Minnesota Backs Down After Internet Rises Up: Now Encourages Residents To Use Online Learning

from the good-for-them dept

Last week, we were among those who reported on a ridiculous attempt by regulators in Minnesota to enforce a regulation aimed at stopping degree mills, by telling various legitimate online learning providers like Coursera that Minnesota residents couldn't take courses from without state approval. Thankfully, all of the attention has caused Minnesota officials to admit that this was silly and back down. According to Larry Pogemiller, director of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education:

Obviously, our office encourages lifelong learning and wants Minnesotans to take advantage of educational materials available on the Internet, particularly if they’re free. No Minnesotan should hesitate to take advantage of free, online offerings from Coursera.

He also said that the obsolete regulations should be updated:

When the legislature convenes in January, my intent is to work with the Governor and Legislature to appropriately update the statute to meet modern-day circumstances. Until that time, I see no reason for our office to require registration of free, not-for-credit offerings.

The internet wins, again.

Filed Under: minnesota, online learning, regulations
Companies: coursera

DailyDirt: Serious Food Regulations That Don't Sound So Serious...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are plenty of cases where food regulations are reasonable safety measures, but sometimes there are serious government decisions that sound a bit ridiculous (eg. the Supreme Court deciding that a tomato is a vegetable in 1893). Here are just a few examples of more recent politically-charged food proposals.

• Pizza is not a vegetable, but just 1/8 of a cup of tomato paste counts the same as a half cup of vegetables, according to Congress. It's actually not that easy to directly compare the nutritional value of various servings of fruits and vegetables, but plenty of people simply see highly-processed foods as an unacceptable component of school lunches. [url]
• The USDA had a suggestion to try out a "Meatless Monday" recommendation, but it quickly backed off doing so. The proposal would have encouraged corporate and school cafeterias to offer a vegetarian meal on Mondays, but there were obvious objections from parts of the agriculture industry. [url]
• California's Proposition 37 would require labels on genetically modified foods -- and consumers will likely be surprised at the amount of GMOs in their diet. If it passes, the result of this vote could make GM foods a larger national issue. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: food, gmo, meatless mondays, pizza, prop37, regulations, usda, vegetable

Old Regulations Strike Again: Minnesota Says It's Against The Law To Offer Open Courseware Class Without Approval

from the oh-come-on dept

Every day, it seems, we hear of yet another story of silly out-of-date regulations, which may have had a reasonable purpose initially, getting in the way of perfectly legitimate innovation. For example, there's been a massive growth in "open courseware" or open education programs, that put various educational classes online for everyone to benefit. They're not designed to replace the degrees of college, but rather to just help people learn. One of the biggest ones, Coursera, recently told people in Minnesota that they could no longer take Coursera classes, due to ridiculously outdated Minnesota regulations:

Notice for Minnesota Users:

Coursera has been informed by the Minnesota Office of Higher Education that under Minnesota Statutes (136A.61 to 136A.71), a university cannot offer online courses to Minnesota residents unless the university has received authorization from the State of Minnesota to do so. If you are a resident of Minnesota, you agree that either (1) you will not take courses on Coursera, or (2) for each class that you take, the majority of work you do for the class will be done from outside the State of Minnesota.

The key regulation here, 136A.6a is clearly about stopping questionable degree mills from being used in Minnesota. It specifically refers to "academic degrees":

The legislature has found and hereby declares that the availability of legitimate courses and programs leading to academic degrees offered by responsible private not-for-profit and for-profit institutions of postsecondary education and the existence of legitimate private colleges and universities are in the best interests of the people of this state. The legislature has found and declares that the state can provide assistance and protection for persons choosing private institutions and programs, by establishing policies and procedures to assure the authenticity and legitimacy of private postsecondary education institutions and programs. The legislature has also found and declares that this same policy applies to any private and public postsecondary educational institution located in another state or country which offers or makes available to a Minnesota resident any course, program or educational activity which does not require the leaving of the state for its completion.

The other law just says that the attorney general and the courts can shut down anyone who violates the law -- which is what they threatened to do with Coursera.

Tricia Grimes, a policy analyst for the state’s Office of Higher Education, said letters had been sent to all postsecondary institutions known to be offering courses in Minnesota.

But that seems to be a willful misreading of the regulation (which seems silly in the first place). Coursera isn't a degree mill. It's not about earning the degree, it's about actually learning. Minnesota's interpretation of the law is fairly ridiculous. It basically means that anyone who wants to access online educational material in Minnesota is limited by the state determining what it considers okay.

Filed Under: degree mills, minnesota, open courseware, regulations
Companies: coursera

Can't Win 'Em All: Uber Gives Up Attempt To Do UberTaxi In NYC (For Now...)

from the more-regulatory-fighting dept

We've talked about how innovative ride hailing company, Uber, was pushing regulatory boundaries across the country, often showing how restrictive local regulators could be towards innovation. In many cases, Uber has been able to generate enough public support that local taxi and limo regulators ended up backing down. But you can't win 'em all. Uber has admitted that it's pulled the plug on UberTaxi in New York City.

While Uber is most well known for its "black car" service, it's also been moving aggressively into the taxi world (which is why it's getting sued in Chicago). NYC's Taxi and Limo Commission (TLC) has fought against this move, since the law technically requires cabs to be hailed directly from the street -- and the TLC claimed that hailing from a phone violated that. Uber, however, claims that the TLC has admitted privately that the service is legal. Either way, the TLC threatened cabbies who used Uber, and that limited the number willing to take part, which probably made the service a lot less interesting for users. And, for now, the service has shut down.

The TLC, for its part, seems to suggest that this is only temporary, and it would like to bring such services back -- but it needs to conclude existing contracts:

"In recent months, as e-hail apps have emerged, TLC has undertaken serious diligence and is moving toward rule changes that will open the market to app developers and other innovators. Those changes cannot legally take place until our existing exclusive contracts expire in February. We are committed to making it as easy as possible to get a safe, legal ride in a New York City taxi, and are excited to see how emerging technology can improve that process. Our taxis have always been on the cutting edge of technological innovation, from GPS systems to credit card readers."

Hopefully that's true, but the devil is in the details... we'll see what happens early next year.

Filed Under: disruption, innovation, new york city, regulations, taxis, ubertaxi
Companies: uber

Why Regulations Aimed At Technology Almost Always Suck: Or Why Reading Someone's Gmail Isn't Reading 'Stored Communications'

from the don't-let-them-near-technology dept

There have been a couple of stories covering the fact that the South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that reading someone's Gmail does not violate the Stored Communications Act, a part of ECPA -- a law we've written about a number of times for being completely out-of-date. Orin Kerr has a good breakdown of the details, if you want to read them. What struck me most, however, is how this case is a near perfect example of the kind of mess we get into when politicians try to regulate technology. Technology changes much, much, much faster than the law, and because of that, you get very silly results. The key issue here is that the Stored Communications Act is now found in 18 U.S.C. 2701 -- and it defines the offense as occurring when someone "obtains, alters or prevents" access to communication "while it is in electronic storage." Now, for the purpose of the law, "electronic storage" is defined over in 18 U.S.C. 2510, with the relevant definition noting:

“electronic storage” means--
(A) any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof; and
(B) any storage of such communication by an electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of such communication;

Got that? It must have seemed reasonable at the time it was written, but it makes little sense these days, and is apparently so misaligned with reality today that this one single case interprets that definition in three different ways, and exactly none of those ways agree with a 9th Circuit ruling in Theofel v. Farey-Jones. There's disagreement over the meaning of "backup" in part (B) in particular. Is that backup for the user? Or for the service provider? And then, how do you figure out what is or what is not backup? If a person reads his or her Gmail account, then the message was copied to his or her local machine inside the browser. Thus, it seems reasonable to argue that the copy that remains on the server is a backup copy. But two of the judges in this case argued that because the recipient had not "downloaded" any other copies of the message to store, then the ones on the server were not "backups." This makes little sense because copies were downloaded, but many non-technical people don't understand how browsers really work.

Other judges focus on whether or not your webmail account is really "backup" for the ISP. Either way, the end conclusions: webmail is not considered "electronic storage" under the law for the purpose of the Stored Communications Act. While accessing someone's email can (and likely does) still violate other laws, the very law that most people would probably think most directly applies, almost certainly does not.

The reality is that, when it was passed, back in 1986, it probably seemed to make sense that "stored communications" would only be done for backup. While there were networked client/server type setups at the time, it's doubtful that the folks who wrote the law could have fathomed something like webmail or other online forms of communication. If we're talking about "stored communications" today, it seems ridiculous to have it not cover web-based mail systems or social networks. But the law doesn't seem to support that view -- because the law is incredibly out-of-date. But, of course, the problem with fixing the law is that lawmakers will, again, have trouble figuring out where we'll be just a few years out, and the law may either fail to cover what it thinks it covers or (perhaps worse) cover stuff that should be perfectly legal.

And this, of course, is what we fear when it comes to politicians meddling in technology. Even when they have the best of intentions, technology changes rapidly -- and old and obsolete definitions get left in the law and can create problems or situations that make very little sense. If Congress were able to clean those up quickly, perhaps there wouldn't be a problem, but Congress isn't known for fixing real problems quickly. We've been hearing talk of fixing ECPA for years, and it seems unlikely to happen for a while.

Filed Under: email, regulations, stored communications, technology

The 'Cloud Computing Act Of 2012'... Or How Internet Regulation Can Go Awry

from the paved-with-good-intentions dept

Sen. Amy Klobuchar has introduced a new bill, the "Cloud Computing Act of 2012" (S.3569), that purports to "improve the enforcement of criminal and civil law with respect to cloud computing." Given its introduction so close to the election, it's doubtful this bill will go anywhere. Still, it provides an excellent case study of how even well-meaning legislators can botch Internet regulation.

What the Bill Does

From its 1980s origins as a law restricting hacking into government computers, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has morphed into a general-purpose federal law against trespassing on anyone else's computers. With that breadth, the CFAA extends to a wide variety of activities, ranging from data scraping (see, e.g., EF Cultural Travel v. Explorica) to fake profiles (see, e.g., the Lori Drew prosecution related to Megan Meier's death) to ex-employees walking out the door with competitively sensitive information (see, e.g., US v. Nosal and WEC v. Miller).

The proposed bill's main substantive provisions attempt to give "cloud computing services" extra protections under the CFAA. First, the bill says that each unauthorized access of a cloud computing account counts as a separate CFAA offense. Second, the bill specifies a formula for computing losses in CFAA violations involving cloud computing services, setting a minimum floor of $500 loss per affected cloud computing account.

Problems with the Bill 

The CFAA is Already a Mess.  Good luck trying to read the CFAA's text. Constant amendments over the years have created spaghetti code. This bill adds only slightly to the CFAA's overall lack-of-tidiness, but every incremental amendment makes the CFAA more unwieldy.

The Definition of "Cloud Computing Service" is Incoherent. The bill seeks to protect cloud computing services, but what are those? Check out the bill's definition:

the term "cloud computing service" means a service that enables convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (including networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or interaction by the provider of the service.

What??? This sounds more like a vendor's sales pitch than a basis for criminal prosecution. We can reinforce the definition's weakness by trying to determine what isn't a cloud computing service. Every user-generated content website seems to qualify; but so should every online bank. In fact, this definition of cloud computing service probably becomes co-extensive with the Internet generally.

To be fair, the failed definition isn't totally the drafter's fault. I don't think it's possible to define "cloud computing service" precisely. Tip to legislators: if you can't clearly define your subject matter of your legislation, you're probably doing something wrong.

What's the Problem That Needs to Be Solved? I can't figure out how the proposed amendments address any problem we're seeing in the field. It's possible I've missed some relevant case, but I can't think of a single case I've seen where the CFAA underprotected a cloud computing service or this legislation would have changed the outcome. Seeking some clarity, I submitted a press inquiry to Sen. Klobuchar's office last week and got no response. So I have no idea what problem this bill purports to solve.

Implications

This bill exemplifies several ongoing problems with efforts to legislate the Internet:

1) Legislative grandstanding. It's flashy for legislators to tell their constituents that they are fighting hard to protect emerging technologies like "cloud computing." But legislators rarely understand cutting-edge technologies, and usually rapidly evolving technologies are poor candidates for legislative intervention. So legislators' efforts to push buzzword-laden legislation are often more for show than substance.

2) Regulatory exceptionalism. As I explain here, legislators keep creating new "exceptionalist" rules for subsets of the Internet ecosystem--online dating sites, social networks, cloud computing services, etc. We saw how well that worked in California's effort to ban employers from asking employees for social media login credentials. California so utterly failed at defining "social media" that it simply covered the entire Internet...and all non-networked electronic data too! Yet, legislators seemingly haven't learned from their colleagues' repeated failed efforts to precisely define the contours of some Internet subcommunity. The proposed CFAA amendment, and its gibberish definition of "cloud computing service," exemplifies this.

3) Code proliferation. For every problem, real or perceived, legislators think they can fix the problem with more regulatory code. But the manufacturing of new legal code exacts a toll of its own. This bill increases the CFAA's complexity with minimal or zero commensurate benefit. If Sen. Klobuchar or anyone else really wants to "fix" the CFAA, a good start would be to reduce the law's length, organize it better, and reduce its implications for users' ordinary Internet activity.

Filed Under: amy klobuchar, cloud computing, privacy, regulations

Uber's Most Important Innovation: Highlighting Totally Bogus Local Restrictions

from the keep-it-up dept

It's baaaaaaack. Despite a summer uproar that caused the DC taxicab commission to dump a proposed plan that would have artificially kept Uber's prices high, the commission is back, and it's got another (bad) proposed rule (pdf) that would make life difficult for Uber and its independent drivers.

If you're unfamiliar with Uber, it's a pretty great service that makes it really easy to use your phone to get a car (usually a black car akin to a typical car service, but in some cases smaller cars or even actual cabs). Users have a credit card on file, so you never have to even handle payment stuff as it's all done automatically. It's also been innovative in how it works with drivers, who are independent contractors. Using Uber is more expensive than a cab, but it's so easy and useful that almost everyone I know who uses it, loves it.

However, taxi and limo services are some of the most highly regulated local markets out there, and Uber just keeps running up against those random or pointless rules and regulations. In this case, the new DC rules clearly seem designed to mess with Uber. Among some other things, it would require drivers to give riders a paper receipt, and would also say that you can't have a car business with fewer than 20 cars. That really mucks with the way Uber partners with drivers, who are often one-man (or woman) shops, doing this to make money. But, in some cases, they can also allow someone to build up their own "fleet" of cars, but which operate via Uber's platform. But under these rules, it may be difficult for drivers, or for entrepreneurs buying up a few cars, to really embrace this model. Finally, the new rules prohibit dropping people off outside of DC by saying you have to stay within the territory you're registered in.

For its part, the DC taxicab commission disagrees with Uber's assessment of the new rules expressing a clear bit of frustration with the company:

"They don't what they're talking about," Linton says. "They often don't know what they're talking about."

He also pushed back on a few other points:

According to Linton, the regulations would still allow for independent sedan operators with one car, and would only eliminate companies with a handful of cars that he says most frequently try to game the system. Linton says paper receipts will prevent drivers from charging for miles they didn't drive, and the regulations will only prevent sedans from operating in jurisdictions they aren't registered in—i.e., an Uber trip from Maryland to D.C. could be driven by a car from Maryland or D.C., but not from Virginia.

In other words, he's got perfectly good reasons that the rules aren't bad... except for the simple fact that none of his explanations make sense. Even if it does allow single car operators, why should it be illegal to own between 2 and 19 cars? They say the smaller shops often game the system -- but in that case, go after them for such gaming of the system. Don't completely wipe out all the other good players with such a broad blanket ban. As for paper receipts... huh? I don't see how a paper receipt prevents a driver from overcharging. Even worse, this somehow suggests that Uber's drivers are doing that. But I've never seen or heard any such complaints against Uber. Is there anyone clamoring for a paper receipt from Uber? And, if there are such mysterious people out there... um... is it really that important to pass a rule for them?

Honestly, these rules seem much more designed -- as so many rules are -- to protect legacy players against upstarts like Uber.

And, of course, this is happening all over the place. We already covered the situation in Boston, but there was recently a similar mess in New York City where Uber partners with real cabs (as opposed to car service cars), but which the city is trying to block.

All of these efforts seem like crony capitalism at its best: taking existing inefficient systems, and then blocking unique innovators, whose customers seem pretty damn happy for the most part. Uber, of course, long ago realized something very simple: even though it's fighting these battles on every front, the publicity from it is the best advertising it could ever get. In fact, we've heard that the use of the service tends to go up significantly after such fights. This, of course, frustrates Uber-critics on things like the taxicab commission, as they suggest that Uber complains about these things solely for the publicity. Even if that was the case, I don't see how Uber's wrong. If it gives them publicity for a service people like, more power to them. The real question should be why we still allow such a blockade on innovation by various taxi commissions.

Filed Under: local rules, regulations, sedans, taxis, washington dc
Companies: uber

Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?

from the maybe... dept

The Economist has an interesting article suggesting that perhaps the tide is finally turning on bad copyright laws, and we're beginning to see real efforts at reforming copyright in the right direction:

Canada passed a law in June that sets a new standard of permissiveness. It caps statutory damages if copyright is breached for non-commercial purposes. It expands the definition of “fair dealing” (“fair use” in America) and creates exemptions for educational purposes and for parody. Firms must pass warnings about infringement to the person who posted the material rather than immediately take the content down themselves. This contrasts with practice in America and Europe, where a web company alerted to infringing material must remove it. This encourages knee-jerk responses to complaints.

Britain too plans to introduce internet-friendly legislation this autumn after a review led by Ian Hargreaves, professor of digital economy at Cardiff University. As with Canada’s law, the recommended new code entails exemptions for non-commercial uses and user-generated content. Also mooted is a “digital copyright exchange” that would establish a marketplace for copyright. A musician could list her song and the licensing terms. A filmmaker wanting to use it would know quickly and simply what to do.

It also talks about how Ireland and Australia are both exploring more open and internet friendly copyright reforms. The article does note that this is not all going smoothly. There are efforts to create taxes on content to preserve old business models, for example. But it does seem like, for the first time in pretty much anyone's lifetime, there actually are real and legitimate efforts to push back on the excesses of copyright law, with the recognition that it's done more harm than good.

I'm not quite as optimistic as the Economist piece, as almost all of those efforts (Canada excepted, and even that came with bad digital locks/DRM anti-circumvention provisions) are still nascent and are facing tremendous lobbying pressure to go in the other direction. Furthermore, we just got through the SOPA and ACTA fights, and the latest round of TPP negotiations are going on as we speak. Plus, there's plenty of evidence suggesting that even as the RIAA and MPAA have had their budgets slashed, they're gearing up to continue the push for copyright maximalism in all corners. There are inklings of hope and greater and greater recognition of the problem, but I'd say that we're a long, long way from seeing the tide really turn -- and there's still an unfortunately large possibility of things going back to maximalism-as-usual.

Filed Under: australia, canada, copyright, exceptions, fair use, regulations, uk

Big Banks Finally Punishing Employees For Fraud... Like The Call Center Guy Who Used A Fake Dime 50 Years Ago

from the rules-are-rules? dept

Wells Fargo, of course, was one of a bunch of the big banks heavily involved in questionable activities that brought the world to the precarious economic conditions we're still living in today. Just a few weeks ago, the company settled charges that it had misled cities and non-profits when selling them risky securities without disclosing the risks. The company gets a slap on the wrist -- without having to admit guilt -- and one executive (again without admitting guilt) gets a six month suspension. Have you heard about any top execs at any of the banks getting fired for financial malfeasance? No? Well, perhaps it's because they're focusing on the real trouble makers. Like Richard Eggers. 49 years ago, Eggers, as a teenager, tried to stick a cardboard cutout of a dime into a washing machine. He didn't get away with it at the time, and was arrested for fraud. He somehow put his life back together and, until recently, was a phone customer service agent for Wells Fargo.

And now he's really paying the piper: Wells Fargo has just fired him for the decades-old incident that, again, involved a dime. Even accounting for inflation, we're talking about a dime. However, thanks to supposedly "tough" new regulations concerning financial institutions, barring them from employing execs convicted of fraud, Wells Fargo is claiming that it had to fire Eggers.

“We don’t have discretion to grant exceptions in situations like this. Once we find out someone has a criminal history of dishonesty or breach of trust we can no longer employ them.”

Eggers has responded by filing a civil rights complaint against the company and federal regulators. He and his lawyers are hoping to turn it into a class action lawsuit, as apparently a number of other employees at banks have lost their jobs under these rules. Actual execs responsible for the financial crisis? Not so much.

This is yet another case where laws like this must "sound good at the time" to the policy makers putting them together without any sense of who it will really impact. And the end result is that we sure are making Mr. Eggers "pay" for that dime stunt in 1963, huh?

Filed Under: banks, firing, fraud, regulations, richard eggers, scams
Companies: wells fargo