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

NYPD Spent Years Spying On Muslims, Generated Exactly Zero Leads

from the security-theater dept

We just wrote about yet another (in a long line) of manufactured terrorist plots, in which the FBI creates its own terrorist plot to arrest anyone who can be coaxed into going along for the ride, even if they had no interest or ability to push the plot forward on their own. In that case, it was even more ridiculous, because they couldn't even find anyone willing to go along with the plot -- and the main "suspect" actually alerted the FBI to the informant who was trying to coax him into taking part in a plot (which didn't stop him from being arrested, even if the case was eventually dropped).

Of course, the FBI is not alone in its incredibly ham-fisted anti-terrorism efforts in which the focus seems to be much more about someone's religious leanings, rather than any actual interest in creating terror. The NY Police Department got plenty of attention for deciding to build their own local versions of the FBI and CIA to try to catch terrorists. That link describes the NYPD as a sort of new "elite" intelligence agency, hiring people out of other intelligence agencies and then placing agents around the globe to try to beat the FBI and CIA at their own game.

Back at home, apparently this included following on the FBI's tactic of assuming that "brown skin = terrorist." As such, they've spent the past few years spying on "Muslim neighbrhoods" throughout New York (with help from the CIA), sending undercover agents and informants into Muslim groups and organizations:

The Demographics Unit is at the heart of a police spying program, built with help from the CIA, which assembled databases on where Muslims lived, shopped, worked and prayed. Police infiltrated Muslim student groups, put informants in mosques, monitored sermons and catalogued every Muslim in New York who adopted new, Americanized surnames.

Police hoped the Demographics Unit would serve as an early warning system for terrorism. And if police ever got a tip about, say, an Afghan terrorist in the city, they'd know where he was likely to rent a room, buy groceries and watch sports.

How useful has it been? Apparently not at all. Not a single lead has come out of the program. Not one.

I know this is a crazy thought, but perhaps violating the privacy of tons of people just because of the color of their skin or their religion, isn't the best (or even "a") way to stop terrorists.

Filed Under: civil liberties, muslims, new york city, nyc, privacy, profiling, spying, terrorism

New York City Cooks Up Annoying Plan That Will Pressure NYC Businesses To Buy .nyc Domains They Don't Want Or Need

from the but...-money dept

New York City officials are apparently all excited about a guaranteed $3.6 million "risk free to taxpayers" after signing a deal with a Virginia company to offer .nyc domains. This is one of those things that sounds good until you think it through, and then you realize it's effectively a hidden business tax. NYC gets to promote it as a way for more companies in NYC to have domains, and to identify themselves as NYC-based companies. But for companies already based there, they now need to buy up these domains they don't want or need, just to keep others from buying them up.

To businesses, which only need one website address, new domain names are often a tax they must pay to protect their brand. It’s as if someone printed an alternate copy of the White Pages and asked companies to buy a listing before it was sold to someone else.

In this case, a New York City company like Bloomberg would have to buy Bloomberg.nyc or face having to buy it back at a higher price. Other iconic New York City brands will likely watch nervously to see what becomes names like of “gossipgirl.nyc” or “magnoliabakery.nyc”

The company behind this is asking people to pre-register "for free," but (tellingly) does not share how much the .nyc domains will actually cost once registration opens for real. So while NYC officials can pretend that they've "found" money here, the reality is that they're creating a totally wasteful business tax and a true nuisance for NYC businesses.

Filed Under: domains, gtld, new york city, nyc, tax

NYC/NBCUniversal Pro-Copyright Propaganda Contest For School Kids: Facts Not Allowed And Your Rights Don't Count

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

There has been plenty of concern recently about companies sneaking their own marketing material or one-sided corporate propaganda into schools. And while some may differ on how big a problem this is, I think most people would agree that a local government shouldn't be aiding the process -- especially without revealing the corporate sponsor. And yet, that appears to be exactly what New York City is doing. And, to make it even more ridiculous, they're doing so by putting forth a corporate-sponsored contest about the importance of copyright... and hiding in the fine print that by entering the contest, you may be giving up your own copyrights.

You may recall that, last year, New York City began running a dreadfully misleading (and at points downright false) ad campaign to try to "stop piracy in NYC." At the time, we suspected that the campaign was really put together by NBC Universal, and the city did nothing at all to check the veracity of the claims used in the PSA. It later took a freedom of information request to the city to reveal that, indeed, the StopPiracyInNYC video campaign was actually "owned" by NBC Universal.

We were troubled to learn that the Federal Government, in the form of Homeland Security's ICE division, had also started using the same videos, never once mentioning that they were NBC Universal's videos. That's troubling enough, but it's even worse to find out that New York City has ratcheted up the campaign, still using the same NBC Universal video with false claims in it, and going into city high schools and colleges, asking students to create their own bogus propaganda video that repeats NBC Universal and the MPAA's debunked talking points.

In fact, the contest rules (in the smallest print possible) make it clear that if you produce a video that provides actual facts about how piracy has not harmed the industry -- but a failure to adapt has -- then your video won't be considered. Every entry will be given a series of points, and the single biggest point category is if the video "clearly advocates against digital piracy and content theft." So if you make a video that advocates that NBC Universal and the other major studios stop whining and start embracing new business models, well, too bad. You're out of luck. This isn't about truth. This is about corporate propaganda in NYC schools, sponsored by the city.

If you dig into the actual "rules" (pdf) for the contest (which are quite buried on the site, but are embedded below), you discover some interesting tidbits. While nowhere on the contest website does NYC admit that NBC Universal is the real sponsor behind this campaign, you do find that information buried in the rules. The rules make it clear that this is a joint project of NYC and NBCUniversal, along with some design agencies.

And, um, must we point out the seeming irony that this video contest is supposed to be about promoting the importance of the protection of copyright... but in order to enter, you agree to completely give up your ability to assert your own copyright?

All Submissions become the property of the Sponsor and will not be acknowledged or returned.... BY MAKING A SUBMISSION, ENTRANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HIS/HER SUBMISSION MAY BE POSTED ON SPONSOR’S WEB SITE, AT SPONSOR’S DISCRETION. Making a Submission grants Sponsor and its agents the right to publish, use, adapt, edit and/or modify such Submission in any way, in any and all media, without limitation, and without consideration to the entrant.

Oh, but that's not the best part. You see, if you win, you have to agree to turn over the copyright, and admit that this video is a "work made for hire" under copyright law, so you can't ever use termination rights to get it back:

By accepting a prize Winner (and Winner’s parent or legal guardian if Winner is an eligible minor) agrees that his/her Submission will be deemed a Work Made For Hire under the Copyright laws of the United States, but if it cannot be so deemed, then Winner irrevocably assigns and transfers to Sponsor all of his/her right, title and interest in and to his/her Submission, including all but not limited to all copyright and trademark rights which he or she may have, in the United States and worldwide, therein, for consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. Winner hereby waives in favor of Sponsor, all rights of “Droit Moral” or “Moral Rights of Authors” or any similar rights or principles of law that winner may now or later have to his/her Submission. Sponsor reserves the right to alter, change or modify Winner’s Submission, in its sole discretion. Upon request of Sponsor, Winner (and Winner’s parent or legal guardian if Winner is an eligible minor) shall execute and deliver such additional instrument of assignment (“Assignment”), as may be solely deemed by Sponsor, reasonably necessary to establish the ownership of record of the right, title and interest in and to the Submission and of the copyrights transferred and “Moral Rights of Authors” waived under these Official Rules. Should Sponsor fail to request Assignment as stated, that shall not be deemed a waiver of Sponsor’s rights and Sponsor may at a later time request Assignment.

In other words, the real message of this "contest" is that you should create a video about respecting copyrights... and if you do so, we'll trample all over your copyrights.

Anyway. The grand prize for this is a mere $500. We must be able to do better than that as a community. If anyone is interested in contributing to a fund to create a "competing" contest, hit us up over email, and we'll see if we can offer a better prize for a more truthful contest...

Filed Under: contest, copyright, new york city, propaganda
Companies: mpaa, nbc universal

New York City Freedom Of Information Requests Fail Miserably

from the doesn't-Bloomberg-own-an-information-company dept

Interesting timing on this one. As you may recall, back in May we filed three Freedom of Information requests, two with NYC and one with Homeland Security's ICE division. To date, we've only received one complete response, from NYC telling us that they didn't have the documents in question -- which actually revealed some interesting info about how Homeland Security was posting NBC propaganda as if it were done by itself.

However, we're still waiting on the other two. ICE has said that they're still processing our request (though I believe it's now past the legal limit to do so). Similarly, NYC is way past due in fulfilling our request under NYC's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).

It turns out that this is par for the course for New York City. Reader Stephen points us to a report that says that, even though Mayor Bloomberg has promised to be much more transparent, the city government regularly witholds information or ignores requests altogether, according to amNewYork. The NY Times has even sued the city over this. amNewYork ran some tests itself, sending out 38 requests, and detailing the responses. Here are a few of the lowlights from NYC:

• Eight agencies failed to respond within the five-business-day deadline they are given to make the information available, deny the request with a reason, or provide an approximate date when the documents will be ready.
• Some agencies expressed disdain for answering queries. Concerning a related question on FOIL requests, a city Housing Preservation and Development staffer wrote in an email to a records officer that “this is the kind of crap I have no patience for.” Incidentally, HPD was the fastest agency to respond to amNY’s initial FOIL request, taking two days.

The report has a lot more information and details, but it sounds like folks working for the NYC government really just don't care and so they don't really follow the law.

Filed Under: dhs, foia, freedom of information, new york city

Techdirt Files FOIA Requests Concerning ICE 'Anti-Piracy' Videos

from the digging-in dept

Earlier today, I filed three Freedom of Information requests concerning the infamous "anti-piracy PSA" that Homeland Security's ICE division started placing on domains it seized. As we noted at the time, the videos were not new and not created by ICE. Instead, they were part of a campaign put together by New York City with the help of NBC Universal and the MPAA. The scripts of the videos were misleading, and I was troubled by the idea that the federal government would be playing corporately produced and funded propaganda, with the imprimatur of the Department of Homeland Security. I asked a series of friendly (non-aggressive) questions to Brian Hale, officially the spokesperson for ICE within the Department of Homeland Security about where they got the video and how much was paid for it. Hale and Homeland Security apparently decided not to comment at all, despite multiple email requests.

Separately, I made requests to the City of New York, to get their side of the story, but after being asked who I was reporting for, what "the nature" of my story was and who else I was talking to (all of which I answered honestly), I received no further response from the City of New York.

Thus, the three Freedom of Information requests -- filed using the new system from MuckRock.com, an open government tool that seeks to publish documents retrieved via such requests and which recently built a tool to make it easier to make such requests (which I'm now testing) -- are as follows:

• A FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security, concerning the details of any licensing agreement with the City of New York or with NBC Universal directly.
• A request under NY State's Freedom of Information Law concerning details of any licensing agreement with Homeland Security concerning the same videos.
• Separately, a second request to NYC, concerning communications between the Mayor's Office and NBC Universal or the MPAA concerning the details behind those videos as well

The NY State law says that the city must respond to my request within five business days. DHS has a longer period of time to respond. Honestly, it's silly that I had to file such requests. Homeland Security could have easily cleared this up weeks ago by answering my simple questions concerning how the federal government licensed this video. The fact that it has refused to do so necessitated this formal approach, unfortunately.

Filed Under: dhs, foia, freedom of information, new york city
Companies: mpaa, nbc universal

NBC Universal & MPAA Get NYC To Run Propaganda 'Anti-Piracy' Ad Campaign

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

Jarrett Streebin alerts us to the news (via BusinessInsider) that the the NYC Mayor's Office of Michael Bloomberg is running an unintentionally hilarious ad campaign called Stop Piracy in NYC. This is actually a followup to an effort by the MPAA a few years back to get New York City to put in place even more stringent anti-camcording laws (it was already against the law to record a movie in the theater, but the MPAA demanded that it be made criminal, rather than civil, so that the NYC police could do its job for it). Of course, in order to do this, the MPAA simply made up numbers, claiming that 40% of all pirated movies came from camcorded films in NYC. The world is a large place, so attributing 40% of all such movies to NYC seemed like a stretch -- made even more ridiculous when that same MPAA, just a few days later, claimed that 70% of all camcorded films come from Canada, where it was pushing for similar legislation. 40% plus 70% equals... a great big lie for political purposes -- something the MPAA is no stranger to.

Reading through the details of the "ad campaign," we're not surprised to see the driving force behind it is our old friend, Rick Cotton, the General Counsel at NBC Universal, who often seems to have no shame in saying stuff that makes absolutely no sense concerning movie piracy. Cotton, most famously, is the guy who once made a filing with the FCC where he tried to claim that movie piracy was killing the American corn farmer. This ignored two rather important points: (1) people who watch unauthorized copies of movies can also eat popcorn and (2) corn -- one of the most subsidized crops in the US -- continues to grow as a market. Oh yeah, speaking of growing markets, have we mentioned how the movie industry keeps breaking records at the box office, despite all of this file sharing.

Is NYC spending taxpayer money on Hollywood propaganda, or is it being funded by the MPAA? According to one report, this is funded by the city itself, so, yes NYC taxpayer money is going towards this. The city is trying to downplay the cost, by saying it's using resources it already has, but that also means those resources can't be used for other ads. Wouldn't it actually save more jobs if NYC wasn't wasting taxpayer money on propaganda campaigns based on bogus information?

Anyway, the campaign has some hilariously misleading commercials. One has a guy pretending to offer bootleg DVDs, but if you take one, he says, the depressed looking person holding a boom mic next to him will lose her job. Of course, it's not as if the MPAA and Cotton's company have done everything possible to reject new business models that might keep more people employed. But, none of that matters according to the campaign. It's because some kids, who would never buy the DVD in the first place, download a movie that someone won't get a job. Uh huh. And it ends with the blatantly false line: "There's no such thing as a free movie." Someone should tell Nina Paley or Stevie Long or the folks at Double Edge Films or any of the filmmakers using Vodo, etc. There is such a thing as a free-to-consumer movie, contrary to the ad campaign's central message. In fact, if the message is "if you're watching a movie for free, it's infringing," then people probably shouldn't turn on their TVs to watch movies played on broadcast TV.

The problem, once again, is not "piracy." It's folks like Rick Cotton thinking that the business model that Universal used to have must forever be the same. It's pretty sad that NYC is supporting such backwards thinking.

Filed Under: new york city, piracy, propaganda, rick cotton
Companies: nbc universal

Judge Rejects Attempt To Fine Family For Picking Up Discarded Air Conditioning Unit

from the how-is-this-even-allowed? dept

The privacy geeks out there are all very familiar with the famous Supreme Court case California vs. Greenwood, which established the point that, once you've put stuff out for garbage collection, you have relinquished it as your own personal property. But that case focused on the 4th Amendment issues of things like warrants. In theory, there could still be laws unrelated to the issue in the Greenwood case concerning who can and cannot take the garbage you've set out. And apparently, New York City has just such a law, making it illegal to take appliances or air conditioners. There may be many reasons for this (safety, for one), but it seems like a pretty ridiculous law to try to enforce, either way. However, apparently in NYC, they actually pay people to sit and watch appliances that people have thrown out.

That's what led to a woman and her son getting charged with a $4,000 fine for picking up a discarded air conditioner. The Consumerist lets us know that, thankfully, a judge has tossed this fine. There are so many ridiculous angles to this case, even if you believe the law is reasonable. First, two people were fined. The guy who picked up the air conditioning unit... and his aunt, who owned the car, but was not in it at the time. That seems pretty questionable as well. It's a bad application of liability. Just because the nephew put the AC unit in the car, why should the aunt be subject to the fine?

The bigger issue, though, is the fact that NYC, which is having financial problems, actually pays people to watch appliances that people are throwing out. The original Daily News article includes a great quote from the nephew:

"Our city is going bankrupt and we are using our tax dollars to pay these guys to stare at appliances all day," he said. "How do I get a job like that?"

Filed Under: garbage, laws, new york city, trash

AT&T Sorta, Kinda Limiting iPhone Sales In New York City (But You Can Still Get Them)

from the like-that-will-help dept

A bunch of folks are sending in variations on this story saying that AT&T has stopped its online sales of iPhones to anyone in New York City. This is fueling all sorts of speculation, given that the NYC market was one where there were quite a lot of complaints about congestion problems for iPhone users. Add to that a random AT&T customer service person telling Consumerist "New York is not ready for the iPhone", and you've got quite a story. AT&T's initial response (at the first link above) is amazing for its lack of anything resembling an explanation:

"We periodically modify our promotions and distribution channels," said Fletcher Cook, an AT&T spokesman.

Further investigation by some turned up that you can get new iPhones in New York if you go into stores, or if you are an existing customer looking to upgrade. Plus, it looks like if you order directly from Apple itself, you can buy an iPhone in New York. So, on the whole this sounds like some sort of inventory management issue that will probably be worked out pretty quickly, rather than some attempt to limit usage of iPhones in New York.

Filed Under: iphone, new york city
Companies: apple, at&t

You Can't Jam The Terrorist's Phones Without Jamming Everybody Else's

from the all-or-nothing dept

Police officials in New York City are investigating how to jam terrorists' cell phones during attacks, following the Mumbai attacks a few months ago when terrorists coordinated their activities via phone. While disrupting criminals' and terrorists' communications could be a useful tool in security forces' arsenal, it's also worth mentioning that technologies like phone jammers can't really work selectively; that is, they can't pick out particular devices, they simply jam everything in a particular area. While this would crudely accomplish the goal of jamming terrorists' phone calls, it would also preclude any other calls, including those of civilians and authorities. Fortunately, this concept isn't lost on NYC police, who say that not blocking calls, and being able to monitor them instead, could be more useful. But even then, it's not clear how authorities could pinpoint terrorists' phones to monitor their conversations without trolling through all the calls being made in an area. At this point, blocking all cell calls during a terrorist attack or large-scale emergency seems like overkill that could be more harmful than helpful.

Filed Under: mobile phone jammers, new york city, terrorists