Blaming The Messenger (App): WhatsApp Takes The Blame In India Over Violence

from the this-doesn't-help dept

You may have heard over the past few weeks that there's been some mob violence in India in response to totally false information that is being spread. But if you've heard about it, it's almost certainly in conjunction with a lot of finger pointing not at the people spreading the misinformation, or those, you know, lynching people based on false information. Instead, the blame is being squarely placed... on the app where the misinformation is being spread: WhatsApp.

A mob in India lynched five people after rumors spread by WhatsApp messages prompted suspicion that they were child abductors, the latest in a spate of violent crimes linked to the messaging service.

The victims were killed in Dhule district of the western state of Maharashtra on Sunday morning after locals accused them of being part of a gang of "child lifters," police said.

It was the fourth time in recent weeks that WhatsApp messages have inspired deadly attacks in India.

This has resulted in many, many calls for WhatsApp (and its parent company, Facebook) to "do something" about this. Indeed, the Indian government has more or less demanded that WhatsApp stop "false messages" from being spread on its app. Of course, that's... not easy. It's not easy for a variety of reasons, both technical and cultural. On the technical side, WhatsApp is (famously, and for very good and helpful reasons) using end-to-end encryption. So no one at WhatsApp/Facebook can see what's in those messages. That's a good thing (especially for everyone whining about how Facebook sucks up too much data about us). No one should want WhatsApp to backdoor that encryption in any way, because that just creates even more problems.

And then of course, there's the cultural side of this. Even if WhatsApp could read the messages, how could it possibly know what was legit and what was not. And how could it determine that fast enough to stop a mob from going nuts.

WhatsApp has tried to explain all of this to the Indian government -- and rather than understanding these issues, many people seem to be screaming about how this is Facebook/WhatsApp "ignoring" its responsibility.

That doesn't mean things can't be done. Nikhil Pahwa wrote up a thoughtful analysis of how to best tackle the problem noting (correctly) upfront that "This is a complex problem with no single solution: there is no silver bullet here." Importantly, Pahwa notes that many of the "solutions" are not dependent on WhatsApp doing anything, but rather better law enforcement, counter speech efforts, user education and more. He does have some suggestions for how WhatsApp could make a few changes that would create a level of friction for public messages and publicly sharing content -- including tagging public messages with a unique ID tied to the original message creator.

But... there are also potential unintended consequences with these approaches. And others reasonably point out that activists and dissidents could potentially be seriously hurt by some of the proposed suggestions:

And, WhatsApp does appear to be trying to do something. A new version has apparently included a "suspicious link detector." If you're wondering how that's possible with end-to-end encryption, it works locally on your phone. Of course, that also probably limits its effectiveness. It appears to at least notice "suspicious" characters that are designed to mimic more standard characters to fake more well known sites. But it's unclear how much that will actually help.

Thankfully, at least some are pointing out that blaming WhatsApp makes no sense, and the country's own government really has itself to blame.

The fact that such misinformation not only fuels citizens’ paranoia, but also causes them to take matters into their own hands in droves, is indicative of a lack of faith in the machinery meant to maintain law and order in the country, a lack of understanding of the consequences of participating in these activities, and an inability to find truth beyond the realm of their messaging inbox.

That article, at The Next Web, by Abhimanyu Ghoshal points out that rather than the Indian government demanding WhatsApp fix the problem, it might want to consider using WhatsApp to try to counter the narrative:

Instead of blaming WhatsApp, India’s government needs to tackle the larger issues that are making its people paranoid and vulnerable to the viral spread of lies. Hell, it could even use WhatsApp to do that.

Last year, the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is currently in power in the country, was reportedly working to set up roughly 5,000 WhatsApp groups to spread its campaign messaging for the 2018 assembly elections across the southern state of Karnataka, which is home to some 61 million people.

For starters, it should launch a campaign to encourage people to question the veracity of information they receive via social media and messaging platforms. It also needs to remind people about the laws that they must adhere to within the country’s borders.

It's obviously problematic that misinformation is leading to such violence and death. And, obviously, there's a lot of interest in how these messages are spreading so rapidly using apps like WhatsApp. But we shouldn't get so focused on the shiny new thing as the actual point of failure. There are much larger societal and governmental issues at play. Blaming the app may be politically convenient, but it is not accurate, and is unlikely to help in either the short or the long run.

Filed Under: blame, encryption, india, messenger apps, mob violence, whatsapp
Companies: facebook, whatsapp

Chuck Palahniuk Apologizes For Blaming Piracy For His Business Partner Stealing His Money

from the it-really-was-stealing-this-time dept

Chuck Palahniuk has long been a personal hero of mine. Back when I fancied myself a fiction writer, I gobbled up his books, engrossed in the characters he was able to create. It was only years later, then writing for Techdirt, that a chip in my impression of Palahniuk emerged when he started his habit of blaming his finances on the piracy of his works. Palahniuk claimed that piracy was responsible for his "dwindling income." This, despite selling a ton of books and movie options, sounded strange -- especially given that book piracy is much more limited than things like music, movies or software. Where was he getting it from?

Well, Palahniuk himself answers that question in a recent blog post on his site. It turns out the idea that piracy was to blame for his money troubles came from the accountant in charge of his royalties at his literary agency. That same accountant, it turns out, has now been charged with defauding the agency out of millions of dollars. Palahniuk now says he knows exactly what dwindled his income and it wasn't piracy.

On the plus side I'm not crazy. For several years my income has dwindled. Piracy, some people told me. Or the publishers were in crisis and slow to pay royalties, although the publishers insisted they'd sent the money.

You may have read about this over the weekend in the New York Post. All the royalties and advance monies and film option payments that had accumulated in my author's account in New York, or had been delayed somewhere in the banking pipeline, it was gone. Poof. I can't even guess how much income. Someone confessed on video he'd been stealing. I wasn't crazy.

If you've written to me chances are that your letter passed through the hands of the accused. He'd collect the mail and forward it to me. He seemed like a good guy. Like a prince of a guy. Like man-crush material. And then he wasn't.

And so now Palahniuk says he is close to broke. It's a heartbreaking story, for sure, to have a great author in financial ruin because of the fraud perpetrated by another. But one thing worth calling out here is that piracy has become so prevalent a scapegoat in the copyright industries today that someone as intelligent as Palahniuk accepted it as the reason for not being paid, even when he claims his mental warning bells were going off roughly all the time. This is the danger in industry groups scapegoating piracy as the world's greatest evil. And, frankly, how much daylight exists between Palahniuk's story and that of all those deprived of income through the magic of "Hollywood accounting", through which even the guy who played Darth Vader can't get residuals from Jedi over claims that the movie has somehow not been profitable?

Not much at all, I would argue. It ought to be enough to counter the claims that piracy is responsible for the woes of content creators by simply pointing out that it just isn't true, but we would do well to understand that the industry mantra blaming piracy is in part responsible for artists like Palahniuk buying into the hype and being swindled.

Filed Under: blame, chuck palahniuk, piracy, royalties

Congresswoman Says School Shootings Are Caused By Porn, Mental Illness, Single Parents... But Mostly Porn

from the pron dept

In the wake of any mass or school shooting that occurs in America, which pretty much means most of the time that exists, everyone immediately runs to their preferred corners to blame their preferred target for the latest tragedy. I've pointed this out as often as I can, but the truth is that both gun violence and the incidence of mass shootings in America is a terribly complicated subject that deserves all the nuance and sober-thinking it could possibly be afforded. But, since this is America we're talking about, we tend to do the exact opposite and instead pick a single target and heap as much blame as we can on it. It's guns that's the problems. Or it's violent movies. Or video games. Those are the typical targets, and they have been for some time. Meanwhile, the shootings continue, nothing is done, and on it goes.

House Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee knows why this is. We've had the wrong target all along. The real cause of school shootings is porn.

During a meeting last week with local pastors, Black raised the issue of gun violence in schools and why it keeps happening.

“Pornography,” she said.

“It’s available on the shelf when you walk in the grocery store. Yeah, you have to reach up to get it, but there’s pornography there,” she continued. “All of this is available without parental guidance. I think that is a big part of the root cause.”

Where, oh where, is this magical world where porn is acquired at the local grocery store without any parental supervision? I'm asking because teenager-me would have really liked this world and, if a time machine is ever invented, I would like to travel back in time and tell him/me how to get there. The link above also asks a relevant question: what the hell kind of porn is Rep. Black watching? Because I've, ahem, heard third-party accounts of what pornography generally consists of and looks like, and violence generally is left at the fringes, while violence to do with mass shootings is something I've never even heard of. Especially in the kind of porn you can reasonably get in the local grocery store.

Sadly, Rep. Black failed to clarify what the hell she was talking about, so we're left to imagine where she is getting her school-shooting smut from. On top of evil, evil pornography, she also suggested that mental illness and broken families were the problem.

Beyond naughty movies, Black said school shootings are on the rise because of the “deterioration of the family,” mental illness and violent movies.

These feel like they're on more solid ground than blaming porn, but only in relative comparison to the former. It's still the same old problem of picking out a few scapegoats and pretending they explain America's mass shooting problem, rather than having an honest and nuanced view of all the contributing factors. Were we Americans to actually employ this logical mindset, we could then proceed with a real discussion of what we want to do about all the factors that play into school shootings.

But, naaaah. Blaming porn is way easier.

Filed Under: blame, diane black, porn, school shootings, single parents

L.A. Lawmakers Looking To Take Legal Action Against Google For Not Solving Long-Running City Traffic Problems

from the fix-our-stuff-or-we'll-fix-you dept

Hopefully nothing will come of this, but one should never underestimate the creativity of city attorneys presented with the opportunity to rack up billable hours.

Yet another Los Angeles city councilman has taken Waze to task for creating "dangerous conditions" in his district, and the politician is now "asking the City to review possible legal action."

[...]

In a new letter sent to the City Attorney’s Office, [Councilman David] Ryu formally asked Los Angeles’ top attorney to examine Waze’s behavior.

While Ryu said he supported "advances in technology," he decried Waze and its parent company, Google, for refusing "any responsibility for the traffic problems their app creates or the concerns of residents and City officials."

The city's government believes the traffic/mapping app has made Los Angeles' congestion worse. That the very body tasked with finding solutions to this omnipresent L.A. problem is looking to hold a private third party company responsible for its own shortcomings isn't surprising. If a third-party app can't create better traffic flow, what chance do city planners have? But beyond the buck-passing on congestion, the city may have a point about Waze making driving around Los Angeles a bit more hazardous.

For several months, it's been noted that Waze has been sending drivers careening down the steepest grade in the city -- Baxter Street. Drivers seeking routes around Glendale Ave. traffic choke points have been routed to a street with a 32% grade, increasing the number of accidents located there and generally resulting in barely-controlled mayhem. When any sort of precipitation falls from the sky, the city goes insane. Drivers bypassing Glendale are now hurtling down a steep, water-covered hill, compounding the problem.

It's become noticeable enough that the city government has approached Waze/Google in the recent past, asking for an algorithmic change to prevent drivers from being routed to Baxter. These efforts were met with a reasonable response from Google.

"Google Maps models the ever-changing real world by mapping for ground truth," the company said. "This means that our map reflects any measures taken by local agencies to protect their citizens—for example, blocking off a steep road, or implementing turn restrictions. Should the local agency decide to restrict Baxter Street, this change will be taken into account when routing drivers through the Los Angeles area."

The city finds this response -- one that says the city should do something about limiting access to Baxter Street if driving on it is inherently dangerous -- unreasonable. These are the words of Councilman Paul Krekorian.

"[Google has] not demonstrated any willingness to engage," he told Ars last week. "It goes to the heart of problems—that’s not [the] good corporate citizenship I expect."

Yes, but "engage" how? The city believes the algorithm can be rewritten to exclude Baxter Street from suggested routes without screwing things up elsewhere. Residents of Baxter Street want even more -- for it to be erased from Google's map.

This is nothing more than a city looking to offload problems of its own making. I suppose the addition of a cautionary note when rerouting to Baxter wouldn't be that much of a problem to implement, but that shouldn't even necessarily be something Google needs to handle. The Waze app allows drivers to add notes about streets, traffic, etc. so it's highly likely motorists are being warned about the steep grade but choosing to take their chances anyway.

I'm not sure where the city wants to go with this, but that hasn't stopped it from tasking its attorney from trying to find some way to punish Google for city's long-running congestion problems. Google isn't part of the city government, isn't asked to participate in city planning efforts, cannot control access to the city's streets, and has no way of forcing drivers to take only certain routes. This is all stuff only the city can address, and it's decided to make it someone else's problem.

Filed Under: blame, david ryu, google maps, los angeles, paul krekorian, traffic congestion, waze
Companies: google

Why Is Hollywood Pushing A Totally Bogus Push Poll Trying To Undermine The Internet?

from the questions,-questions dept

If you've spent time on Facebook lately, you may have come across the following advertisement:

The ad is from "CreativeFuture", an MPAA front group that pretends to be representing the interests of "artists" but miraculously only seems to promote the extreme viewpoints of the giant Hollywood studios (imagine that). The group is often the go to quote for the copyright extremist position -- and has a history of basically blaming technology for Hollywood's own failures to adapt.

Not surprisingly, then, that it's now running this highly unscientific "survey" with a bunch of ridiculous leading questions, to try to argue that internet companies aren't doing enough and that Congress should destroy the laws that protect the open internet. You can check out the survey yourself, but let's dig into the questions and just how leading and/or silly they are.

It starts off with the following preamble:

In recent months, there has been rapidly growing concern in Washington, in the press, and among members of the public over the lack of responsibility shown by the major internet platforms (including Google and Facebook) toward potentially illegal activity taking place on their services.

From sex trafficking to foreign influence on our elections, from privacy to piracy, it has become increasingly clear that more needs to be done – by the internet platforms themselves, and possibly by the U.S. government – to ensure platform responsibility.

Note the use of "sex trafficking." For the most part, Hollywood has been trying to hide the fact that it's been one of the biggest supporters of SESTA, the fake law that pretends its targeting sex traffickers, but is really targeting the internet. It's kind of rich for an industry that includes Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen and Roman Polanski among its biggest "names" to be complaining about sex trafficking.

From here on it, I'll just post the text instead of screenshots, but I'll include the above so you can see what it looks like in case it magically disappears after this post goes live.

1. There is growing evidence that the major internet platforms are being used for purposes that may violate U.S. laws. Should the major internet platforms take responsibility for these uses of their services?

• Yes
• No

That's a broad and incredibly leading (and misleading) question. Lots of tools are used to violate US laws. This includes cars and telephones. But we don't call for Ford to take responsibility for the fact that people speed, or for AT&T to take responsibility for the fact that someone phones in a bomb threat. That's not how it works. But, of course, if you don't know any of that and just think "oh, bad stuff is happening, of course someone should take responsibility" gullible people are going to vote "yes." You could just as easily rephrase the question as "Bad people sometimes use the internet too. Should that be the fault of Google and Facebook that they don't magically make bad people good?" Such a question would be equally as meaningful.

2. Recently, the major internet platforms opposed the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) because they want to avoid responsibility or legal liability for such uses of their services. Do you believe that the major internet platforms need to do more to stop sex trafficking on their services?

• Yes
• No

First of all, this isn't entirely accurate. As we've discussed, the Internet Association and especially Facebook have been supportive of SESTA. And the reason that other (smaller) platforms have opposed SESTA is not because "they want to avoid responsibility or legal liability," but because they know why that's a really dangerous plan that will create lots of problems unrelated to sex trafficking while actually making the problem of sex trafficking worse. As we've discussed at great length -- and which the team at Creative Futures would admit if they had an intellectually honest bone in their bodies -- the problem with SESTA is that it creates a moderator's dilemma. It will lead some sites to stop moderating entirely to avoid the "knowledge" standard in the bill. And it will cause others to censor with wild abandon to try to avoid any and all liability, no matter how ridiculous. Of course, coming from Hollywood -- an industry famous for sending tons of bogus DMCA takedowns -- widespread censorship of legitimate content apparently isn't a big deal. Hollywood should be fighting for the First Amendment, not shitting all over it.

3. The major internet platforms benefit greatly from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 and the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, two 20-year-old laws that were intended to give the then-fledgling internet the opportunity to grow. Today, the major global internet platforms – companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter – use these laws to avoid taking responsibility for the content they deliver to consumers or help them find, and from which they make immense profits. Given the tremendous growth of the internet in the last 20 years, do you believe it is time to reconsider the DMCA and the CDA?

Hilarious. Remember, the DMCA was pushed for by Hollywood back in the 1990s. They even went so far as to route around Congress (who refused to give them the DMCA) and get it into a trade agreement in Geneva, forcing Congress to pass the DMCA to "comply with our international obligations." For Hollywood to now whine about the DMCA that they pushed so hard for is hilarious. Separately, the "reason" given in this question about why Congress passed both the DMCA and CDA 230 is not at all accurate. Hollywood engaging in historical revisionism? What a surprise! The reason for both laws was not to let the fledgling internet grow. It was to properly place liability on those actually breaking the law. Yes, growing the internet was cited in the debate for both, but because anyone with common sense could see that falsely putting liability on websites for actions of users would be a disaster for the internet -- whether its in its early days or end-times.

4. Do you believe that services like Facebook, Google, and Twitter should take greater responsibility for the use of their platforms to promote false and misleading news articles?

Does Hollywood really want to call out others for "promoting false and misleading" information? Does no one in Hollywood know anything about Hollywood's own history of propaganda and fake news? Either way, once again, what CreativeFuture is pushing here is misleading and ridiculous. The people creating fake news are responsible for creating fake news. Making a tool that they use "responsible" for it would be like making the guy who built the printing press responsible for fake news propaganda published in newspapers. That's not how it works.

5. Do you believe that services like Facebook, Google, and Twitter should take greater responsibility to ensure that foreign agents cannot use their platforms for political advertising or influence?

Great. Now Hollywood is trying to argue that Google and Facebook should block foreigners from using its platforms. Lovely. As we pointed out when the Mueller indictment of Russian trolls came out, they went to incredible lengths to hide the fact that they were Russian. People looking to abuse the system will always figure out ways around blocks -- and it's not like Google and Facebook and others haven't been pressured already to do more, just in the court of public opinion.

6. Do you believe that services like Facebook, Google, Twitter, and others should take greater responsibility for protecting the privacy of their users?

This one's a layup. Who's actually going to say no to this? Everyone's going to say yes, but no one will discuss the details or what it means. Besides, is Hollywood really positioning itself as the bastion of protecting privacy? The same Hollywood that couldn't even protect Sony Pictures' emails from leaking all over the internet? And the same Hollywood where Harvey Weinstein was famous for running an army of spies to go after critics, and leaking personal information about them to the press? That same Hollywood?

7. Do you believe that services like Google, Facebook and Twitter should take greater responsibility for the use of their platforms to facilitate the illegal distribution of creative copyrighted movies, television shows, music, photography, and books?

What does "greater responsibility" even mean in this context? All of those sites have spent many, many, many millions of dollars to set up systems that go way beyond what the law requires to take down (or block from ever being posted) tons and tons of content. And, of course, to Hollywood, it's never enough. It can never be enough. But rather than get its own house in order, it just wants to blame the internet. Same old song.

8. Has the growing public attention to the failure of giant internet platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter to take responsibility for their role in facilitating illegal activities changed your opinion of the companies?

No. But the growing flailing by CreativeFuture and the MPAA has made it clear how desperate they've become.

I can't wait for CreativeFuture to release the ridiculous "results" of this poll and pretend that it proves anything.

Also, irony of ironies: without CDA 230 it's quite unlikely that this ad or this survey would exist at all. SurveyMonkey relies heavily on CDA 230 to allow anyone to post whatever surveys they want -- without requiring it to be reviewed carefully before it went up. If SurveyMonkey needed each poll to be reviewed by an editor, SurveyMonkey wouldn't exist at all. Similarly, Facebook's ad platform would not be open to all to use, would likely be significantly more expensive and less useful and targeted. But, CreativeFuture doesn't know or doesn't seem to care about any of that, so long as it can push this extremist viewpoint against the internet.

Filed Under: blame, cda 230, dmca, hollywood, intermediary liability, push poll
Companies: creative future, creativefuture, mpaa

Right On Time: Kentucky Governor Lays The Blame For Florida School Shooting At The Feet Of Video Games

from the simple-answers-to-complex-questions dept

In the wake of the school shooting tragedy in Florida that saw 17 people slain and more injured, the following days have played out in a depressingly familiar fashion. It's somewhat stunning to see such bloodshed result in the predictable retreat by most people to the defensive or offensive ground of their cause du jour. What should be immediately obvious to anyone seriously examining something like the mass murder of school children and teachers is that the reality that surrounds such an event is messy, complicated, and influenced by detail. Yet, as is our wont, entirely too many people decide that the solution to the mass shooting puzzle is made up of one or two pieces, rather than hundreds and thousands. It's guns. It's specific types of guns. It's mental health. It's rap music, or the waltz, or comic books. It's one of these things that deserve our ire, or maybe two if we're feeling generous.

Well, it was only a matter of time, but contributing to this non-conversation is Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, who has yet another cliched scapegoat upon which to place the sins of the shooter.

"There are video games that, yes, are listed for mature audiences, but kids play them and everybody knows it, and there's nothing to prevent the child from playing them," Bevin said in an interview on WHAS' Leland Conway show Thursday morning. "They celebrate the slaughtering of people. There are games that literally replicate and give people the ability to score points for doing the very same thing that these students are doing inside of schools, where you get extra points for finishing someone off who's lying there begging for their life."

"These are quote-unquote video games, and they're forced down our throats under the guise of protected speech," Bevin continued, seemingly referring to a 2011 Supreme Court decision that prevents content-based restrictions on games. "It's garbage. It's the same as pornography. They have desensitized people to the value of human life, to the dignity of women, to the dignity of human decency. We're reaping what we've sown here."

We are indeed, except what we've reaped has been a vibrant culture in which art and expression are both liberated and celebrated. We owe that to the very First Amendment protections at which Bevin finds it so easy to sneer. Importantly, at no point did Bevin suggest that Nikolas Cruz himself had any affinity for any particular video game or games. For Bevin, such details matter not. A campaign against video games has been the Governor's aim since long before Cruz shot up his former school and the shooting simply provided an excuse to rant against a favorite whipping post.

If that sort of co-opting of real violence doesn't outrage you, it certainly should.

As should how divorced from the facts Bevin's claims are generally.

International comparisons of per capita spending on violent games and gun-related murders show a negative correlation between the two. And meta-analyses of video game violence studies have found no real link between imaginary on-screen violence and actual aggressive behavior.

With that in mind, understand that Bevin, the head of a state in our union, is suggesting an attack on the First Amendment protections of a form of art in response to a correlation to violence that is at best unproven, and for which much evidence to the contrary exists. Whatever that is, it isn't good political leadership.

Filed Under: blame, first amendment, florida, free speech, kentucky, matt bevin, nikolas cruz, school shootings, video games

County Gov't Tries To Dodge Liability In Jailhouse Deaths By Intimidating The Journalist Who Exposed Them

from the step-aside,-Constitution! dept

To keep itself from being held liable for inmate deaths, San Diego County (CA) has decided to target the journalist who exposed them. Kelly Davis, along with the EFF's Dave Maass, used public records requests and investigative journalism to detail 60 deaths in the county's five jails, which occurred over the course of five years. The death rate in San Diego jails was consistently higher than those of comparably-sized systems. In fact, the death rate was higher than that of the 10 largest jail systems in the country. Documents showed almost a third of those were preventable.

But when a lawsuit was filed by the wife of an inmate who died in a San Diego County jail, the county argued there was no negligence. The presiding judge disagreed, citing Davis and Maass' journalism.

The Marine’s widow is suing the county, claiming the jail system didn’t protect Nesmith from himself despite multiple warning signs. A judge allowed the case to go forward, noting that news coverage could “plausibly” have given the county a heads-up of “a pattern of deliberate indifference” to suicidal inmates.

Ok, if that's the way you want to play this, said the county in its next filing. If these reports should have given us heads up on negligence in county jails, let's see if we can't dispute the accuracy of the reports. The county has asked the judge to force Kelly Davis to turn over everything she has on jail deaths, including documents and interviews that haven't been published.

Randy Dotinga of the Voice of San Diego explains what the county is really trying to do with this discovery demand:

Let’s dig beyond the legalese into what the county is actually saying here:

So you’re suggesting we should have known that we had a big problem with jail suicides because of those “60 Dead Inmates” headlines and done something? Maybe those stories were wrong, and we didn’t need to know about a problem we didn’t actually have! We can’t be bothered to run the numbers ourselves, so we’ll force the reporter to do it for us.

This part is unsaid: This will also suck up hours of depositions and cost everyone a bundle. Luckily, we’re taxpayer-funded! And hey, we’ll learn who squealed to the reporter too. Bonus!

This is an obvious attempt to intimidate a journalist who exposed misconduct and malfeasance. The county has plenty of previous reporting it could dig into, as well as unfettered access to jail records and jail employees. Instead, it's dragging the journalist to court and attempting to unmask sources. The county is trying to bypass First Amendment protections and the state's journalist shield laws to skirt liability in jailhouse deaths.

Fortunately, Davis has pro bono representation pushing back against the county's demands. It appears the county didn't think the journalist would stand up for her rights. So, it's changed its arguments. Instead of bypassing Constitutional protections, the government is hoping to get every damning piece of journalism booted from the ongoing civil rights lawsuit. The new "deal" proposed by the county would be to rescind its demands for sources and source material from Davis if the plaintiff agrees to never bring up Davis' reporting during the lawsuit. One way or another, the county is hoping to bury inconvenient facts. The widow bringing the lawsuit has refused this deal, meaning the reporting is still in play and the demand for Davis to reveal everything she's collected still an ongoing concern.

For now, Davis won't have to turn over anything. As Voice of San Diego reports, the judge has ruled against the county's request. The county may appeals this order, but for now, Davis won't have to produce documents or testify.

As Dotinga points out, this is nothing more than intimidation from government reps who think they can push their constituents around.

We’ve seen several recent cases of overreach by lawyers who work for taxpayers. The city attorney’s office slut-shamed a victim of a predatory cop and held an extensive jail term over the head of a man who protested a bank by writing slogans in chalk on a sidewalk. The district attorney’s office, meanwhile, targeted a rapper over his lyrics and tried to send a group of men to jail for having links to a gang involved in a fatal shooting.

This is how San Diego is handling problems with its law enforcement officers. It's punishing citizens for speaking up, protesting, engaging in journalism, or being the victims of sexual assault by people in positions of power. Every single aspect of this is shameful, but having a sense of shame means admitting the county has a problem (well, several of them). County reps aren't paid to admit fault. But they shouldn't be collecting paychecks for violating the US Constitution and state law, either.

Filed Under: blame, dave maass, jailhouse deaths, journalism, kelly davis, san diego

Court Dismisses -- For A Second Time -- Lawsuit Seeking To Hold Facebook Responsible For Acts Of Terrorism

from the when-Plan-B-is-to-make-even-worse-arguments dept

Back in May of last year, a New York federal court tossed two lawsuits from plaintiffs attempting to hold social media companies responsible for terrorist attacks. Cohen v. Facebook and Force v. Facebook were both booted for failing to state a claim, pointing out the obvious: the fact that terrorists use social media to recruit and communicate does not somehow turn social media platforms into material support for terrorism.

Both lawsuits applied novel legal theories to internet communications in hopes of dodging the obvious problems posed by Section 230 immunity. None of those were entertained by the New York court, resulting in dismissals without prejudice for both cases.

Rather than kick their case up the ladder to the Appeals Court, the Force plaintiffs tried to get a second swing in for free. The plaintiffs filed two motions -- one asking the judge to reconsider its dismissal ruling and the other for permission to file a second amended complaint.

As Eric Goldman points out on his blog, the judge's decision to address both of these filings at once makes for difficult reading. The end result is a denial of both motions, but the trip there is bumpy and somewhat incoherent.

Once the court moves past the plaintiffs' attempt to skirt Section 230 by re-imagining its lawsuit as an extraterritorial claim, it gets directly to the matter at hand: the application of Section 230 immunity to the lawsuit's claims. The plaintiffs performed a hasty re-imagining of their arguments in hopes of dodging the inevitable immunity defense, but the judge has no time for bogus arguments raised hastily in the face of dismissal.

From the decision [PDF]:

As noted in the court's original decision, the protection afforded by Section 230 applies only to claims "based on information provided by [an] information content provider" other than the defendant. (May 18 M&O at 18-19 (quoting FTC V. LeadClick Media. LLC. 838 F.3d 158,173 (2d Cir. 2016)).) Plaintiffs now maintain that their claims have, in fact, always sought to hold Facebook liable for its own content, and not that generated by another "information content provider," i.e., Hamas and related entities, based on Facebook's alleged role in "networking" and "brokering" links among terrorists. (Recons. Mot. at 12.)

Plaintiffs' contention is completely disingenuous. In the current motion. Plaintiffs acknowledge in a footnote that "perhaps plaintiffs could have made their reliance on Facebook's productive conduct clearer in their briefing" but attribute this oversight to Facebook's supposed failure to argue that it was not a content provider. (Recons. Mot. at 12 & n.9.) Plaintiffs' contention is flatly refuted by Facebook's briefing on the original motion to dismiss, which clearly argued that all of the offending content cited in Plaintiffs' complaint was "provided by another information content provider, not by Facebook itself." (Def. Mem. in Supp. of MTD (Dkt. 35) at 17-18.) Plaintiffs did not respond to this argument at any point, and in fact began their opposition memorandum by stating that "[t]hese cases do not concern speech or content." For Plaintiffs to now turn around and argue that its allegations are largely about content that Facebook itself created borders on mendacious.

Having expended some strong language on the plaintiffs' disingenuous arguments, the court wraps up the case with… well, it's difficult to say where this order leaves the Force v. Facebook lawsuit. Here's Eric Goldman's attempt to summarize the ruling:

I’m a little confused about where this ruling leaves the case. The court dismissed the first amended complaint without prejudice, but denied the plaintiffs the right to file a second amended complaint–and did so with prejudice. It seems like this should mean the case is over in the district court, and the plaintiffs can turn to the appeals court if they choose to do so (which they most likely will do).

About all that can definitively be said is the order can be appealed. Unfortunately, there have been two dismissals at this level: one with and one without prejudice. So, there may be an opening to refile in New York but chances are the Force case will meet its final demise at the appellate level.

There have been several lawsuits filed seeking to hold social media companies directly responsible for the actions of terrorists -- and another one of them was rejected on appeal this week (we'll have more on that case soon). In many cases, these are brought by the families of victims. There's no denying the underlying tragedies motivating these legal cases, but the targets are not the wrongdoers. Nor are they even enablers. They're platforms for communication. And communicating is something everyone does, even terrorists. People can rightfully argue platforms' attempts to control terrorist communications have been mostly unsuccessfully. But they can't honestly argue platforms are directly responsible for violence committed by terrorists.

Filed Under: blame, cda 230, force v facebook, material support for terrorism, section 230, social media, terrorism
Companies: facebook

Gov't Committee: UK Should Move To Holding Platforms Liable For Third-Party Content Post-Brexit

from the stop-trying-to-help,-you-idiots dept

Going Brexit is to swear off logic, apparently. TorrentFreak reports that, in addition to everything else the UK's newfound independence will muck up, it's going to start doing an even more horrendous job policing the internet.

The protection offered by the E-Commerce Directive is a hot topic right now, one which necessarily involves the UK. However, with the UK due to leave the EU at 11pm local time on Friday 29 March, 2019, it will then be free to make its own laws. It’s now being suggested that as soon as Brexit happens, the UK should introduce new laws that hold tech companies liable for “illegal content” that appears on their platforms.

The advice can be found in a new report published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Titled “Intimidation in Public Life”, the report focuses on the online threats and intimidation experienced by Parliamentary candidates and others.

The report summary, thankfully, puts all the bad news up front. Following a list of (terrible) recommendations, the report quotes government officials wringing their hands about the fact terrible people exist.

Lord Bew, Chair of the Committee, said:

This level of vile and threatening behaviour, albeit by a minority of people, against those standing for public office is unacceptable in a healthy democracy. We cannot get to a point where people are put off standing, retreat from debate, and even fear for their lives as a result of their engagement in politics. This is not about protecting elites or stifling debate, it is about ensuring we have a vigorous democracy in which participants engage in a responsible way which recognises others’ rights to participate and to hold different points of view.

Lord Bew's beef should be with "vile and threatening minority of people," rather than platforms. But of course it isn't. Like many government officials, Bew believes the liable party should be the host of the offending content, rather than the actual offenders. The Committee wants to handle questionable content in the most ineffectual and dangerous way possible:

Government should bring forward legislation to shift the liability of illegal content online towards social media companies.

And if that's not dumb enough, there's this recommendation which is sure to have a damaging effect on political speech -- normally the sort of things governments should strive to protect.

Government should consult on the introduction of a new offence in electoral law of intimidating Parliamentary candidates and party campaigners.

Cool. A brand new #PoliticalLivesMatter law that won't be abused by every thin-skinned politician who finds criticism intimidating.

And that's not all. As TorrentFreak notes, the report also suggests adding new intermediary liability for things having nothing to do with "intimidation in public life."

“Currently, social media companies do not have liability for the content on their sites, even where that content is illegal. This is largely due to the EU E-Commerce Directive (2000), which treats the social media companies as ‘hosts’ of online content. It is clear, however, that this legislation is out of date,” the report reads.

If this goes through, platforms could be held liable for IP infringement and defamation, even though those acts were committed by platform users.

Fortunately, these are still just recommendations. There's no telling how this all will work out when the UK's divorce is official. But past actions by the UK government hardly raise hope it won't decide to go after the largest targets, rather than the proper targets, when finally free of EU regulations.

Filed Under: blame, brexit, e-commerce directive, eu, hosts, intermediary liability, social media, uk

London Mayor Fingers The Culprit In Increased Knife Crime: YouTube

from the mmm-no dept

With only minimal media fanfare, violent crime is on the rise in London. There have been many explanations on offer for this, ranging from the refugee migrant crisis to drastic cuts to funding for youth services. Specifically noteworthy is the upward trend in knife violence, which, we will note, began before the Middle East refugee crisis, but has accelerated since. Knife attacks have risen not only in what could be called "terrorist" incidents involving Islamic extremists, but also in the more banal gang-related type of incidents as well. As experts search for the real cause and solution to all of this, however, London Mayor Sadiq Khan insists he has found the real enemy in all of this: YouTube.

London mayor Sadiq Khan has criticised Google’s YouTube after it failed to take down four violent gang videos describing killing methods and threatening rivals, which were flagged by police. The videos reportedly show gang members waving a large Rambo-style knife as they attempt to goad rivals. The videos have been watched more than 356,000 times and have not been removed despite YouTube’s terms saying it takes “threats, harassment, intimidation (and) inciting others to commit violent acts” seriously.

“Google, YouTube and other platforms have a responsibility to the millions of young people using their sites every day, and it is vital that they toughen up their guidelines, remove breaches immediately and work with partners to help ensure such horrific videos do not reappear. Lives could depend on it,” said Khan. “Social media and the internet can be used to inflame tensions and escalate violence quicker than ever before, and these videos are a shocking example of the glamorisation of gang culture.”

It will never cease to amaze me how many people can look at a complex social problem with all sorts of subtle causes and influences... only to turn around and find an easy scapegoat in technology. Specifically the internet. London has endured a 24% rise in knife crime and His Honor is going to war with YouTube over four whole videos. In the first link in the introduction above, the New York Times interviews youths now carrying knives, typically found in their kitchen drawers, and provides a fairly good explanation of why these youths are arming themselves in the street. Absent from the prose of that article as any mention of teens slipping blades in their pockets because a YouTube video told them so.

It's also worth noting that these videos make for great evidence for convicting bad actors when they actually do carry out attacks.

Similar violent videos helped convict four men for the murder of 18-year-old Marcel Addai in September 2015, and have been used in other successful prosecutions.

Now, YouTube has reviewed the specific videos in question and has decided to leave them up, while also noting that it is committed to working with police to take down true violent content. The problem in all of this is that there is a fuzzy line drawn between valid expression and an actual threat. If I wanted to, I could twist all kinds of content on YouTube and claim it represented real violent threats, from political expression to drill rap videos that often feature weapons to dramatic expressions. What YouTube typically requires is verified context that a threat made in a video is both specific and real before taking it down. It has deemed these videos not to cross that line.

“We work closely with organisations like the Metropolitan police to understand local context and specifically, so that we can understand where artistic expression escalates into real threats. We’re committed to continuing and improving our work on this issue and making YouTube a hostile space for those who seek to do harm.”

Which is as it should be, no matter the London Mayor that wishes to scapegoat the internet while too many of his own citizens bleed in his own streets.

Filed Under: blame, gangs, knife violence, london, sadiq khan, videos
Companies: youtube