Amazon, Cable Industry Molest The Definition Of Copyright In Ongoing Scuff Up Over Cable Box Reform

from the copyright-is-whatever-I-say-it-is dept

Last week we noted how copyright has once again become a straw man, this time as part of an attempt to kill the FCC's plan to bring competition to the cable box. Under the FCC's plan, cable providers would have to provide their programming to third-party hardware vendors -- using any copy protection of their choice -- without forcing consumers to pay for a CableCARD. The plan has little to actually do with copyright, but cable providers have tried to scuttle the effort by trying to claim more cable box competition will magically result in a piracy apocalypse (stop me if you've heard this sort of thing before somewhere).

The cable industry's attack on the FCC's plan has been threefold: hire sock puppets to make violently misleading claims in newspapers and websites nationwide; push industry-loyal politicians (who have no real clue what the plan does) to derail the plan publicly as the worst sort of villainy, and present a counter proposal packed with caveats that makes it all but useless. This counter proposal involves the cable industry delivering its programming via apps (much like it already does), but forces consumers to continue renting a cable box if they want to record programs via DVR.

Given the cable industry's plan is little more than a press release, that's only the caveat we know of. But anybody thinking the cable industry's going to just give up $21 billion in set top rental fees and their walled garden control over the user experience is utterly adorable.

Numerous companies with feet in both streaming hardware and TV (Google, Amazon, TiVO) obviously support the FCC's original proposal. A regulatory filing from Amazon back in April (pdf) applauded the FCC's plan, and while it raised some questions about copyright and copy protection, it also argued that most of the modern protection systems already at play on streaming hardware should be more than effective at protecting programming:

"Amazon Fire TV 4K, nVidia Shield TV, Roku4, and numerous televisions from Sony, Vizio, and other manufacturers are already trusted by movie studios to deliver high-quality ultra HD movies with theater quality sound. These devices use hardware protections that assure that content delivered to these devices can only be decrypted and played back by devices authorized to play back that content. Furthermore, the technological solutions that exist today are much more advanced and robust than they were even when CableCARD was created. As the proliferation and success of OTT services (including those offered by Amazon) demonstrate, modern content protection technologies are both in use today and highly effective."

Given the fact that most DRM is almost always bypassed and generally only succeeds at making the end-user experience difficult and annoying, that's debatable. Still, it should again be noted that copyright itself isn't really the issue here. As the EFF rather eloquently noted back in April, this fight is about control of the end-user experience and, for cable, protecting cable box rental revenue and keeping its customers firmly ensconced within the traditional cable walled garden.

That said, it's interesting to watch how the nebulous term "copyright" morphs and shifts meaning as both sides try to use the concept as a malleable weapon. For example the Washington Post this week pointed to a another Amazon filing with the FCC (pdf) in which Amazon complains that it's the cable industry's app-based "compromise" solution that violates copyright and would be a piracy nightmare (despite cable delivering current content via apps with no problem):

"The parties also discussed the recent submission from NCTA of an alternative method using an app-based approach. The Amazon representatives said that it was hard to comment specifically on the short submission since it lacked important details. However, some aspects of it warrant attention. The Amazon representatives stressed that hardware-based digital rights management (“DRM”) is the gold standard for content protection. A native application has no impact on the robustness of properly implemented hardware-based DRM with regards to content security. Thus, the NCTA submission does not in fact address the security concerns MVPDs have identified as one of the central reasons to oppose the proposals set forth in the NPRM.

In short, the cable industry says it can't possibly support real cable box competition because... copyright! Amazon argues this is nonsense, but in its own way is perpetuating the straw man by claiming that only a hardware-based solution will work because... copyright! As we noted last week the very definition of copyright is being molested for argument's sake; a giant ugly red herring distracting observers from the fact that this is about control, not copyright. And obviously if you've used Amazon's own locked down, walled-garden products, the negative impact of DRM is very often a distant afterthought -- not entirely unlike traditional cable.

It should be noted that the Amazon-owned Washington Post first gives way too much credence to these copyright claims, then mistakenly tells readers that the FCC's proposal and the cable industry's proposal are effectively the same thing, both efforts ultimately saving consumers money:

"Critics say requiring companies such as Comcast to make their TV content freely available to any other box maker poses copyright risks, raising the possibility of theft by content pirates. Both the FCC approach and the cable industry proposal could reduce the cost of renting set-top boxes — in some cases, by potentially eliminating the need for them altogether.

Well, no. The FCC's effort is a well-intentioned (though possibly doomed) attempt to bring real competition to the cable box, driving down costs for consumers. The cable industry's counter-proposal is a page of ambiguous promises with the clear intent of delivering programming via app, but forcing users to either still rent a cable box -- or pay their cable provider a premium if they want to record and store content (either on physical DVR or cloud-based DVR system). One effort is trying desperately to make the cable box more open and PC like, the other is a show pony designed to retain control in the face of evolution.

Filed Under: apps, competition, copyright, fcc, set top boxes
Companies: amazon, comcast

Cable Industry: Our Shitty TV Apps Are Just As Good As Real Cable Box Competition, Right?

from the half-baked dept

The cable industry is aggressively fighting the FCC's attempt to bring competition to the cable box market. So far that's been via a two-pronged approach of buying a torrent of incredibly misleading editorials by people pretending to be objective observers (including Jesse Jackson), and throwing money at politicians who oppose the plan, but pretty clearly have no goddamned idea what they're actually talking about.

Under the FCC's plan (pdf), cable providers would be required to provide their existing programming to third-party hardware vendors, creating competition and hopefully a flood of better, cheaper hardware without the need for expensive, and annoying CableCARDs. But with the average user paying $231 annually in set top box rental fees, the cable industry is pulling out all the stops to protect $21 billion in annual, captive revenues.

The cable sector's latest attempt to scuttle the FCC's plan? A voluntary counter-proposal that pretends to deliver what the FCC is asking for, but falls well short. Under the proposal unveiled during recent meetings at the FCC (pdf), the cable industry would instead provide much of its existing programming via apps. This, the cable industry claims, would somehow create competition in the third-party hardware market without FCC involvement:

This alternative could be built on enforcing an industry-wide commitment to develop and deploy video “apps” that all large MVPDs would build to open HTML5 web standards....They expressed their belief that such an approach could further advance competition for independent device manufacturers within the context of a market transformation already underway and in a manner that fully protects and respects the rights of content owners.

But while this has been portrayed as some kind of revolutionary concession by hired telecom sector policy cheerleaders and several different press outlets, it isn't much different than what cable operators offer today. Currently, most cable providers offer some of their content via apps usable on tablets, smartphones, and many streaming devices. Historically, they offer fewer features and less content than is available via full, traditional cable; little more than a token gesture toward innovation in the hopes of keeping paying customers from jumping ship to Netflix, Amazon, or a collection of other cheaper options.

Under this latest proposal, you'd be able to watch some cable content via apps, but if you wanted to, say, record via DVR -- you'd still have to sign up for old, vanilla QAM-based cable and pay for the same, old, clunky set top box. Ultimately, my guess is that these cable executives would eventually get rid of the cable box if you use their apps, but force you to pay a monthly fee for their cloud-based streaming or other services. Potentially using zero rating (exempting their services from usage caps) to ensure fealty. Slight variation on the same, existing song.

INCOMPAS, a trade association that has Google, Amazon, Netflix, and some ISPs as members (mostly telcos with no interest in selling cable TV), issued a statement pointing out that this "compromise" wasn't much of one, while reminding everyone that cable sector promises historically don't mean much:

...The cable industry is proposing competitive choice for streaming devices, but still seeks to retain a controlling grip on DVRs and recordable devices. “The cable industry has made promises before about ditching the set-top box, that have not materialized. So it is important for the FCC’s unlock the box proposal to include enforceable standards that will create a thriving market for competition, congruent with the law.

Consumer groups too were quick to point out that the cable industry's proposal is murky and falls short:

"The proposal does not allow for many features that consumers want, such as home recording, and it does not allow for true user interface competition," Public Knowledge Senior Staff Attorney John Bergmayer said in a statement sent to Ars. "Additionally, core aspects of the proposal are unclear, in particular, the precise mechanism by which MVPDs propose to provide apps for various hardware and software platforms, and whether consumers would need a broadband connection to access video programming instead of leveraging their existing pay TV connections."

While it's good this proposal at least brings the cable industry to the table, skepticism is more than warranted. This is, after all, an industry with a long, proud history of engaging in anti-competitive behavior under the auspices of phantom technical justification, with net neutrality and usage caps being only a small part of the equation. Comcast, for example, is so eager to limit streaming competition it refuses to let its broadband customers access HBO Go across a wide variety of devices, providing only fleeting, half-baked justifications for the behavior.

Make no mistake, the cable industry is absolutely terrified of not only losing tens of billions in rental fees, but of truly open hardware platforms willing to direct customers to cheaper streaming alternatives. Under this app-based approach, you can be dead certain that cable would include all manner of caveats to ensure customers still need to sign up for traditional cable or their DVR services if they want the "full TV experience." Anyone who thinks the sector's going to honestly volunteer any plan that puts its existing monopoly power at any serious risk -- simply doesn't know the cable industry.

If the FCC is truly intent on real competition to the set top box market, the cable industry may need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the finish line.

Filed Under: apps, cable, cable tv, competition, fcc, set top box, unlock the box

Press Eats Up 'App' That Helps People Search For Migrant Boats On The Meditarranean... Despite It Not Actually Doing Anything

from the come-on-guys dept

Apparently, last week there was some buzz in the press about a new "app" that was being offered for iPhone users, put together by the charity group Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS) and Grey for Good, a group that's associated with the ad giant Grey Group (itself a part of WPP). The idea behind the app is that it feeds users real-time satellite imagery of the Mediterranean Sea, and if you happen to see a boat full of migrants, you alert MOAS and they'll go check it out. Many in the press ate it up because it hits all the buttons: it's an app (ding!) that lets people feel good (ding!) by pretending they're changing the world (ding!) on a topic of great public interest (ding!). And thus, we got a bunch of stories, though only Reuters went with the most obvious of headlines: Want to save migrants in the Mediterranean? There's an app for that. Other reports appeared at Wired, Mashable, Huffington Post, the Evening Standard and a variety of other, smaller publications.

There's just one issue. The app appears to be complete bullshit -- as the wonderful Twitter account SwiftOnSecurity pointed out: Following that, a bunch of others started digging in and highlighting that it's clearly a bogus app. Matt Burke pointed out that it appears to be a link to a static image, while Rosyna Keller found a bunch of details about the app, including the fact that it uses images from Google Maps (meaning that they're not real-time or even remotely up to date) and a static weather call for the weather from Misrata, Libya, rather than whatever patch of Mediterranean you think you're looking at. Oh, and also that the app asks for donations and personal info including your passport number. Malika Rodrigues pointed out that the app is up for an award at the Cannes Lions advertising awards, which just happen to be going on this week. At least as I type this, the app still has a page on the awards website with a heartstring-tugging video about how important this app is: Of course, there are a variety of things that should have tipped you off. First off, while it's theoretically possible to see how such a thing could be created, real-time satellite imagery is not easily available to just any charity building an app. The video quotes someone from a satellite company, SES, praising the app, and (I guess?) implying that's where the satellite imagery is from. But SES promotes itself as being about communications satellites for connecting teams in different places. I can't find anything on its website about imagery, real-time or otherwise. But, perhaps just as important: how would a random person who actually spotted a boat using such an app be able to distinguish a "refugee" boat from... any other boat?

It's always interesting to see how tech and innovation might help with real challenges, but creating a fake app and a fake campaign, including getting widespread press coverage for something that doesn't appear to actually do anything, seems pretty damn scammy.

Filed Under: apps, isea, mediterranean, migrants, satellite imagery
Companies: grey for good, grey group, moas

Redaction Failure In FTC/Amazon Decision Inadvertently Allows Public To See Stuff It Should Have Been Able To See Anyway

from the not-even-good-enough-for-government-work dept

A court has found that Amazon engaged in deceptive practices by not obtaining "informed consent" about in-app charges, especially with apps targeted at children. The finding is perhaps unsurprising, as the world of microtransactions relies greatly on a minimum number of steps between app makers (and app purveyors like Amazon) and users' wallets.

What's more surprising is the opinion itself, which arrived in redacted form. Both the FTC and Amazon obviously wanted to keep parts of the opinion from being made public. The problem is that whoever handled the redaction process blew it.

Coughenor released two rulings -- a complete decision, which was marked as "sealed" and a decision for the public, which was marked as "redacted." That redacted version has large swaths of text covered with black bars, but the opinion can be read in its entirety by cutting and pasting it into another file.

The unintended consequence of this screw-up is that the public can now see what the government and Amazon wanted to prevent the public from knowing -- which is exactly the sort of stuff the public should know, as Public Citizen's Scott Michelman explains.

The redactions included a good deal of information that was central to court's decision, including the evidence showing what Amazon officials knew and when, the FTC's estimate of damages, the length of the injunction the FTC was seeking, and more. All of these are of great public importance to understanding what Amazon was doing, what the FTC argued to the court, and why the court ruled as it did.

It's not as though any sort of trade secrets or confidential government techniques are hiding behind the retractions. Much of what is redacted appears to have been for the benefit of Amazon, which does not come out of this surprise un-redaction looking good.

[I]n developing its Kindle Fire tablet, Amazon identified "soccer parents" as a key target customer base, referring to them as "low-hanging fruit." (Dkt. No. 121 at 8; see also Dkt. No. 122 at 3.)

[...]

[T]he evidence demonstrates that Amazon was aware that many customers did not understand in-app purchases when they were first implemented. In a confidential document regarding Amazon's marketing plan for launching in-app purchases, the company acknowledged that "'IAP' isn't a concept widely known by customers." (Dkt. No. 120 at 5.) And, despite its assertion that "[c]ustomers are not looking for apps based on how much they cost," the company was aware that customers' top searches in selecting apps indicate that customers were seeking free apps to use. (Id. at n. 2; five of the top searches included the word "free.") Amazon was aware that in many instances, the person initiating the in-app purchase was a child: in a document discussing company strategy to promote increases in in-app purchasing, Amazon acknowledged "the disconnect between the account owner (e.g., parent) and the app user (e.g., child)."

[...]

Moreover, regardless of its reputation for customer service, it is Amazon's stated policy that in-app purchases are final and nonrefundable, likely discouraging much of its customer base from attempting to seek refunds in the first place. (See Dkt. No. 127 at 275.) ("Yeah, that's the – that's our official policy, is digital content's not refundable.")

[...]

Amazon has received many complaints from adults who were surprised to find themselves charged for in-app purchases made by children. By December 2011, Aaron Rubenson referred to the amount of customer complaints as "near house on fire." (Dkt. No. 115 at 19.) Rubenson also referred to "accidental purchasing by kids" as one of two issues the company needed to solve. (Id.) Rubenson additionally stated that "we're clearly causing problems for a large percentage of our customers."

Also "withheld" is the FTC's justification of its damages estimate.

Julie Miller, a lead FTC data analyst, calculated the total in-app purchase revenue and refund amounts for seven different categories: (1) orders of $20 or more in High-Risk Non-Casino apps from the earliest date available to March 25, 2012,1 (2) orders of $19.99 and below in High-Risk Non-Casino apps from the earliest date available to February 5, 2013, (3) orders of $19.99 and below in High-Risk NonCasino apps from February 6–April 30, 2013 excluding those on the “Otter” device, (4) orders of $19.99 and below in High-Risk Non-Casino apps from May 1–July 30, 2013 excluding those on the Otter device, (5) orders of $19.98 and below in High-Risk Non-Casino apps from July 31, 2013–June 3, 2014 excluding those on the Otter device, (6) orders of $19.99 and below in High-Risk Non-Casino apps from February 6–October 9, 2013 on the Otter device, and (7) orders of $0.99 and below in High-Risk Non-Casino apps from October 10, 2013 to the latest date available on the Otter device. (Id.) These categories were selected in order to omit authorized charges. This calculation gave Ms. Miller a total of charges made without authorization by password. Ms. Miller calculated $86,575,321.38 in revenue and also found that $10,060,646.48 was provided in refunds. (Dkt. No. 110 at 3.) Ms. Miller then calculated an “unauthorized charge rate,” the rate at which users failed to properly enter a password in initiating an in-app purchase as a percentage of the overall total.

Amazon's rebuttal of the FTC's math is redacted...

Amazon argues that Ms. Miller’s estimate is so “fundamentally flawed” as to not be able to support a finding of substantial injury. (Dkt. No. 179 at 18.) In so arguing, Amazon primarily takes issue with Ms. Miller’s calculation of an “Unauthorized charge rate.” (Id.) In dividing the number of password entry “failures” and dividing that by the total number of password prompts presented, the FTC argues that it identified a “reasonable proxy for the rate at which children would incur an in-app charge without consent . . when password entry was not required.” (Dkt. No. 184 at 18.) Amazon asserts that this rate calculation “assumes that every single password failure was an attempt by a child that would otherwise have been a completed in-app purchase.” (Dkt. No. 179 at 18.) This point is well taken: many password “failures” could have occurred because the user got distracted, changed his or her mind, or simply could not remember their password. However, it is reasonable to assume that of the group of users faced with a password prompt who ultimately failed to provide a password, many were children who, absent a password prompt, would have gone on to complete an in-app purchase.

...as is the court's partial agreement with Amazon's assessment of the assessment. [redacted portion in bold]

While, as discussed above, the general methods used by the FTC to reasonably approximate the damages to consumers by unauthorized in-app charges serve as a fair starting place, the Court finds that the unauthorized charge rate of 42% is too high. The Court has received Amazon’s “Adjustments to the FTC’s Estimates of Injury and Monetary Relief” (Dkt. No. 221 at 2) and invites further briefing on the issue of the scope of appropriate monetary relief.

Also redacted is the FTC's declaration of how long it felt Amazon should remain under the government's supervision.

The injunction sought would subject Amazon to government oversight for twenty years.

While FTC intervention has resulted in better refund policies and better notification about in-app purchases, the fact is that app makers are just as culpable as Amazon -- even if it's Amazon that will be paying the fines. There was no line of app developers at Amazon's door demanding better protections for app users. And Amazon is hardly alone in its targeting of low-hanging soccer parent fruit. When it comes to monetization of microtransactions, the lack of purchase controls is a feature, not a bug.

Then there's the question of whether we really want the government to be in the business of designing app store front-ends. While the concerns central to this case are valid, the best solution isn't necessarily the FTC setting itself up as an additional middleman for in-app purchases -- especially not for the next 20 years.

And, as for this opinion, it just goes to show courts are still far too willing to grant ridiculous redaction requests from plaintiffs and defendants -- a practice that further separates the public from the government that's supposed to be serving it.

Filed Under: apps, children, deceptive practices, ftc, redaction
Companies: amazon

Silverpush Stops Using Sneaky, Inaudible TV Audio Tracking Beacons After FTC Warning

from the tread-carefully dept

ISPs and cable companies already track and sell your online behavior, your location data, and effectively everything you do on the Internet (to the second). Now broadcasters and app developers are cooking up a new technology that uses so-called "smart audio beacons" emitted during television programs to help track user viewing habits. These tones, inaudible to the human ear, are picked up by applications which use your smartphone or tablet microphone to listen and record them. That data can then be used to build a profile that potentially matches your existing online data with your viewing habits.

While the technology appears to currently only be in use overseas right now, the FTC felt the need to issue a press release recently warning companies using the technology that they too are being watched. The warning accompanied a letter the FTC sent to 12 app developers (pdf) that informs devs that if they use the technology and don't inform consumers, they're potentially violating Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC's attention was grabbed after they realized that the apps in question failed completely to inform users they were being tracked, or that they were even using the device microphone:

"...The code is configured to access the device’s microphone to collect audio information even when the application is not in use. Moreover, your application requires permission to access the mobile device’s microphone prior to install, despite no evident functionality in the application that would require such access. Upon downloading and installing your mobile application that embeds Silverpush, we received no disclosures about the included audio beacon functionality — either contextually as part of the setup flow, in a dedicated standalone privacy policy, or anywhere else."

Two days later, the company pioneering this new snooping tech, Silverpush, announced that it had "exited from all UAB (Unique Audio Beacon) based business and shifted to a newer product line" and that it would "appreciate if SilverPush is not associated with UAB based business going forward." The company also seems to be claiming in conversations with the media that this sudden departure had absolutely nothing to do with the FTC's warning:

"When asked by Motherboard why it pivoted away from audio beacons, a SilverPush spokesperson would only say its decision was “a natural process to move to a more evolved product as a part of our business plan” that began almost a year ago, and again insisted that it wasn't responding to privacy concerns. The company spokesperson also said that SilverPush has never partnered with US app developers in the past, and claimed that any apps that integrate its audio beacon tracking code explicitly ask for permission before accessing a device's microphone through a pop-up message within the app itself.

Motherboard was not able to verify these claims, because SilverPush will not identify which apps and companies are using its code. As of April 2015, the company claimed that 67 apps were using its code, allowing it to monitor around 18 million devices."

Much like the boiling frog metaphor, online privacy is eroded one degree at a time, without most people noticing the temperature shift. For example while it would have been controversial fifteen years ago, most people are currently ok with letting companies track absolutely everything we view (ISP deep packet inspection) and everywhere we go (location data tracking and sales). Still, the marketing industry occasionally pushes into territory that just creeps everybody out (like cable boxes that watch you). But what creeps everybody out today can and usually does become the new normal of tomorrow.

Filed Under: apps, audio becaons, ftc, isps, tracking beacons, tv
Companies: silverpush

Brazilian Court Freaks Out, Briefly Shuts Down All Of WhatsApp, For Failing To Reveal Info On Users

from the that's-one-approach dept

As you may have heard, earlier this week, a judge in Brazil ordered that WhatsApp, the insanely popular messaging app owned by Facebook should be blocked from all of Brazil for 48 hours, after it refused to reveal some details on some criminals who had used the app. Another judge overturned the ruling soon after, and the app started to reopen to people in Brazil. The GlobalVoices link above has the details about how this came to be:

Much information that could help answer this question is being withheld from the public. But it appears to be linked to a criminal investigation of a man accused of drug trafficking, armed robbery and association with Brazil's largest criminal organization PCC. This investigation is being conducted in camera, or in secret, so no further details have been released.

In July and August 2015, Brazilian judiciary officials ordered WhatsApp to release personal data of users who were being investigated by the Federal Police. But WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook, refused to release the data, according to the São Paulo Court of Appeals press release.

On December 16, the Brazilian Prosecutor's Office responded by ordering telecommunications providers to block WhatsApp altogether, affecting what the company estimates to be 100 million users in Brazil.

This seems like a fairly extreme reaction -- harming millions of users (a recent survey found that 93% of internet users in Brazil use WhatsApp) -- just because the company won't reveal info on one user. This is especially concerning because just last year we were happy to see Brazil pass a ground-breaking law, called the Marco Civil, to protect online rights (after years of debate over it).

However, the judge who agreed to block WhatsApp, Sandra Regine Nostre Marques, actually used a provision of the Marco Civil to justify the block:

The blocking motion was authorized by judge Sandra Regina Nostre Marques, who based her decision on a provision of Marco Civil, Brazil's so-called “Bill of Rights” for the Internet. The law establishes rules on network neutrality, privacy, data retention and intermediary liability, among other issues, and was approved by President Dilma Rousseff in April 2014.

The Marco Civil also allows state authorities to place sanctions on foreign Internet companies that refuse to comply with Brazilian legislation. As noted in Article 12 of the law, authorities can impose warnings, fines and temporary suspension of a company's services or activities. These penalties can be implemented only with a judge's approval.

The online human rights organization Access Now condemned the order and further argues that article 12 of the Marco Civil should be changed:

Even though it was temporarily overturned, the Sao Paulo court order is a troubling setback for Brazil since the country passed legislation known as the Marco Civil da Internet, a civil framework for the internet that gives legal status to a set of fundamental principles for digital rights for all Brazilians. One little-known clause in the Marco Civil — article 12 — permits penalties for companies that fail to respond to requests for data. Among the possible penalties, judges can apply warnings, temporary suspension of services, or even the prohibition to operate the service on the country. Judges can impose these penalties individually or jointly. We believe that article 12 is overbroad and disproportionate, violating a cornerstone of international law. The implementation of article 12 by the judiciary has drastic and unintended consequences that harm the ability to seek, receive, and impart information.

The decision by the higher court judge to issue a temporary injunction was based on the lack of proportionality between the wide scope block and the failure to comply with the July court order. But a temporary injunction does not serve as precedent for subsequent court cases under Brazilian law.

But, that may not happen as there's a lot of pressure in Brazil to go the other way unfortunately, as Eduardo Cunha, a leading Brazilian politician, and opponent to the Marco Civil has been gaining power.

Cunha, a former telco lobbyist, was one of the biggest opponents of Marco Civil (particularly its net neutrality clause) before the legislation made its way to Dilma’s desk and into law.

But a year later, he controls a Congress dominated by evangelical extremists and military dictatorship apologists, and is authoring or advocating on behalf of a slate of proposed laws that would not only dismantle Marco Civil’s provisions for consumer privacy and freedom of expression, but would also effectively criminalize the use of social media.

PL 215/15, which opponents are nicknaming the Big Spy (“O Espião”), is a surveillance law that would require Brazilians to enter their tax ID, home address and phone number to access any website or app on the internet, and require companies like Facebook and Google to store that information for up to three years and provide access to police with a court order. An earlier draft said “competent authorities” could request the data without a court order.

Another part of the law, authored by Cunha, would allow politicians to censor social media practically at will.

So, uh, yeah. It's not looking good for the internet right now in Brazil, despite looking so promising just a year ago.

Filed Under: access, apps, bans, brazil, free speech, marco civil
Companies: facebook, whatsapp

HIV Dating App Company Threatens Press With HIV Infection For Reporting On Personal Info Leak

from the high-five dept

It's not uncommon to see threats towards the press occur when someone has been embarrassed. Whether it's an idiotic presidential campaign mad over a rape allegation or an attorney general pissed off at reporters who are attempting to, you know, report, these things happen. Perhaps even more common are threats against the press when they report on security exploits, such as when Sony demanded the end of the publication of documents the press got after one of the many, many times Sony has been hacked.

But I've never seen a company threaten to infect a member of the press with HIV before. This strange tale starts with an app called Hzone, which is a dating application for singles that are HIV positive. And, hey, why not? The HIV-infected need love, too. But running a site like that would seem to come with a particularly dire need for security, which should not result in the user database for the app being publicly exposed to the internet, as it was a few weeks ago.

Today's story is strange, but true. It's brought to you by DataBreaches.net and security researcher Chris Vickery. Vickery discovered that the Hzone application was leaking user data, and properly disclosed the security issue to the company. However, those initial disclosures were met with silence, so Vickery enlisted the help of DataBreaches.net.

So, as too often seems to happen with these cases, a researcher found a security flaw and brought it to the company's attention, only to be completely ignored. Then the researcher goes to a press outlet, DataBreaches.net in this case. Even as Vickery continued to let the company know about the leak, the database remained exposed. And this is a database, I feel compelled to remind you, filled with the personal information of HIV infected persons. The issue wasn't fixed until mid-December, some three weeks or more since the issue was initially reported. At about that same time, DataBreaches informed Hzone that it would be reporting on the leak.

And that's when this tale takes a strange and disgusting turn.

Finally, when DataBreaches.net informed Hzone that the details of the security issues would be written about, the company responded by threatening the website's admin (Dissent) with infection.

"Why do you want to do this? What's your purpose? We are just a business for HIV people. If you want money from us, I believe you will be disappointed. And, I believe your illegal and stupid behavior will be notified by our HIV users and you and your concerns will be revenged by all of us. I suppose you and your family members don't want to get HIV from us? If you do, go ahead."

Ah, the old "We'll just infect you and your family with HIV, haha!" tactic to silence reporters. This is a company that, again, caters directly to the community of the HIV infected, exposed that community's personal information, and then used HIV infection as a cheap threat on a reporter simply for reporting on the leak. Why would anyone want anything to do with these people any longer? And, while barely apologizing, Hzone appears to be more interested in doing CYA than true security.

Hzone later apologized for the threat, but it still took them some time to fix their flawed database. The company accused DataBreaches.net and Vickery of altering data, which led to speculation that the company didn't fully understand how to secure user information. An example of this is one email where the company states that only a single IP address accessed the exposed information, which is false considering Vickery used multiple computers and IP addresses.

On top of that, Hzone responded to a question by DataBreaches as to whether or not the company bothered to inform its users that their personal information had been compromised.

"No, we didn't notify them. If you will not publish them out, nobody else would do that, right? And I believe you will not publish them out, right?"

Oops.

Filed Under: apps, hiv, leaks, press

CEO Of Mobile Company Blames Everyone For Wanting Coffee Rather Than His Game

from the buy-my-game,-you-ungrateful-fucks! dept

As happens periodically and predictably, a person who created something but hasn't seen the financial return he anticipated is now blaming the public for his financial woes. It's nothing this game developer did wrong -- according to him -- it's everyone else. They all want stuff for free. (h/t Techdirt reader Sneeje)

A mobile game my team and I poured our hearts and souls into is receiving rave reviews from users. The game, Battlestation: Harbinger, was featured by both Apple and Google as one of the best new games in their respective marketplaces.

You may think that congratulations are in order. You might think that my team and I popped some Champagne and headed out on a well-deserved vacation. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Even with these successes, my company and I are in the red, desperate to bring in more money before we have to lay off our workers and close our doors for good.

These are the words of Aksel Junkilla, the CEO of the company behind Battlestation:Harbinger. Complaints about mobile gaming are often inseparable from complaints about casual gamers and the games that cater to them. Everyone supposedly wants everything for free, which is why so many game developers have taken the "free to play" route. Game development is subsidized by a small percentage of users who will dump hundreds or thousands of dollars into the game while the other 99% play for free. It works, to a certain extent, but it also relies on large, loyal userbase.

But that's not the only problem with Junkilla's arguments. They're also premature. Any market can be unpredictable, but markets with limited data are even more so. Console gaming has been around for more than 40 years. PC gaming has been around even longer. But full-fledged mobile gaming has only been around for two decades, and its first decade or so bears almost no resemblance to today's market. To complain about the state of mobile gaming in 2015 is like complaining about the state of the motor vehicle market in 1920. The market is still mostly unexplored and, like any other creative endeavor, what works for some will not work for others. But that hasn't stopped the complaints.

Creators often talk about the internet and other democratic distribution platforms as being responsible for the "devaluing" of creative efforts. But one of the first things this game developer does in his rant about mobile gaming is devalue his own work.

You see, we have a problem in the mobile gaming sector, thanks to you. You would rather buy a pumpkin spice latte a few times a week and enjoy it for a few minutes than buy a game that you can play as long as you would like. In order for creative games to be made, there needs to be a major culture shift. We need to be willing to spend a few dollars on a quality app, rather than for a few extra lives or other in-game purchases.

When you open your rhetorical arguments by comparing your game (which is apparently "worth" far more than people are willing to pay) to a cup of coffee, you're doing your work a disservice. A game shouldn't be compared to a cup of coffee just because the two are similar in price. The rough analogy may seem like it works, but all it really does is signal you feel your game is comparable to cups of coffee and yet somehow more deserving of people's spare income than the local coffee shop.

If that's the argument, this is the rebuttal. Here's Rob Fearon, a game developer in his own right, but one you'll never see arguing that the (potential) customer is always wrong.

What if I didn’t spend that money I’m supposed to save for an app on a coffee. I mean, that’s possible because I don’t even like coffee.

What if I spent £2.99 or whatever…

on food to eat because I need to eat?
on milk or a bottle of juice or two or a Ribena or something?
going towards a pack of nappies for my youngest or some wipes or something?
bus fare to the hospital?
train fare to see my relatives or friends?
or most of it anyway on a Big Issue?
some great tunes I can listen to for years to come?
a comic or a magazine I enjoy reading?
some second hand books?
some new books!
someone else’s videogame because I didn’t like the look of yours? Like Spellbound. I paid £2.99 for Spellbound. Do past purchases even count or is this a modern malaise where it’s only apps or coffee?

Junkilla's inability to see beyond his own price point -- one he had decided was "fair" before "consulting" the buying public (by offering it for sale) -- stunts his own argument. As Fearon points out, mobile game purchase decisions aren't binary. It's not THIS APP or THIS LATTE. It's this app or any number of things that seem more worth the cost. But Junkilla wants to believe the world is keeping him from doing what he loves because they can't stop throwing away their money on spiced lattes.

It could be any other small expenditure, but for some reason, people seem to want to compare [insert thing for sale here] to cups of coffee. Fearon's list is far more expansive and it takes into consideration the fact that humans have many things to spend money on and each person will make decisions based on subjective value -- rather than the "use anywhere" objective value Junkilla seems to believe exists.

And when Junkilla finally moves on from criticizing his potential customers for blowing money on coffee rather than on him, he moves on to indirectly blame them by complaining about free-to-play games and what they've (supposedly) done to the robust market he assumes would be there if not for Clash of Clans, etc.

Even apps that find success in their marketing campaigns cannot make up the money spent on development because people would rather spend $5 on a latte every other day than on the app. Why? Because the most popular games are free-to-play, with a monetization model that lets most players play for free while milking some customers for thousands of dollars.

Junkilla blames people who prefer lattes to his game. He blames people who prefer free-to-play to pay-up-front. He blames bogus reviews left at Google's Play store that rate his game lower because it's not cheaper. He blames popular culture for being popular and generally being more successful than niche offerings like his own. Everything about mobile gaming -- as it exists now -- is the problem. Nothing about his lack of success can be traced back to him or his game… at least according to him.

A review of the comments, however, uncovers a variety of reasons why people may be unwilling to pay the price he's asking, none of which have anything to do with discretionary coffee spending or wanting everything for free.

adambaranek
I would gladly play console game prices for a console game experience.

Brill
Me too. On a console.
I have zero interest in playing Zelda on my phone. Because I don’t use my phone that way. I use my phone for short, distracted, frequently interrupted gaming sessions. If I’m going to sit down and play through a console/PC level game, I’m not doing it on my phone.

[...]

Troy_Costisick
Mobile is still too fluid an ecosystem to expect people to go for premium games right now. Players are limited by ram, storage, download speeds, data limits, screen size, and social footprint. Until tablets/smartphones stop changing so much every 12 months, developers aren’t going to have any idea what kinds of games they can develop and consumers aren’t going to trust anything except free because they’re either upgrading their device so often or dropping the stupid thing on the pavement and cracking the screen in a million places.

There just isn’t enough stability in the hardware to give the author what he wants in the marketplace. When you buy a console or a PC, you’re going to keep it for years. You buy a Kindle or an iPhone and you’ll upgrade it in 12-24 months.

This is a just a small sampling of responses. Other issues brought up are fluky mobile control schemes and phone screen sizes frequently not being optimal for "console-level" gaming. Then there are comments from other game developers, one of which points out the folly of complaining about how the only way to make money is to go "free-to-play" while simultaneously demanding the rest of the world come around to your way of thinking, rather than going where the money actually is.

By the time Junkilla arrives at his conclusion, he's contradicting himself.

Gamers need to learn to vote with their money. This will allow developers to build the great games that everyone wants to see on the expanding mobile platform.

And yet, when the wallet voting occurs, Junkilla is right there to complain about the tallied votes. The public has spoken and his game apparently won't make him rich, much less allow him to break even. THESE THINGS HAPPEN. But they are not symptoms of a severely damaged system.

Finally, Junkilla's implies that his game's critical success should result in commercial success, despite the entire history of cultural and creative efforts showing these two elements rarely go hand-in-hand.

As has been famously noted, the Velvet Underground never sold many albums, but every album they sold resulted in someone starting a band. At any pop culture site, you can find multiple lists of TV shows critics loved but only survived a few seasons because the general public was less impressed. The movies with the best reviews aren't the ones racking up hundreds of millions in ticket sales. Studios behind universally-acclaimed games have closed up shop.

That's the way it goes. It's still a relatively untested market and no one has all the answers. Junkilla, however, doesn't even have the right questions. Attacking potential customers and blaming them for spending their money elsewhere is no way to grow a business. The world isn't just gaming apps and cups of coffee. Connecting the two just because it's an easy way to compare prices does a disservice to both your argument and the public.

Filed Under: aksel junkilla, apps, battlestation:harbinger, blame, business models, coffee, demand, economics, supply

Appeals Court Says Downloading And Using A Free App Doesn't Make You A 'Subscriber'

from the a-device-is-not-a-person,-even-if-they're-inseperable dept

A plaintiff invoking the Video Protection Privacy Act (VPPA) has just been handed a second defeat in his lawsuit against Cartoon Network. The Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court has reached the same conclusion as the lower court, albeit for different reasons.

Originally written to protect consumers against the release of their VHS rental history, the VPPA has since been invoked in various lawsuits to address the release of protected "subscriber information" to third parties, including more than one against the Blockbuster of today: Netflix.

The most recent VPPA lawsuit against Netflix argued that showing viewing history (upon login to an account) violated the account holder's privacy. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of Netflix, rather than the person who felt they should still have viewing history privacy despite leaving accounts logged in and/or sharing login information.

This one is a bit more tangled and involves Cartoon Network's phone app, rather than the new face of video rentals. The CN app allows users to view the network's videos. It does not require a login to do so. Because no login was required, the plaintiff felt the app wouldn't gather or disseminate "personal information." Well, the app does collect some information, which is specific to the device, but not necessarily the person.

Cartoon Network identifies and tracks an Android smartphone user on the CN app through his mobile device identification or Android ID, which is “a 64-bit number (hex string) that is randomly generated when a user initially sets up his device and should remain constant for the lifetime of the user’s device.” Cartoon Network keeps track of an Android user’s viewing history by maintaining a record of “every video clip or [episode] viewed by the user” via the Android ID number. Cartoon Network then sends this information to a third-party data analytics company called Bango. Each time a user closes out of the CN app on his Android device, “[a] complete record”—including the user’s “Android ID and a list of the videos he viewed”—is sent to Bango.

Bango, of course, is the subsidization behind the free app.

Bango specializes “in tracking individual behaviors across the Internet and mobile applications . . . [and claims] that its technology ‘reveals customer behavior, engagement and loyalty across and between all [ ] websites and apps.’” Bango uses Android IDs “to identify and track specific users across multiple electronic devices, applications, and services.” Because Bango is apparently “smarter than the average bear,” see The Yogi Bear Show, Trying to Escape Jellystone Park (Hanna-Barbera Prod. 1961), it can “automatically” link an Android ID to a particular person by compiling information about that individual from other websites, applications, and sources. So when Cartoon Network sends Bango the Android ID of a CN app user along with his video viewing history, Bango associates that video history with a particular individual.

It was this tracking that bothered Mark Ellis, who sued on behalf of himself and "others similarly situated."

The decision doesn't head off into a discussion of what is or isn't personally-identifiable and subject to the restraints of the VPPA. Instead, it discusses the difference between a "subscriber" and someone with no viable legal claim at all. The lower court decided Ellis' minimal connection to Cartoon Network (via its free app and his phone's ID) was enough to grant him standing as a "subscriber." But it also found that the information gathered by CN wasn't "personally identifiable" under the VPPA definitions. An Android ID identifies a device, not a person, even if only one person uses it for the lifetime of the device (see also: privacy arguments about license plate readers).

Ellis appealed this finding, and struck out again, but from the other side of the plate.

Mr. Ellis did not sign up for or establish an account with Cartoon Network, did not provide any personal information to Cartoon Network, did not make any payments to Cartoon Network for use of the CN app, did not become a registered user of Cartoon Network or the CN app, did not receive a Cartoon Network ID, did not establish a Cartoon Network profile, did not sign up for any periodic services or transmissions, and did not make any commitment or establish any relationship that would allow him to have access to exclusive or restricted content.

Mr. Ellis simply watched video clips on the CN app, which he downloaded onto his Android smartphone for free. In our view, downloading an app for free and using it to view content at no cost is not enough to make a user of the app a “subscriber” under the VPPA, as there is no ongoing commitment or relationship between the user and the entity which owns and operates the app. Importantly, such a user is free to delete the app without consequences whenever he likes, and never access its content again. The downloading of an app, we think, is the equivalent of adding a particular website to one’s Internet browser as a favorite, allowing quicker access to the website’s content. Under the circumstances, Mr. Ellis was not a “subscriber.”

Having found that Ellis is not a subscriber, the court doesn't weigh in on the issue of the information gathered and distributed by the app. It infers -- by its discussion of previous cases -- that the app behaves more like a website cookie that tracks unregistered users by device info rather than more personally-identifiable data.

Had Ellis increased his level of interaction -- say, by creating an account -- he would have had a better chance at being recognized as a "subscriber." Of course, had he done this, he would have had to agree to CN's terms of service, which likely contains plenty of fine print "disclosing" its relationship with Bango, as well as to what is specifically collected and passed on. So, there would have been no cognizable injury in that case either.

Filed Under: apps, cartoon network, eleventh circuit, privacy, subscribers, vppa
Companies: cartoon network

3 California Cities Blocking Parking Ticket App For Being, Like, Way Too Useful

from the apps-apps-apps dept

There's an app for just about everything it seems, including apps for parking tickets, apparently. One of these apps, called Fixed, is specifically designed to do several things with parking and/or traffic tickets. When you get a ticket, you take a picture of it with your camera on your phone. From there, the app allows you to automate the process of paying the ticket or disputing it. Specifically, by scanning the picture of the ticket you've taken, the app will automatically scan the ticket for common mistakes that are made that might invalidate the ticket entirely, at which point you can use the app to lodge your dispute. Sounds incredibly useful, right?

Well, three California cities think it's so useful that they've done everything in their power to block people from using it to dispute or pay their tickets, because that's apparently easier than getting officers to simply write tickets correctly.

The startup has had issues with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) for some time. The agency was never all that receptive to the service, and the way it automated the ticket contesting process for locals. Using its app, Fixed customers could snap a photo of their parking ticket using their phone’s camera, and then Fixed would check against a variety of common errors before writing a customized letter to the city on the user’s behalf. The app also cleverly tapped into Google Street View to check to see if the city had the proper signage in place in the area a ticket was received. However, even when customers didn’t beat their ticket, the app could help automate the payment without having to use a city’s often outdated website.

Of course, the cities haven’t been welcoming to an app that was aimed at helping locals not pay their tickets by automating the process of jumping through legal loopholes. When Fixed began faxing its submissions to SFMTA last year, the agency emailed the startup to stop using their fax machine. When Fixed pointed out that it was legal to do so, the agency simply shut off their fax.

Keep it classy, San Francisco. It turns out that Los Angeles and Oakland all behaved similarly with respect to Fixed, harrassing and blocking the app and the people using it to the point where the makers of the app simply shut down the parking ticket part of the software in those three cities. This despite the app successfully contesting something like a third of the tickets that users had chosen to dispute using it. Drink that in for a moment. A sizeable percentage of parking tickets were found to have errors on them using this app and, rather than address this by having tickets be properly filled out, the cities in question decided instead to keep people from using the app to contest these error-ridden tickets. It's hard to imagine how a city might be able to display more contempt for its own citizens than this.

And what's really crazy about this? The app had as much to do with getting people to pay their valid tickets on time as it did contesting the incorrectly filled out tickets.

“It’s unfortunate that the SFMTA decided to block our service. Over 60,000 parking tickets had been submitted to Fixed. Not only were we helping people beat their unfair parking tickets, but the alerts on our app were helping people pay their parking fines on time and avoid late fees,” [Founder David Hegarty] continues. “Parking Ticket Fines account for 15% of the SFMTA operating budget, and it looks like they objected to us providing some accountability to their process,” Hegarty adds.

Hmm, it's almost like the city knows it's collecting money it might not deserve and doesn't want to let a simple piece of technology stop that gravy train...

Filed Under: apps, los angeles, oakland, parking tickets, san francisco, sfmta
Companies: fixed