in that meeting. Earlier reports had suggested that everyone was "weeks away" from finishing, and many had said that the only thing holding back a final agreement was fast track authority (officially "trade promotion authority") from the US government to make sure that the USTR could negotiate an agreement without further interference from Congress. And, as you'll recall, Congress voted in favor of fast track after a long fight.

However, a funny thing happened in Maui: they didn't reach a final agreement. And it doesn't sound like negotiators are really that close either -- leading many to wonder if the TPP may be running out of time.

Either way, the good folks over at KEI have now started releasing a leaked copy of the "intellectual property chapter" as it stood on May 11th (i.e., the latest draft prior to last week's meeting). The IP chapter had leaked in the past, but only an older version. KEI called out how the US's proposals in the TPP are horrible:

The May 11, 2015, text includes country positions, and reveals extensive disagreements among parties, as well as the isolation of the United States as the country that continues to be the most aggressive supporter of expanded intellectual property rights for drug companies, publishers and other companies.

The proposals contained in the TPP will harm consumers and in some cases block innovation. In countless ways, the Obama Administration has sought to expand and extend drug monopolies and raise drug prices. The astonishing collection of proposals pandering to big drug companies make more difficult the task of ensuring access to drugs for the treatment of cancer and other diseases and conditions.

The widely reported dispute over the number of years of protection for biologic drug test data is only one of dozens of measures that significantly expand the power of big drug companies to charge high prices. Taken together these provisions will take the public down a road of more and more rationing of medicines, and less and less equality of access. It could have and still can be different. Rather than focusing on more intellectual property rights for drug companies, and a death-inducing spiral of higher prices and access barriers, the trade agreement could seek new norms to expand the funding of medical R&D as a public good, an area where the United States has an admirable track record, such as the public funding of research at the NIH and other federal agencies. Many people reading the provisions released today will appreciate how misguided and wrong are the USTR’s values and negotiating objectives.

Looking through the documents, you can see some real ridiculous and aggressive positions by the US on intellectual property. In particular, the US seems to push back against any attempt by other negotiating countries to allow for the punishment of those who abuse patents or copyrights. Every time the issue comes up, many other countries are on board, but the US (and sometimes Japan) is against. The discussion below is about the parts of the IP chapter that KEI released yesterday. Just as I was finishing up this post, it released the other sections as well, but we'll save those for another post.

For example, there is one proposal put forth by Australia, arguing that countries should be able to "cancel, revoke or nullfy" a patent if "the patent is used in a manner determined to be anti-competitive, or abusive, in a judicial or administrative proceeding...." This actually seems like a pretty good idea. And, basically all of the countries agree... except for the US and Japan. Similarly, the US and Japan again appear to be in favor of patent trolling later in the document, opposing a provision that appears to allow countries to pass anti-trolling legislation: Those are on the patent side. Well, how about copyright? Here, even Japan supports a plan that would allow courts to order those who abuse takedown provisions to pay up against those they unfairly targeted. But the US opposes it: One other thing that caught my eye. Throughout the enforcement part, other countries repeatedly propose the use of the word "predominantly" when it comes to things like destroying equipment used in the creation of infringing works. That is, there are proposals like "judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the forfeiture or destruction of materials and implements that have been predominantly used in the creation of pirated goods or counterfeit trademark goods." The US repeatedly asks for the word "predominantly" to be removed from such sentences. In other words, while other countries recognize that you shouldn't just go around destroying computers that maybe incidentally were used to infringe, the US wants to retain such a right.

I'm sure more questions will be raised as people have more time to go through these documents, but for now, it appears that the US is still pushing for extremist copyright and patent policies and working hard to protect those who deliberately abuse such tools. It's fairly incredible how the USTR wants to deliberately support those who admittedly abuse those laws for anti-competitive purposes. Wouldn't you think the USTR should be encouraging blocking such abuses? I guess when your main advisors have a long history of abusing the laws, you don't think such abuse is that bad...

Filed Under: abuse, copyright, enforcement, ip chapter, leak, patents, tpp, us

The FBI's Stingray Secrecy May Be Aimed At Preventing Law Enforcement From Overusing A Key 'Exploit'

from the running-the-wheels-off-a-Stingray dept

An interesting angle on the FBI's Stingray secrecy has emerged from -- of all places -- a Princeton gathering of cryptographers that included Edward Snowden via his "Snobot."

Generally speaking, the FBI is a very secretive agency, as can be readily gleaned from its tendency to answer FOIA requests with page after page of fully-redacted documents. That it has managed to rope so many law enforcement agencies -- including prosecutors and states' attorneys' offices -- into highly-restrictive non-disclosure agreements is somewhat of a surprise, considering its position as a partner in law enforcement, rather than an overseer of local agencies like the DOJ.

These NDAs keep almost all information about Stingray device usage out of our nation's courts. The desire to protect these specifics is all-encompassing, resulting in prosecutors and police departments cutting suspects loose (including those who have already pled guilty) rather than allowing information to make its way into the public domain.

But there could be more to it than just a naturally-secretive agency being secretive. It may be that it fears law enforcement agencies -- if left to their own devices -- will destroy the effectiveness of IMSI catchers by deploying the devices too often and with too little care.

In a discussion about the NSA's use of exploits, the following observations were made.

FBI operations can be opaque because of the care they take with parallel construction; the Lavabit case was maybe an example. It could have been easy to steal the key, but then how would the intercepted content have been used in court? In practice, there are tons of convictions made on the basis of cargo manifests, travel plans, calendars and other such plaintext data about which a suitable story can be told. The FBI considers it to be good practice to just grab all traffic data and memorialise it forever.

The NSA is even more cautious than the FBI, and won’t use top exploits against clueful targets unless it really matters. Intelligence services are at least aware of the risk of losing a capability, unlike vanilla law enforcement, who once they have a tool will use it against absolutely everybody.

IMSI catchers are "top exploits." While there's plenty of information out there on its capabilities, very little of it has been confirmed by the FBI or other law enforcement agencies. What makes the "exploit" better is that almost every deployment has been successfully hidden… from everyone. Parallel construction, abuse of pen register orders, dismissal of cases -- all of it works together to keep actual usage details out of the public's hands.

Because of this, there's very little anyone can do to avoid being swept up by Stingray devices other than avoid using cell phones. Most criminal enterprises require communication and cell phones are the cheapiest, easiest way to maintain contact. While spoofers can be sussed out with tools and apps, it requires the sort of proactive effort that often isn't present -- or practical -- in many criminal ventures. Yeah, you can sweep a hotel room for bugs, but you can't stop anyone from parking nearby and hoovering up call data and communications.

If this assessment is accurate, the FBI may be applying this intense pressure simply to prevent "vanilla" law enforcement agencies from using Stingrays as often and as carelessly as possible. Every deployment increases the risk of exposure. Tying cop shops up in NDA strings keeps dissemination to a minimum and encourages at least some form of risk analysis before deployment. It's the FBI saving law enforcement agencies from themselves, and protecting itself and its tool of choice at the same time.

[Or not. The Baltimore PD deploys its Stingrays around 600 times a year, so there are exceptions to this theory… or some agencies simply just don't care whether the effectiveness of this "exploit" suffers from diminishing returns.

And definitely click through to read the entire piece by Ross Anderson. It also discusses how intelligence agencies work around crypto they can't crack -- very germane to the discussion of the FBI's current decrypt-or-else complaints.]

Filed Under: enforcement, fbi, imsi catcher, law enforcement, overuse, secrecy, stingray, transparency

Prison 'Enforces' Messaging Company's 'IP' Rights By Sending Prisoner To Solitary

from the intellectual-property-gone-mad dept

If you aren't aware, the prison communications business is a massive boondoggle for the companies providing those services. Talk about a "captive market." And the companies take advantage of that with absolutely insane rates for things like phone service, some of which became news not too long ago when an expert in this area estimated that the Serial podcast probably had a $2,500 phone bill for its 40 hours of calls with Adnan Syed.

But, of course there are other ways to gouge someone beyond just money. And, as the EFF's Dave Maass has discovered, one major service provider in the space, JPay, forces any user to sign over all rights to any content sent via its system. The company is pretty explicit about this. In the "email" portion of its lengthy terms of service (you have to (1) have javascript enabled and (2) click on the email link to get these to show up), it notes the following: If you can't read that, it says:

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. You acknowledge that JPay owns all right, title and interest in and to the Service, including without limitation all intellectual property rights (the “JPay Rights“), and such JPay Rights are protected by U.S. and international intellectual property laws. Accordingly, you agree that you will not copy, reproduce, alter, modify, or create derivative works from the Service. The JPay Rights include rights to (i) the Service developed and provided by JPay; and (ii) all software associated with the Service.

You also acknowledge that JPay owns all of the content, including any text, data, information, images, or other material, that you transmit through the Service.

There is a similar clause under the "video visitation" terms of service as well, noting that JPay owns those videos as well.

Now, you can understand JPay claiming IP rights on the service itself. But it's that second paragraph that's insane. Just to use the service, you are saying that JPay owns anything you send via the service. Anything. Maass points out this means that if a child sends a drawing to an incarcerated parent, JPay claims it owns the copyright on that drawing. Or, going back to Serial, all of those recorded calls with Adnan Syed? Well, if it had been done via JPay's system, under those terms, JPay could (theoretically) claim a copyright interest in the recordings, and thus argue that Serial was infringing.

That might be (or might not be) a far-fetched scenario. But there are some very real world scenarios that are coming out as a result of this mess. You may recall a post we did back in February (also based off of excellent work by Maass), highlighting how the South Carolina Department of Corrections was adding new level 1 felony charges to anyone using social media while in prison. This resulted in some prisoners being given multiple years of solitary confinement for merely posting to Facebook.

Maass highlights a case where prison officials similarly punished a convict who recorded a video message via JPay, urging supporters to come to a hearing in his appeal effort. When asked why the guy had lost a bunch of his rights and was put in solitary confinement, the prison said it was merely enforcing JPay's intellectual property rights, even if the company didn't appear to complain about this at all (and, in fact, encouraged people to share the videos created under its system):

Valeria Buford has been running an Internet campaign to get her brother Leon Benson’s murder conviction overturned.  In August 2014, Benson used JPay to record a 30-second videogram thanking his supporters and asking them to attend an upcoming hearing in his appeal. Buford posted this to Facebook, but when prison staff discovered it, Buford’s JPay access was suspended and, according to the Indianapolis Star, Benson was disciplined, sent to solitary confinement, and stripped of good-time days. To justify the discipline, they claimed that they were simply enforcing JPay’s intellectual property rights and terms of service.

[....] According to court records, JPay told Buford directly that she was free to do what she liked with the videogram, including posting it to social media

Oh, and the reason there are court records on this is because Buford is suing, arguing that this whole thing violated her own First Amendment rights:

Buford is currently suing the Indiana Department of Corrections with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. Although Buford’s JPay access has since been restored, she argues that her First Amendment rights are chilled because she “continues to face loss of her ability to communicate with her brother through [JPay] if she so much as posts an internet message from him.”  

But, as Maass notes, JPay could help out by doing something rather basic here: changing its own terms of service to not claim ownership over all content sent via the system, so that the prison can no longer use that as a bogus excuse to strip prisoners of service just for speaking out.

Filed Under: enforcement, leon benson, messaging, prison, solitary confinement, valeria buford
Companies: jpay