New White House Press Conference Rules Leave Door Open To Future Challenges

from the doesn't-change-much dept

As you've likely heard by now, the Trump administration has restored Jim Acosta's hard pass for media briefings, and CNN has accordingly dropped its lawsuit, returning the battle between Trump and the media to cold-war-status for the time being. But the White House also took the opportunity to issue new rules for its press conferences which, rather than truly addressing any of the issues that formed the basis of the lawsuit, appear to leave the door wide open for future abuses by Trump and challenges by the press:

(1) A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists;

(2) At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor;

(3) “Yielding the floor” includes, when applicable, surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner;

(4) Failure to abide by any of rules (1)-(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass.

Basically, the White House seems to be setting itself up with the absolute bare minimum framework that it could kinda-sorta claim constitutes viewpoint-neutral due process the next time it wants to kick out a reporter. Functionally the rules don't seem to change much, since who gets the floor at White House press conferences has always ultimately been at the discretion of the person at the podium, but this formalizes the threat of pass revocation for those who don't play nice enough for Trump's tastes. Though many reporters are (rightfully) speaking out against the clear anti-press tone of the rules, and (correctly) pointing out that followup questions are one of the most critical components of good journalism, the reality is that this just puts things in a holding pattern until the next time Trump kicks someone out.

For one thing, the rules don't actually address any of the due process requirements set out in Sherrill v. Knight and expanded on by the judge's TRO restoring Acosta's pass, so the entire fifth amendment question still falls to how these rules get enforced:

The court in Sherrill held that this process must include notice, an opportunity to rebut the government's reasons and a written decision. And ... although the court in Sherrill did not have occasion to address it, when an important interest is at stake and when the government is able to provide this process before deprivation, it generally must do so.

Moreover, simply stating that the president has discretionary power doesn't eliminate the first amendment issue. Again, it will come down to how that power is used — specifically, whether it's used for viewpoint-based discrimination. If there is another incident and another legal challenge, these rules won't change much, and something like CNN's initial first amendment argument could easily still apply:

Defendants' justifications for impeding Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights are hollow and hardly sufficiently compelling to justify the indefinite revocation of Acosta’s White House credentials. Consequently, the only reasonable inference from Defendants’ conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for Plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity.

The sole justification for Defendants’ conduct is their dislike for Plaintiffs’ coverage of the administration and critique of the President. But that is insufficient to justify such a substantial restriction on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, in the full statement laying out the new rules, Sarah Sanders laments that they were created with "a degree of regret" and are only necessary because they can tragically no longer rely on "a set of understood professional norms."

If only they cared so much about presidential norms.

Filed Under: due process, fifth amendment, first amendment, jim acosta, journalism, sarah sanders, white house
Companies: cnn

Judge Blocks White House From Pulling Jim Acosta's Press Pass, But The Battle Continues

from the freedom-of-the-press dept

Update: The White House has officially restored Acosta's press pass, and also established new rules for press conferences. We'll bring you more info on those rules after we've had a closer look.

Last week I wrote about the case that CNN and its reporter Jim Acosta had filed against the White House for the removal of his press pass over some trumped up claims that he had "assaulted" a White House intern (he did not, he simply resisted returning the microphone to her after she attempted to grab it from him). As we noted, the removal of the pass was clearly based on the content of his questioning and it seemed fairly obvious that the White House would lose the lawsuit, especially based on the existing precedent in Sherrill v. Knight, which gave CNN clear basis under both the 1st Amendment and the 5th Amendment.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a bunch of Trump supporters quickly ran to the comments to screech at me about how wrong and biased I was against them. Let's be clear: this is bullshit. I would have written the same article had Obama removed the press pass of a Fox News reporter under identical circumstances (and, frankly, the Trump supporters here should learn to think beyond their obsession with defending "dear leader" in everything he does, because the same rules will apply when other Presidents are in charge, and they may not always like it in the other direction). The Constitutional elements here are pretty clear. The White House is allowed to set non-content-based rules for who gets a press pass, but once they do that, they absolutely cannot remove a press pass for anything having to do with content, and they can't simply make up rules to remove someone without any form of due process.

The judge in this case, Timothy Kelly, (who, we'll note, was appointed by Trump, even though it shouldn't make a difference), moved quickly on this case, issuing a temporary restraining order on the White House and ordering it to return Acosta's press pass Friday afternoon. The basis for his ruling from the bench was the 5th Amendment due process question, noting that there was no clear reason at all given by the White House:

the government must provide Mr. Acosta due process if it is to revoke his hard pass. Accordingly, the likelihood that the plaintiffs succeed on the First -- on the Fifth Amendment claim hinges on whether the government provided adequate due process to Mr. Acosta. The court in Sherrill held that this process must include notice, an opportunity to rebut the government's reasons and a written decision. And all the court -- although the court in Sherrill did not have occasion to address it, when an important interest is at stake and when the government is able to provide this process before deprivation, it generally must do so. There is no evidence that one of the few exceptions to this rule would apply here such as some kind of emergency. So I do hold that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that adequate process was not provided to Mr. Acosta. Indeed, whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the Government could not tell me at oral argument who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta's press pass -- his hard pass.

Now, it is true that the public and Mr. Acosta were eventually provided two things. First, explanations as to why his hard pass was revoked through Ms. Sanders's tweets; and a written statement of explanation, apparently prompted by this litigation, but given their timing and their lack of connection to Mr. Acosta's opportunity to rebut -- which we'll talk about in a moment -- these belated efforts were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process.

Of course, in typical White House fashion, members of the Trump Administration have continued to trip over each other to make the dumbest statement possible in response to all of this, some of which mean that CNN has already gone back to court in this case, and it's going to continue. First, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders made the following nonsense statement:

"...the court made clear that there is no absolute First Amendment right to access the White House."

Except... that's not what the court said at all. The court actually said that reporters absolutely are protected by the 1st Amendment once they are given a press pass, but that it was premature to rule on the 1st Amendment question when the 5th Amendment procedural question could be dealt with first.

Then the President himself stepped in with more nonsense claiming:

"We want total freedom of the press."

Uh, no you don't. You're constantly whining about the press, threatening them and their revenue sources, or threatening to "pull" some non-existent licenses. And, of course, Trump then went on to misstate what Kelly's ruling said:

But you have to act with respect when you're at the White House, and when I see the way some of my people get treated at news conferences, it's terrible. So we're setting up a certain standard, which is what the court is requesting.

No, the court is requiring (not requesting) due process, which is not that you get to make up new rules to kick out reporters who are asking you questions you don't like (or even ones who are grandstanding). And, reporters don't need to "respect" the President. Indeed, it's better if they don't, because their role is to challenge the President and to ask tough questions that no administration likes.

Then, over the weekend, things got even more ridiculous, with the White House telling Acosta they plan to remove his press pass again once the 14 day temporary restraining order is up, and arguing that this is part of their due process to get around the 5th Amendment issues:

After CNN won a temporary restraining order on Friday, forcing the White House to restore his press pass for 14 days, White House officials sent Acosta a letter stating that his pass is set to be suspended again once the restraining order expires.

From the looks of the letter, the W.H. is trying to establish a paper trail that will empower the administration to boot Acosta again at the end of the month.

Of course, as Julian Sanchez points out, telling a reporter ahead of any process that you'll be removing his press pass would seem to be evidence of your own lack of due process, so this might get rejected on 5th Amendment grounds again (while still avoiding the 1st Amendment questions, which would likely go against the White House as well...).

The letter itself is quite ridiculous. It still says that they're planning to remove the press pass for his actions back at the November 7th press conference, when the court already made clear that the White House had no legitimate reason to do so based on that conference.

In response to this, CNN has already gone back to court, saying that this retrospective due process is not nearly enough. They ask for a hearing as quickly as possible to deal with the White House making this move.

Either way, this whole fight seems particularly stupid, and one that the White House simply cannot win in any court other than the one of Trump's super fans insisting that everything the President does must be perfectly correct. It is not. It is unconstitutional. And the sooner Trump's kneejerk fans recognize that Trump can and does make mistakes, the sooner they can get back to actually respecting the Constitution they now only pretend to support.

Filed Under: donald trump, due process, fifth amendment, first amendment, free speech, jim acosta, white house
Companies: cnn

Kim Dotcom Loses Latest Round In Extradition Fight, Will Try To Appeal Again

from the this-case-will-never-end dept

Kim Dotcom's ongoing legal saga continues. The latest is that the New Zealand Court of Appeal has rejected his appeal of earlier rulings concerning whether or not he can be extradited to the US. Dotcom and his lawyers insist that they will appeal to the Supreme Court, though there seems to be some disagreement about whether or not that will even be possible. The full ruling is worth a read, though much of it is dry and procedural.

And, I know that many people's opinion of this case is focused almost exclusively on whether they think Kim Dotcom and Megaupload were "good" or "bad," but if you can get past all of that, there are some really important legal issues at play here, especially concerning the nature of intermediary liability protections in New Zealand, as well as the long-arm reach of US law enforcement around the globe. Unfortunately, for the most part it's appeared that the courts have been much more focused on the whole "but Dotcom is obviously a bad dude..." and then used that to rationalize a ruling against him, even if it doesn't seem to fit what the law says.

As Dotcom and his lawyers have noted, this has meant that, while there are now three rulings against him on whether or not he can be extradited, they all come to different conclusions as to why. A key issue, as we've discussed before, is the one of "double criminality." For there to be an extraditable offense, the person (or people) in question need to have done something that is a crime in both the US and New Zealand. As Dotcom has argued over and over again, the "crime" that he is charged with is effectively criminal secondary copyright infringement. And that's a big problem, since there is no such thing as secondary criminal copyright infringement under US law. Since Megaupload was a platform, it should not be held liable for the actions of its users. But the US tries to wipe all of that away by playing up that Dotcom is a bad dude, and boy, a lot of people sure infringed copyright using Megaupload. And all of that may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that they should have to show that he actually broke a law in both countries.

Indeed, the lower court basically tossed out the copyright issue in evaluating extradition, but said he could still be extradited over "fraud" claims. Dotcom argued back that without the copyright infringement, there is no fraud, and thus the ruling didn't make any sense.

The Court of Appeal comes to the same conclusion, but for somewhat different reasons. It appears that Dotcom's lawyers focused heavily on what some might consider technical nitpicking in reading of the law. Pulling on a tactic that has been tried (not successfully...) in the US, they argued that reading through the text of the copyright shows that it only applies to "tangible" copies -- i.e., content on a physical media -- rather than on digital only files. In the US, at least, the Copyright Act is written in such a way that a plain reading of the law says that copyright also only applies to physical goods, rather than digital files. But, as has happened here, US courts have not been willing to accept that fairly plain language in the statute because it would mess up the way the world views copyright. It's no surprise that the New Zealand court came to the same end result. While it would be better if the law itself were fixed, the courts seem pretty united in saying that they won't accept this plain reading of the statute, because that would really muck things up. Unfortunately, in focusing on that nitpicking, it may have obscured the larger issues for the court.

Over and over again in the ruling, the court seems to bend over backwards to effectively say, "look, Dotcom's site was used for lots of infringement, so there's enough evidence that he had ill intent, and therefore we can hand him over to the US." That seems like a painfully weak argument -- but, again, par for the course around Dotcom. So, basically, even though it has other reasons than the lower court, this court says there's enough here to extradite:

We have departed from the Judge in our analysis of s 131.260 But the Judge’s conclusions on ss 249 and 228 (the latter of which we will turn to shortly) were not affected by his conclusion on s 131. Each of the ss 249 and 228 pathways depended on dishonesty, as defined, and the other elements of the actus rei of those offences. Inherent in the Judge’s finding was that dishonesty for the purpose of s 249 (and s 228) did not require proof of criminal conduct under s 131. With that conclusion we agree. It is plainly sufficient that for the purposes of s 217 that the relevant acts are done without belief in the existence of consent or authority from the copyright owner. It does not need to amount to criminal conduct independently of s 249. Put another way, “dishonestly” as defined in s 217 is not contingent on having committed another offence, but is instead simply an element of the offence.

That may be a bit confusing, but basically they're saying it doesn't much matter whether or not there was actual criminal copyright infringement or not, because there was enough "dishonesty" to allow Dotcom to be extradited on other issues.

Again, none of this is that surprising, but it does again feel like the courts reacting to how they perceive Dotcom himself, rather than following what the law actually says. That should worry people. At this point, it seems highly likely that Dotcom's attempts to appeal to the Supreme Court will fail and that he will be extradited. Of course, then there would still need to be legal proceedings in the US -- though the judge assigned to his case has already shown little interest in understanding the nuances of copyright and intermediary liability law, so it's likely to be quite a mess here as well.

Whatever you think of Kim Dotcom, many of the legal arguments against him seem almost entirely based on the fact that people want to associate him with the actions of his users, and the fact that he didn't seem to much care about what the legacy entertainment industry thought of him. Maybe he deserves to be locked up -- but it's hard to argue that the process has been fair and based on what the law actually says.

Filed Under: appeals, due process, extradition, intermediary liability, kim dotcom, new zealand
Companies: megaupload

Norwegian Court Orders Website Of Public Domain Court Decisions Shut Down With No Due Process

from the this-is-messed-up dept

What's up Europe? We've been talking a lot about insanity around the new copyright directive, but the EU already has some pretty messed up copyright/related rights laws on the books that are creating absurd situations. The following is one of them. One area where US and EU laws differ is on the concept of the "database right." The US does not grant a separate copyright on a collection of facts. The EU does. Studies have shown how this is horrible idea, and if you compare certain database-driven industries in the US and the EU, you discover how much damage database rights do to innovation, competition and the public. But, alas, they still exist. And they continue to be used in positively insane ways.

Enter Hakon Wium Lie. You might know him as basically the father of Cascading Style Sheets (CSS). Or the former CTO of the Opera browser. Or maybe even as the founder of the Pirate Party in Norway. Either way, he's been around a while in this space, and knows what he's talking about. Via Boing Boing we learn that: (1) Wium Lie has been sued for a completely absurd reason of (2) helping a site publish public domain court rulings that (3) are not even protected by a database right and (4) the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff (5) in 24 hours (6) before Lie could respond and (7) ordered him to pay the legal fees of the other side.

I've numbered these because I had to break out each absurd part separately just to start to try to comprehend just how ridiculous the whole thing is. And now, let's go through how each part is absurd in turn:

1. Wium Lie is being sued as an accomplice to the site rettspraksis.no by an operation called Lovdata. Wium Lie tells the entire history in his post, but way back in the early days of the web, while he was helping to create CSS, Wium Lie also helped put Norway's (public domain) laws online. At the time, that same company, Lovdata, was charging people $1-per-minute to access the laws. Really. Eventually, Lovdata dropped the fees and is the official free publishers of the laws in Norway. Of course, statutory law is just one part of "the law." Case law is also quite important and (thankfully) court orders (that make up the bulk of case law) are also in the public domain in Norway. However, Lovdata charges an absurd $1,500 per year to access those decisions. And, it claims a database right* on the collection it makes available online.

2. And yet, Wium Lie is still being sued. Why? When he saw that the website rettspraksis.no was trying to collect and publish these decisions, he borrowed Lovdata CD-ROMs from the National Library in Oslo. He borrowed the 2002 version of the CD-ROM. This date is important, because the EU's database rights last for... 15 years. 2002 databases (and, yes, Wium Lie points out that it's odd to call a stack of documents a database...) are no longer protected by the database rights.

3. So, yeah, the data is clearly in the public domain, and Wium Lie didn't violate anyone's copyright or database rights. Wium Lie notes that Lovdata didn't even try to contact him or rettspraksis.no before suing, but just told the court that they must be scraping the expensive online database:

I'm very surprised that Lovdata didn't contact us to ask us where we had copied the court decisions from. In the lawsuit, they speculate that we have siphoned their servers by using automated «crawlers». And, since their surveillance systems for detecting siphoning were not triggered, our crawlers must have been running for a very long time, in breach of the database directive. The correct answer is that we copied the court decisions from the old discs I found in the National Library. We would have told them this immediately if they had simply asked.

4. This is the most perplexing to me in all of this. I can't read the Norwegian verdict (which, for Lovdata's lawyers, I did not get from scraping your site!), and don't know enough about Norwegian law, but this seems positively bizarre to me. It seems to go against fundamental concepts of basic due process, but how could a judge come out with a verdict like this?

5. ?!?>#$@!%#!%!@!%!#%!!

6. Again: is this how due process works in Norway? In the US, of course, there are things like preliminary injunctions that might be granted pretty quickly, but even then -- especially when it comes to gagging speech, there is supposed to be at least some element of due process. Here there appears to have been something close to none. Furthermore, in the US, this kind of thing would only be allowed if one side could show irreversible harm from leaving the site up. It is difficult to see how anyone could legitimately argue irreversible harm for publishing the country's own (public domain) court rulings.

I find it shocking that the judge ordered the take down of our website, rettspraksis.no, within 24 hours of the lawsuit being filed and WITHOUT HEARING ARGUMENTS FROM US. (Sorry for switching to CAPS, but this is really important.) We were ready and available to bring forth our arguments but were never given the chance. Furthermore, upon learning of the lawsuit, we, as a precaution, had voluntarily removed our site. If the judge had bothered to check he would have seen that what he was ordering was already done. There should be a much higher threshold for judges to close websites that just the request of some organization.

7. And, even if this was the equivalent of an injunction, to also tell Wium Lie and rettspraksis.no that they need to pay Lovdata's legal fees is just perplexing.

the two of us, the volunteers, were slapped with a $12,000 fee to cover the fees of Lovdata's own lawyer, Jon Wessel-Aas. So, the judge actually ordered that we had to pay the lawyer from the opposite side, WITHOUT HAVING BEEN GIVEN A CHANCE TO ARGUE OUR CASE.

This whole situation is infuriating. Being sued is a horrible experience in the first place. But the details here pile absurd upon preposterous upon infuriating. The whole database rights concept is already a troublesome thing, but this application of it is positively monstrous. Wium Lie now has some good lawyers working for him, and hopefully this whole travesty will get overturned, but what a clusterfuck.

* A separate tangent that I'll just note here rather than cluttering up all of the above. I was a bit confused to read references to the EU's database directive/database rights, because Norway is not part of the EU. However, since it is a part of the European Economic Area (yes -- this can all get confusing), it has apparently agreed to enact legislation that complies with certain EU Directives, including the Copyright and Database Directives.

Filed Under: caselaw, copyright, court rulings, css, database, database rights, due process, hakon wium lie, norway, public domain
Companies: lovdata, rettspraksis.no

Another Federal Court Says Compelled Decryption Doesn't Raise Fifth Amendment Issues

from the not-a-blanket-statement,-but-more-often-than-not dept

Another federal court is wrestling with compelled decryption and it appears the Fifth Amendment will be no better off by the time it's all over. A federal judge in North Carolina has decided compelling decryption of devices is only a small Fifth Amendment problem -- one that can be overlooked if the government already possesses certain knowledge. [h/t Orin Kerr]

The defendant facing child porn charges requested relief from a magistrate's order to compel decryption. The government isn't asking Ryan Spencer to turn over his passwords. But it wants exactly the same result: decrypted devices. The government's All Writs Order demands Spencer unlock the devices so law enforcement can search their contents. As the court notes in the denial of Spencer's request, the Fifth Amendment doesn't come into play unless the act of production -- in this case, turning over unlocked devices -- is both "testimonial" and "incriminating."

Spencer argued both acts are the same. The government may not ask him directly for his passwords, but a demand he produce unlocked devices accomplishes the same ends. As the court notes, the argument holds "superficial appeal." It actually holds a bit more than that. A previous dissenting opinion on the same topic said the government cannot compel safe combinations by "either word or deed."

This opinion [PDF], however, goes the other way. Judge Breyer likes the wall safe analogy, but arrives at a different conclusion than Justice Stevens did in an earlier dissent. The court finds drawing a Fifth Amendment line at password protection would produce a dichotomy it's not willing to accommodate.

[A] rule that the government can never compel decryption of a password-protected device would lead to absurd results. Whether a defendant would be required to produce a decrypted drive would hinge on whether he protected that drive using a fingerprint key or a password composed of symbols.

The refusal to craft this bright line ultimately makes little difference. The line already exists. Almost no courts have said the compelled production of fingerprints is a Fifth Amendment violation. Producing passwords, however, is an issue that's far from settled. In the cases that have gone the government's way, the key appears to be what the government already knows: the "foregone conclusions." The same goes here.

The court admits producing unlocked devices strengthens the government's case even before any searches take place.

So: the government’s request for the decrypted devices requires an act of production. Nevertheless, this act may represent incriminating testimony within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment because it would amount to a representation that Spencer has the ability to decrypt the devices. See Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410. Such a statement would potentially be incriminating because having that ability makes it more likely that Spencer encrypted the devices, which in turn makes it more likely that he himself put the sought-after material on the devices.

But that only deals with the incrimination side. Is it testimonial? The court thinks it isn't. Or at least, it believes whatever testimonial value it adds is almost nonexistent. All the government needs to show is that the defendant has the ability to unlock the devices.

Turning over the decrypted devices would not be tantamount to an admission that specific files, or any files for that matter, are stored on the devices, because the government has not asked for any specific files. Accordingly, the government need only show it is a foregone conclusion that Spencer has the ability to decrypt the devices.

It's a low bar but one that's sometimes difficult to reach if the government can't clearly link the defendant to the locked devices obtained during the search of a residence or business. As the court notes, it requires more than a reasonable assumption that files the government seeks might reside on the locked devices.

But it is nonsensical to ask whether the government has established with “reasonable particularity” that the defendant is able to decrypt a device. While physical evidence may be described with more or less specificity with respect to both appearance and location, a defendant’s ability to decrypt is not subject to the same sliding scale. He is either able to do so, or he is not. Accordingly, the reasonable particularity standard cannot apply to a defendant’s ability to decrypt a device.

The government needs far more if it seeks to compel decryption.

The appropriate standard is instead clear and convincing evidence. This places a high burden on the government to demonstrate that the defendant’s ability to decrypt the device at issue is a foregone conclusion. But a high burden is appropriate given that the “foregone conclusion” rule is an exception to the Fifth Amendment’s otherwise jealous protection of the privilege against giving self-incriminating testimony.

And the court finds the government does possess clear, convincing evidence.

All three devices were found in Spencer’s residence. Spencer has conceded that he owns the phone and laptop, and has provided the login passwords to both. Moreover, he has conceded that he purchased and encrypted an external hard drive matching the description of the one found by the government. This is sufficient for the government to meet its evidentiary burden. The government may therefore compel Spencer to decrypt the devices.

There is one caveat, however.

Once Spencer decrypts the devices, however, the government may not make direct use of the evidence that he has done so.

As the court points out, if the government's foregone conclusion is the correct conclusion, additional evidence linking Spencer to the locked devices will be unnecessary. The government should have no use for the testimony inherent in the act -- the concession that Spencer owned and controlled the now-unlocked devices, making him ultimately criminally responsible for any evidence located in them.

In terms of compelled production, passwords continue to beat fingerprints for device security, but only barely.

Filed Under: 5th amendment, all writs act, decryption, due process, encryption, north carolina, passwords, ryan spencer

Congress And The CASE Of The Proposed Bill That Helps Copyright Trolls

from the start-of-stopping-trolls dept

One of the recurrent themes on Techdirt is that law itself should not become a tool for unlawful abuse. No matter how well-intentioned, if a law provides bad actors with the ability and opportunity to easily chill others' speech or otherwise lawful activity, then it is not a good law.

The CASE Act is an example of a bad law. On the surface it may seem like a good one: one of the reasons people are able to abuse the legal system to shut down those they want to silence is because getting sucked into a lawsuit, even one you might win, can be so ruinously expensive. The CASE Act is intended to provide a more economical way to resolve certain types of copyright infringement disputes, particularly those involving lower monetary value.

But one of the reasons litigation is expensive is because there are number of checks built into it to make sure that before anyone can be forced to pay damages, or be stopped from saying or doing what they were saying or doing, that the party making this demand is actually entitled to. A big problem with the CASE Act is that in exchange for the cost-savings it may offer, it gives up many of those critical checks.

In recognition of the harm removal of these checks would invite, EFF has authored a letter to the House Judiciary Committee raising the alarm on how the CASE Act would only aggravate, rather than remediate, the significant troll problem.

Per the letter, federal courts have been increasingly "reining in [trolling behavior] by demanding specific and reliable evidence of infringement—more than boilerplate allegations—before issuing subpoenas for the identity of an alleged infringer. Some federal courts have also undertaken reviews of copyright troll plaintiffs’ communications with their targets with an eye to preventing coercion and intimidation. These reforms have reduced the financial incentive for the abusive business model of copyright trolling."

But under the CASE Act, these provisions would not apply. Instead

[L]egally unsophisticated defendants—the kind most often targeted by copyright trolls—are likely to find themselves bound by the judgments of a non-judicial body in faraway Washington, D.C., with few if any avenues for appeal. The statutory damages of up to $30,000 proposed in the CASE Act, while less than the $150,000 maximum in federal court, are still a daunting amount for many people in the U.S., more than high enough to coerce Internet users into paying settlements of $2,000–$8,000. Under the Act, a plaintiff engaged in copyright trolling would not need to show any evidence of actual harm in order to recover statutory damages. And unlike in the federal courts, statutory damages could be awarded under the CASE Act even for copyrights that are not registered with the Copyright Office before the alleged infringement began. This means that copyright trolls will be able to threaten home Internet users with life-altering damages—and profit from those threats—based on works with no commercial or artistic value.

And that's not all:

Another troubling provision of the CASE Act would permit the Copyright Office to dispense with even the minimal procedural protections established in the bill for claims of $5,000 or less. These “smaller claims”—which are still at or above the largest allowed in small claims court in 21 states—could be decided by a single “Claims Officer” in a summary procedure on the slimmest of evidence, yet still produce judgments enforceable in federal court with no meaningful right of appeal.

Also:

[T] he federal courts are extremely cautious when granting default judgments, and regularly set them aside to avoid injustice to unsophisticated defendants. Nothing in the CASE Act requires the Copyright Office to show the same concern for the rights of defendants. At minimum, a requirement that small claims procedures cannot commence unless defendants affirmatively opt in to those procedures would give the Copyright Office an incentive to ensure that defendants’ procedural and substantive rights are upheld. A truly fair process will be attractive to both copyright holders and those accused of infringement.

The CASE Act appears to reflect an idealized view that the only people who sue other people for copyright infringement are those who have valid claims. But that is not the world we live in. Trolls abound, parasites eager to use the threat of litigation as a club to extract money from innocent victims. And the CASE Act, if passed, would give them a bigger weapon.

It also gives would-be censors additional tools to chill their critics through the use of a new subpoena power administered through the Copyright Office, without sufficient due process built into the system to ensure that these subpoenas are not being used as a means of unjustly stripping speakers of their right to anonymous speech.

The CASE Act also gives the Copyright Office the authority to issue subpoenas for information about Internet subscribers. The safeguards for Internet users’ privacy established in the federal courts will not apply. In fact, the bill doesn’t even require that a copyright holder state a plausible claim of copyright infringement before requesting a subpoena—a basic requirement in federal court.

EFF was joined on this letter by many other lawyers (including me) and experts who have worked to defend innocent people from unjust threats of litigation, in the hope that it can help pressure Congress not to give the green light to more of it.

Filed Under: case act, congress, copyright, copyright office, copyright trolls, due process, small claims

Facebook And Google Finally Take First Steps On Road To Transparency About Content Moderation

from the but-more-work-is-needed dept

As internet platforms are aggressively expanding their “moderation” of problematic content in response to increased pressure from policymakers and the public, how can we best hold them accountable and make sure that these private censorship regimes are fair, proportionate, accurate and unbiased?

As we wrote in our last piece for Techdirt at the beginning of the year, right before the first Content Moderation and Removal at Scale Conference in Santa Clara, there is a dire need for meaningful transparency and accountability around content moderation efforts in order to ensure that the new rulers of our virtual public squares–practically governments in their own right, with billions of citizens–are using their power to moderate speech responsibly. This need has only grown as the pressure on Facebookistan and Googledom to deal with the extremists, white supremacists, and fake news operations on their platforms has also grown, and as questions about whether they are abusing their power by not taking down enough content–or by taking down too much–have proliferated.

This trend was most evident in the recent Congressional hearings prompted by the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where some lawmakers rebuked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for not doing enough to keep certain content off the platform, while others raised concerns that Facebook had demonstrated political bias against the right when determining what content to take down. Similar concerns were voiced by Republicans at today’s hearing in the House Judiciary Committee focused on examining major internet platforms’ content moderation practices (despite the fact that claims of anti-conservative bias having been thoroughly debunked). Such concerns are not limited to the right wing, though–charges of racially-biased censorship have also been levelled from the left.

In response to these growing pressures–and in no small part thanks to years of consistent demands from free expression advocates–Google and Facebook this week both took major strides towards “doing the right thing” and promoting greater transparency around their content moderation practices, in ways that mirror what we were advocating for in our previous article.

First, on Monday afternoon, Google released the industry’s first detailed transparency report focused on content moderation, giving statistics about YouTube content removals based on violation of the service’s Community Guidelines. Among other things, the report highlights the total number of videos removed in the last quarter of 2017 (a staggering 8,284,039 videos), the percentage of videos flagged by human users versus YouTube’s automated flagging systems (the robots flagged four times as many videos as the humans), and a percentage breakdown of the different reasons human flaggers had flagged content (whether it was spam, sexual content, hate speech, terrorist content, etc.) This is the first time any company has published this sort of data at this level of detail–and now that YouTube has taken the first step, it certainly won’t be the last.

Soon after YouTube’s trailblazing transparency report, on Tuesday morning, Facebook made a trailblazing announcement of its own. The company published a much more comprehensive version of its Community Standards, including the detailed internal guidelines the company uses to make moderation decisions, and highlighting the “spirit” of their content policies in order to generate greater understanding about why and how the company removes content. In addition, for the first time, the company is giving users the ability to appeal takedown decisions made on individual posts. Posts that are appealed will be reviewed by a human moderator on the company’s appeals team within 24 hours. Prior to this announcement, users could appeal the removal of pages and groups, but the introduction of this process for individual posts is a valuable step towards providing users with greater agency over their content and more engagement in the moderation process.

Taken together, these moves have sharply increased both the quantitative transparency (Google’s numbers) and the qualitative transparency (Facebook’s explanations) around content takedowns, while also improving due process around those takedowns (Facebook’s new appeals). These are both critical first steps, but there is definitely more to be done. For example, although YouTube published a significant amount of data related to the types of objectionable content removed as a result of human flaggers, it does not produce similar data for content flagged by automated flagging systems, which is especially concerning since automated systems flagged the vast majority of objectionable content. Meanwhile, although Facebook’s introduction of an appeals process is a valuable step towards providing users with stronger due process, it currently only applies to hate speech, graphic violence, and nudity/sexual activity, which have been the most controversial categories of objectionable content. In order for this process to be truly impactful, it needs to apply to all forms of content that are being taken down–and the process needs to give impacted users a way to argue their case for why their content should stay up.

Going forward, Facebook and Google also need to take a page out of each other’s books. Like Google, Facebook needs to start reporting quantitative data on its takedowns and how they have impacted different categories of objectionable content, not only for itself but for its other products like Whatsapp and Instagram. Similarly, Google needs to provide users with greater qualitative insight into the guidelines that impact content takedowns, just as Facebook has. They should also expand their takedown reporting to include other Google products and services such as Google+ and the Google Play store. Doing so could help pressure Apple to similarly report on takedowns in the Apple Store, therefore further expanding transparency reporting in this space.

And that’s the real value of these new steps, beyond the transparency itself: Google and Facebook’s new efforts will hopefully push the rest of the industry to compete with them on transparency. Google’s first innovations around transparency reporting on government surveillance demands nearly a decade ago helped set the stage for a domino effect of widespread adoption once the Snowden surveillance scandal broke, as detailed in this timeline and case study on the spread of that reporting practice. In this political moment of “techlash” that has now been turbo-charged by the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the adoption of strong content moderation transparency practices may happen even faster–but only if policymakers and advocates keep demanding it. That includes voices that have been pressing on this issue for years such as the ACLU of Northern California, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, our own organization the Open Technology Institute, and the Ranking Digital Rights project (which just yesterday released its third annual ranking of how well tech companies’ are protecting users’ human rights. Spoiler alert: they’re not doing so great). And since we’re catching this practice at its beginning, perhaps with the right pressure we can not only get all the companies to issue reports but also get them to standardize their reporting formats. Otherwise we may end up with the same crazy quilt of formats that we have in other areas of transparency reporting, which makes it that much harder to meaningfully compare and combine data.

More than pressure, though, we’ll also need continued dialogue with the companies, to better understand how their content moderation and reporting processes do and don’t work, what their biggest challenges are when moderating at scale, and where they think the technology and practice of content moderation and reporting is heading. That’s why our organization along with many others is co-hosting the second Content Moderation at Scale Conference in Washington, DC on May 7, where representatives from a wide range of tech companies both big and small will be talking in detail and on the record about their internal content moderation processes (the conference will be livestreamed and Techdirt's Mike Masnick will be co-running a session on some of the challenges of content moderation).

We may see even more dominoes fall at that conference, with fresh new announcements about increased transparency and due process around content moderation on even more platforms. Let’s hope so, because internet users deserve to know more about exactly when and how their online expression is censored.

Filed Under: appeals process, content moderation, due process, takedowns, transparency

DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Dump Microsoft Case, Let It Use New CLOUD Act To Demand Overseas Data

from the sighs-and-eyerolling-from-DOJ-counsel dept

As expected, the DOJ has asked the Supreme Court to toss the Microsoft case. The appeal sitting before the court deals with collecting data overseas using US-issued warrants, rather than mutual assistance treaties. As the DOJ argues in its motion to vacate [PDF], the passage of the CLOUD Act -- stapled to the tail end of 2,200-page budget bill -- makes this argument moot. For all intents and purposes, the new law (which apparently still has no effective date) grants the government the power to demand production of data stored overseas by US companies using a regular magistrate's warrant.

The motion goes further than just asking the Supreme Court to drop the case. It also takes some time to complain about Microsoft inconveniencing the DOJ by forcing it to acquire another warrant for the same info under the newly-granted authority. The DOJ, despite its apparent compliance with Microsoft's request, spends a few paragraphs explaining why it shouldn't need to do the thing it already did.

The application of the CLOUD Act to the original Section 2703 warrant at issue in this case would not be retroactive. Microsoft’s production of the requested information has not been “completed,” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 270, as it remains possible for Microsoft to comply fully with the government’s demand for disclosure. The Section 2703 warrant remained valid after the CLOUD Act, and no real consequences have attached to Microsoft’s failure to comply with the warrant up to this point.

[...]

Nevertheless, Microsoft has refused to acknowledge either that the CLOUD Act applies to the Section 2703 warrant at issue in this case or that Microsoft plans to disclose the required information under the original warrant.

Microsoft's objection hinges on unresolved contempt charges stemming from the case it successfully appealed twice. According to Microsoft, its compliance with the old warrant might trigger retroactive charges, which would be problematic for it. The DOJ points out no sanctions were ever threatened by the district court, which only entered contempt charges to allow the decision to be appealed.

Nonetheless, an exasperated DOJ has complied with Microsoft's demand that a new warrant issued under the CLOUD Act be provided.

Accordingly, on March 30, 2018, the government applied for a new warrant covering the relevant information requested in the Section 2703 warrant at issue in this case. A magistrate judge issued the warrant that same day. Under the new warrant, which will replace the original warrant and which the CLOUD Act indisputably governs, Microsoft must produce any covered information within its “possession, custody, or control.” CLOUD Act § 103(a). Microsoft no longer has any basis for suggesting that such a warrant is impermissibly extraterritorial because it reaches foreign-stored data, which was the sole contention in its motion to quash.

And it returns to the subject again to remind the court how much of a pain in the ass Microsoft is being about all of this.

The government does not believe that seeking a new warrant was necessary in order to compel Microsoft to act: In light of the CLOUD Act, Microsoft should have simply complied with the existing warrant, to which it can have no valid legal objection...

The last loose end the government seeks to have tied up is the appeals court decision, which the DOJ claims could cause future jurisdictional issues for warrants issued by that circuit. It also lets the Supreme Court know it thinks the lower decision should also be vacated because it's just so (subjectively) wrong.

Leaving the court of appeals’ decision in place as circuit precedent could therefore generate uncertainty in future extraterritoriality, Fourth Amendment, or subpoena cases arising in the Second Circuit. Given the serious flaws in the court’s reasoning, this case implicates the traditional need for vacatur to “clear[] the path for future relitigation of the issues” and to “eliminate[] a judgment, review of which was prevented through happenstance.”

The DOJ gets the win it wanted, but won't have circuit precedent to rely on. Instead, it got a whole new law to use to force US companies to turn over data stored outside of the US. It will now be able to meddle in international affairs and open the door for similar meddling by other countries not quite as respectful of civil liberties as we are.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, cloud act, data, doj, due process, overseas data, privacy, subpoenas, supreme court, surveillance, warrants
Companies: microsoft

We Need To Shine A Light On Private Online Censorship

from the transparency-reporting-on-content-moderation dept

On February 2nd, Santa Clara University is hosting a gathering of tech platform companies to discuss how they actually handle content moderation questions. Many of the participants have written short essays about the questions that will be discussed at this event -- and over the next few weeks we'll be publishing many of those essays, including this one.

In the wake of ongoing concerns about online harassment and harmful content, continued terrorist threats, changing hate speech laws, and the ever-growing user bases of major social media platforms, tech companies are under more pressure than ever before with respect to how they treat content on their platforms—and often that pressure is coming from different directions. Companies are being pushed hard by governments and many users to be more aggressive in their moderation of content, to remove more content and to remove it faster, yet are also consistently coming under fire for taking down too much content or lacking adequate transparency and accountability around their censorship measures. Some on the right like Steve Bannon and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai have complained that social media platforms are pushing a liberal agenda via their content moderation efforts, while others on the left are calling for those same platforms to take down more extremist speech, and free expression advocates are deeply concerned that companies' content rules are so broad as to impact legitimate, valuable speech, or that overzealous attempts to enforce those rules are accidentally causing collateral damage to wholly unobjectionable speech.

Meanwhile, there is a lot of confusion about what exactly the companies are doing with respect to content moderation. The few publicly available insights into these processes, mostly from leaked internal documents, reveal bizarrely idiosyncratic rule sets that could benefit from greater transparency and scrutiny, especially to guard against discriminatory impacts on oft-marginalized communities. The question of how to address that need for transparency, however, is difficult. There is a clear need for hard data about specific company practices and policies on content moderation, but what does that look like? What qualitative and quantitative data would be most valuable? What numbers should be reported? And what is the most accessible and meaningful way to report this information?

Part of the answer to these questions can be found by looking to the growing field of transparency reporting by internet companies. The most common kind of transparency report that companies voluntarily publish gives detailed numbers about government demands for information about the companies’ users—showing, for example, how many requests were received, from what countries or jurisdictions, what kind of data was requested, and whether they were complied with or not. As reflected in this history of the practice published by our organization, New America’s Open Technology Institute (OTI), transparency reporting about government demands for data has exploded over the past few years, so much so that projects like the Transparency Reporting Toolkit by OTI and Harvard’s Berkman-Klein Center for Internet & Society have emerged to try and define consistent standards and best practices for such reporting. Meanwhile, a decent number of companies have also started publishing reports about the legal demands they receive for the takedown of content, whether copyright-based or otherwise.

However, almost no one is publishing data about what we're talking about here: voluntary takedowns of content by companies based on their own terms of service (TOS). Yet especially now, as private censorship gets even more aggressive, the need for transparency also increases. This need has led to calls from a variety of corners for companies to report on content moderation. For example, a working group of the Freedom Online Coalition, composed of representatives from industry, civil society, academia, and government, called for meaningful transparency about companies’ content takedown efforts, complaining that “there is very little transparency” around TOS enforcement mechanisms. The 2015 Ranking Digital Rights Corporate Accountability Index found that every company surveyed received a failing grade with respect to reporting on TOS-based takedowns; the 2017 Index findings fared only slightly better. Finally, David Kaye, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, called for companies to “disclose their policies and actions that implicate freedom of expression.” Specifically, he observed that “there are … gaps in corporate disclosure of statistics concerning volume, frequency and types of request for content removals and user data, whether because of State-imposed restrictions or internal policy decisions.”

The benefits to companies issuing such transparency reports around their content moderation activities would be significant: For those companies under pressure to “do something” about problematic speech online, this is a an opportunity to outline the lengths to which they have gone to do just that; for companies under fire for “not doing enough,” a transparency report would help them express the size and complexity of the problems they are addressing, and explain that there is no magic artificial intelligence wand they can wave and make online extremism and harassment disappear; and finally, public disclosure about content moderation and terms of service practices will go a long way toward building trust with users—a trust that has crumbled in recent years. Putting aside the benefit to companies, though, there is the even more significant need of policymakers and the public. Before we can have an intelligent conversation about hate speech, terrorist propaganda, or other worrisome content online, or formulate fact-based policies about how to address that content, we need hard data about the breadth and depth of those problems, and about the platforms' current efforts to solve those problems.

While there have been calls for publication of such information, there has been little specificity with respect to what exactly should be published. No doubt this is due, in great part, to the opacity of individual companies’ content moderation policies and processes: It is difficult to identify specific data that would be useful without knowing what data is available in the first place. Anecdotes and snippets of information from companies like Automattic and Twitter offer a starting point for considering what information would be most meaningful and valuable. Facebook has said they are entering a new of era transparency for the platform. Twitter has published some data about content removed for violating its TOS, Google followed suit for some of the content removed from YouTube, and Microsoft has published data on “revenge porn” removals. While each of these examples is a step in the right direction, what we need is a consistent push across the sector for clear and comprehensive reporting on TOS-based takedowns.

Looking to the example of existing reports about legally-mandated takedowns, data that shows the scope and volume of content removals, account removals, and other forms of account or content interference/flagging would be a logical starting point. Information about content that has been flagged for removal by a government actor—such as the U.K.’s Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit, which was granted “super flagger” status on YouTube, allowing the agency to flag content in bulk—should also be included, to guard against undue government pressure to censor. More granular information, such as the number of takedowns in particular categories of content (whether sexual content, harassment, extremist speech, etc.), or specification of the particular term of service violated by each piece of taken-down content, would provide even more meaningful transparency. This kind of quantitative data (i.e., numbers and percents) would be valuable on its own, but would be even more helpful if paired with qualitative data to shed more light on the platforms’ opaque content moderation practices and tell users a clear story about how those processes actually work, using compelling anecdotes and examples.

As has already and often happened with existing transparency reports, this data will help keep companies accountable. Few companies will want to demonstrably be the most or least aggressive censor, and anomalous data such as huge spikes around particular types of content will be called out and questioned by one stakeholder group or another. It will also help ensure that overreaching government pressure to takedown more content is recognized and pushed back on, just as in current reporting it has helped identify and put pressure on countries making outsized demands for users’ information. And most importantly, it will help drive policy proposals that are based on facts and figures rather than on emotional pleas or irrational fears—policies that hopefully will help make the internet a safer space for a range of communities while also better protecting free expression.

Unquestionably, the major platforms have become our biggest online gatekeepers when it comes to what we can and cannot say. Whether we want them to have that power or not, and whether we want them to use more or less of that power in regard to this or that type of speech, are questions we simply cannot answer until we have a complete picture of how they are using that power. Transparency reporting is our first and best tool for gaining that insight.

Kevin Bankston is the Director of the Open Technology Institute at New America). Liz Woolery is Senior Policy Analyst at the Open Technology Institute at New America.

Filed Under: censorship, content moderation, due process, filters, platforms, transparency

Harris Stingray Nondisclosure Agreement Forbids Cops From Telling Legislators About Surveillance Tech

from the lying-about-the-law-to-ensure-silence dept

The FBI set the first (and second!) rules of Stingray Club: DO NOT TALK ABOUT STINGRAY CLUB. Law enforcement agencies seeking to acquire cell tower spoofing tech were forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement forbidding them from disclosing details on the devices to defendants, judges, the general public… sometimes even prosecutors.

A new wave of parallel construction washed over the land, distancing defendants from the source of evidence used against them. Pen register orders -- used to cover the tracks of Stingray searches -- started appearing en masse, as though it was 1979 all over again. If curious lawyers and/or judges started sniffing around, agencies were instructed to let accused criminals roam free rather than expose details about Stingray devices. According to the FBI, public safety would be irreparably damaged if Stingray details were exposed. Apparently the return of dangerous criminals to the street poses no harm to the public.

Another NDA has been uncovered, thanks to a lengthy public records lawsuit. The document finally handed over by Delaware State Police to the ACLU was once referred to as "mythical" by the DSP in court. Yes, the State Police once claimed this NDA never existed. It did so while claiming it had zero communications with Harris while acquiring its Stingray. The ACLU obviously found this hard to believe and the court sent the DSP back to search harder. The Harris NDA is real. And it's spectacular.

The agreement, signed by a state police detective in 2010, stated that officers could not "discuss, publish, release or disclose any information pertaining to the (cell phone tracking) products" to the general public, to companies, to other governmental agencies, or even to other officers who do not have a "need to know."

A letter attached to the agreement, and signed by Harris Corp.'s account manager, said police are not permitted to talk about the devices with "elected officials."

"Stealth, quiet approach and skilled execution are the glue that transforms weapons and technology investments into capabilities and results," Harris Corp.'s Michael E. Dillon said in the letter. "Only officers with arrest authority are permitted to use them (Stingrays) or have knowledge of how they work."

Harris cited federal law for the conditions in the agreement, which it stated is similar to other "intelligence oriented aspects of your operations."

Yes, Harris is deliberately misconstruing federal law to ban law enforcement agencies from discussing its devices with anyone, including those who oversee departments and their spending. This means the public has zero chance of knowing what surveillance tech local officers are deploying. The part of the law cited by Harris -- 18 USC 2512 -- simply forbids entities who are not (a) wireless service providers or (b) government contractors from advertising or selling tools that intercept wireless communications. It has absolutely nothing to say about discussing these devices with other government entities (or the general public for that matter).

But as we all are painfully aware, ignorance of the law is the bread-and-butter of law enforcement. Detective Dennis Smith signed the "mythical" document [PDF] all the way back in 2010, "binding" his agency to an agreement it could have walked away from at any time with zero consequences. (Well, maybe the loss of future business deals with Harris, but no violations of state or federal laws.)

Disappointingly, state legislators seem pretty cool about being kept in the dark by a government contractor's bogus NDA.

[L]awmakers are some of the "worst at keeping secrets," said [Greg] Lavelle, the Senate minority whip.

"I'm not offended that they threw public officials in there (the non-disclosure agreement)," he said.

Lavelle may not speak for the rest of the Delaware legislature, but at this point he has to. All other legislators refused to answer questions about the Harris NDA that allowed the State Police to hide information about surveillance equipment from them. Finding out agencies they oversee have been effectively lying to them should have triggered more of a response. Instead, Delaware residents get a single shrug from a state rep and silence from the rest.

Filed Under: disclosure, due process, evidence, fbi, imsi catchers, nda, stingrays, surveillance
Companies: harris