The Verge Takes John Oliver's 'Dog Supreme Court' And Remixes The Aereo Hearing

from the nicely-done dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about how John Oliver had not only "solved" the problem of the Supreme Court not allowing cameras in the court (but releasing audio tape) by setting up a fake Supreme Court with dogs, but had also made the raw footage available and asked other news media to make use of them. I had wondered if anyone would actually take him up on it. There's at least one. The good folks over at The Verge have remixed the Supreme Court's hearings on Aereo, and it's pretty damn entertaining. They even make use of the shot of "Dog" Justice Alito humping "Dog" Justice Kagan. Nicely done.

Filed Under: dogs, john oliver, supreme court, the verge
Companies: aereo

John Oliver Has The Solution To The Supreme Court's Refusal To Videotape Supreme Court Hearings: Dogs

from the not-cats? dept

For many years, we've discussed the pure ridiculousness of the Supreme court's adamant refusal to allow cameras in the courtroom, along with the Justices' questionable justifications of the ban. Now it appears that John Oliver has taken up the issue as well, but unlike those just whining about it, Oliver (thanks to the resources of HBO) has a possible "solution." Dogs. Oliver starts out mocking Justice Antonin Scalia's reason for barring cameras: that people would just see 15- or 30-second clips from the arguments, taking things out of context. Of course, as Oliver points out, that makes absolutely no sense, since the Supreme Court already releases audio of the hearings, and thus we already do hear the same clips -- it's just that they're generally paired with artistic renderings of the Justices instead of the actual video.

His solution -- using "an almost immoral amount of resources" -- is to present video representations of the entire Supreme Court... using dogs (and a couple of birds in supporting roles). And, Oliver claims, they're making those videos freely available to any other news provider who would like to create complete reenactments of any court case in a way that is cute and guaranteed to draw more attention than the court renderings, or, hell, actual videos if they were ever allowed. You can see the full ten minutes of footage (and, yes, I watched it all) right here: That video also, helpfully, links to the Supreme Court's oral arguments audio page for people to download. And the video description notes:

Please feel free to use it, post your videos, and tag them #RealAnimalsFakePaws so we can find them.

The only disappointment is that whoever put it up, still officially left it under a "standard" license, rather than the Creative Commons license that YouTube makes available. Still, nice move by Oliver and his team.

Filed Under: cameras, cameras in court, dogs, john oliver, supreme court, video, video of supreme court

John Oliver Takes On The US Government's Legalized Theft Programs, Asset Seizure And Civil Asset Forfeiture

from the due-process?-never-heard-of-it dept

"Last Week Tonight's" John Oliver is again taking an entertaining swing at a subject that has made its way into Techdirt's pages: asset seizure and forfeiture. Going beyond the "robbery at badgepoint" (Cory Doctorow's term) to civil asset forfeiture (in which the government files suit against property that is presumed guilty of criminal ties), Oliver is his usual entertaining self while still managing to highlight the obscene depths these programs -- started with the intent of breaking up criminal enterprises and returning assets to those defrauded, etc. -- have sunk, thanks to the perversion of incentives.

The highlights are a law enforcement official sheepishly explaining (in a public hearing) that there is really no oversight or discretion involved in the spending of seized funds. (He flat out states that it's used to buy "toys" the department "needs.") This leads directly to a police department being called out by a citizen (in another public meeting) for purchasing booze and a margarita machine with seized funds.

Also fun (but in a rather twisted way) is the names of suits brought by the US against "guilty" property, including United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls. You can find several others simply by running a search at Justia. (This also happens at state level, so additional searching uncovers gems like this one: South Dakota vs. Fifteen Impounded Cats.)

Anything that brings more attention to this issue is welcome. Oliver's take allows for a rather painless digestion of the issue while still refusing to underplay how thoroughly corrupted the ideal has become, thanks mainly to policies that allow those seizing the property to directly benefit from the seizures. As to a solution, Oliver suggests two things: an overhaul of this system and rigorous oversight or (the easier route) changing TV procedurals to more accurately reflect law enforcement activities -- like the cuffing and frisking houses, furniture, etc.

Filed Under: asset fofeiture, asset seizure, john oliver, law enforcement, legalized theft, us government

All The Big Broadband Players Support FCC's Proposed Rules... Which Says All You Need To Know

from the preventing-cable-company-fuckery dept

John Oliver had the right idea last month when he noted that we shouldn't be discussing "net neutrality," but rather "preventing cable company fuckery." I've been sorting through a bunch of the hundreds of thousands of "comments" on the FCC's proposal, and it's amazing how nearly all of them basically say "we support a free and open internet..." but then totally diverge on how to accomplish that -- with people basically insisting that either reclassifying under Title II would protect an open and free internet, or destroy an open and free internet.

But if the goal is to honestly prevent "cable company fuckery," it's not difficult to figure out which plans make sense, because all of the major broadband players are pretty clear that they really, really like the FCC's plan -- and we already know that they also tend to like "fuckery." AT&T had already kicked this off last month by insisting that Section 706 was a lovely way to keep the internet open and free and Title II would damn us all to the 9th circle of hell (or something close to that). Yesterday, Comcast said something similar in its blog post and actual FCC filing. Though, as you dig deep into Comcast's filing, you get weasely language like the following:

Comcast supports the application of such a standard [the "commercially reasonable" standard for paid prioritization]. Comcast also would not be opposed to a rebuttable presumption that "paid prioritization" arrangements are commercially unreasonable. This presumption could be interpreted to preclude, among other things, exclusive arrangements and arrangements that prioritize a broadband provider's own affiliated Internet content vis-a-vis unaffiliated content. A broadband provider seeking to justify any "paid prioritization" arrangement could be required to bear the burden of showing that the arrangement is commercially reasonable and fair to consumers and edge providers. Comcast believes that few arrangements would be deemed to overcome the presumption.

However, the Commission should not establish a policy that would preclude all experimentation in this area. Arrangements could emerge between broadband providers and edge providers that could have widely varying implications for competition and consumer welfare based on the terms of an individual arrangement, the parties involved, and the markets affected. As FCC General Counsel Jon Sallet recently explained, "[c]ase-by-case enforcement offers a potentially more dynamic approach, permitting the Commission to respond to and learn from the rapid pace of change in the communications market."

This is sneaky in the extreme. Beyond being somewhat mealy-mouthed, that first paragraph pretends to say these rules would stop fast lanes. But what it really says is that broadband providers would be totally free to experiment with paid prioritization agreements, and might then have to defend them in front of the FCC later if and only if those who are screwed over (generally smaller players who have neither the cash nor the lawyers necessary) complain loudly enough to the FCC that it investigates the issue. The second paragraph makes it quite clear that the broadband companies have every intention of "experimenting" with fast lanes. They're just going to look for ways to pretend that they're beneficial to customers -- such as by first setting artificially low "broadband caps," and then letting big internet companies pay them to have those caps ignored for their content only.

Meanwhile, NCTA, the lobbying arm of the cable industry (which current FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler used to run, and which is currently run by former FCC Commissioner Michael Powell), has also weighed in on just how great it thinks the proposed plans are. Just like AT&T and Comcast, it insists that (1) Section 706 is just dandy and (2) Title II would be horrific. It insists that Section 706 gives the FCC the power to deal with any problems, while Title II would just likely lead to litigation. This is self-contradictory. As both Comcast and NCTA make clear, part of their support for Section 706 is that it allows the FCC to pick and choose what to declare problematic on a "case-by-case" basis. But you (and those lobbyists) know that any such attempt by the FCC to declare something commercially unreasonable will lead to a lawsuit as well.

In other words, either plan is likely to lead to lawsuits and uncertainty. Anyone claiming that one plan won't is being misleading.

Finally, the mega filing came from Verizon late last night, and may be the most interesting and ridiculous. It too is quite happy with the FCC's plan, and Verizon's view is best summarized as "there's no reason to put rules on anything we do!" But... at the same time, it's rather passive aggressive in attacking internet companies like Netflix, Google and Amazon, pretending that if the FCC wants to regulate anyone, it might want to look at those guys. In other words "hands off of us, look at those guys who actually provide the services people like." But, when it comes to Title II classifications -- the very same one that Verizon begs to have its fiber lines classified under to get subsidies and tax breaks -- Verizon insists that it would be a total disaster for its broadband access to be regulated under that system. Because it says so. But, when it comes to actually creating fast lanes, like Comcast, Verizon is excited by the "commercially reasonable" standard and all the fuckery it allows, though of course it couches it in language pretending to be about "protecting consumers."

...consumer welfare is best protected if the Commission allows broadband Internet access service providers to manage their networks and—if they so choose—offer differentiated services or implement sophisticated pricing strategies as long as those practices do not harm competition.

In assessing whether a practice harms competition, it is essential not to confuse harm to competitors with harm to competition. The Commission has stated “We believe that consumers of broadband access service should have the ability to exercise meaningful choices.” Those choices should include services offered by edge providers that have chosen to enter arrangements for differential treatment in order to offer more desirable services to their customers. Such options will benefit consumers, even as they reduce rival edge providers’ economic welfare by increasing the competitive pressure they face.

In other words, give us our fast lanes and fuck the internet companies.

So, really, if you go back to the basic idea that John Oliver made clear: if the goal here is to prevent [broadband provider] fuckery, which do you think is really going to do that? The plan that the broadband providers claim to love, or the one that they're all scared to death the FCC might actually put in place?

Filed Under: broadband, cable company fuckery, fast lane, fcc, john oliver, priority access, section 706, title ii
Companies: at&t, comcast, ncta, verizon

Tom Wheeler: 'I'm Not A Dingo.' John Oliver: 'Prove It!'

from the indeed dept

The John Oliver on net neutrality saga lives on. Following John Oliver's segment on net neutrality, in which he said we should all really be calling it preventing cable company fuckery, the FCC's servers melted down, and suddenly Oliver himself was a story. While the FCC had offered some boring acknowledgement of Oliver's piece, Wheeler was finally caught on the record having to respond to the piece, and he noted something about how it was satire, but also, "I would like to state, for the record, I am not a dingo."

And, of course, how could Oliver resist responding to that challenge. As Oliver jokingly notes, he had only really said that hiring a former cable industry lobbyist to run the FCC was merely like hiring a dingo to babysit your kids. He'd never actually said he was a dingo -- but, of course, now that Wheeler is denying it, Oliver is asking for proof that Wheeler is, in fact, not a dingo.

Filed Under: dingo, fcc, john oliver, net neutrality, satire, tom wheeler

Only John Oliver Could Make Net Neutrality So Sexy That TMZ Wanted To Cover It

from the wait,-what? dept

So this has been a bizarre week on the net neutrality front. There's been plenty of legitimate concern that such a serious issue is hard to explain to the public in a way that they would "get" the seriousness of it. However, comedian John Oliver seemed to do the impossible by summarizing it simply as the fight to prevent cable company fuckery. And, of course, the final call to action in his broadcast was to get people to go send their comments to the FCC. And, while no one seems willing to officially say that his call to action resulted in the mess over the next few days, the FCC's server appeared to melt down under some sort of pressure.

Oliver himself has mostly stayed quiet since then (the show is only broadcast once a week, on Sunday nights), but on his podcast, The Bugle, (which too few people seem to have discovered despite it's incredible level of awesomeness for many years), he addressed the issue... and how "odd" the reaction has been, in discussion with his co-host Andy Zaltzman: It's right at the beginning, but here's my quick transcript:

I've had a slightly... weird few days to be honest, after finding myself at the center of a minor technological tornado. We did a piece, on Sunday's show, about net neutrality; an issue that is, quite simply, the single most important issue that is too boring to give a shit about. We ended the segment by reminding everyone that the FCC was now accepting comments, and pointing out an email address, at which those comments would presumably be welcomed. At which point, all hell appeared to break loose. The comments page at the FCC soon went down, and they sent out a Tweet saying "we've been experiencing technical difficulties with our comment system due to heavy traffic. We're working to resolve these issues quickly." And they seemed to experience technical issues for the next few days, which became a bit of a story in and of itself, giving more attention to the issue, driving more people to the comments pages, making them crash again.

Now, my role in this is not entirely clear. But, it definitely led to one of the strangest encounters of my life. Yesterday morning, I was walking to the CBS studios to do an interview on CBS This Morning, just to generally promote the show. As I walked up the road, I saw a TMZ reporter with a camera in his hand and I thought: "Ooh! That's exciting. Someone like LL Cool J must be on the show. I wonder if I'll get to meet him."

Then, the TMZ reporter started walking towards me, and I thought: "Oh, he must want to know what door LL Cool J is likely to come out of." And then he lifted up his camera and pointed it at me, and I thought: "Oh shit!" Because, I've never been interviewed by TMZ before, Andy. That was a streak I was very happy with. I should, frankly, not be pinging anywhere near their radar. But I'm afraid that streak has now emphatically come to an end.

The guy said to me: "You crashed the FCC website. Can you tell us quickly what net neutrality is all about?" To which I basically said: "No, I can't tell you that that quickly. It's a lot more complicated than we have time for here at the side of the road." To which he said: "Well, can you tell me what the biggest problem facing America right now is?" To which, I replied: "To be honest, you're pretty much embodying it at the moment."

Now, I'm not proud of that, Andy. He was just doing his job. Although, lots of people have used that as a defense in the past for doing some pretty appalling things -- so I'm not quite sure that's an excuse enough. And, I certainly think it was an unusable enough answer, that it is unlikely to appear on TMZ. Meaning, technically, my streak continues, Andy!

From there, they go onto a discussion about a bee and Andy's miso soup. So that's about the extent of it. Neither net neutrality, nor the FCC are mentioned again. But, still, just the idea that "net neutrality" has become an issue even barely on TMZ's radar, even if Oliver is correct and it does not appear they posted anything about his "interview," is a good sign. (Update: As noted in the comments, it appears that TMZ did put the video on their website -- I've embedded it below, though it mostly talks about his status as a non-American, rather than net neutrality). As Oliver said in his original report, the best way to do something evil, politically, is to make it sound mind-numbingly boring. And net neutrality has been in that category for a long, long time. Of course, that doesn't mean that I look forward to TMZ-level (i.e., so clueless you'll want to punch your screen) analysis of the ins and outs of the issue, but it at least gives me hope that this is an issue that can actually get some mainstream interest as being incredibly important. Either that, or we'll start hearing stories about drunken orgies at the FCC and poor fashion choices by AT&T lobbyists, because that seems more along TMZ's usual fare.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, john oliver, net neutrality, tech policy, tmz

FCC Comment Page Buckles To Its Knees After John Oliver Asks Everyone To Comment

from the coincidence-or-not... dept

On Monday morning, we wrote about John Oliver's brilliant report on net neutrality, which ended with a stirring "call to action" for internet commenters to tell the FCC why it should preserve a free and open internet. If you somehow missed it, here's the clip again: Many of our commenters noted that the FCC comment page that Oliver pointed to, FCC.gov/comments, appeared to be down for most of the day, either suggesting wonderful irony or that Oliver's call to action has been monumentally successful. The FCC has put up some tweets in which it apologizes for technical difficulties, without explaining why they were occurring beyond "heavy traffic."

We’ve been experiencing technical difficulties with our comment system due to heavy traffic. We’re working to resolve these issues quickly.

— The FCC (@FCC) June 2, 2014

We’re still experiencing technical difficulties with our comment system. Thanks for your patience as we work to resolve the issues.

— The FCC (@FCC) June 2, 2014

Some of us quickly speculated that the two things were related, while some publications have simply assumed without question that it was Oliver's pleas that brought the system down. To some extent I hope that's the case, though I do fear a bit the kinds of comments people might be leaving.

Either way, the irony of the FCC having trouble under heavy loads concerning net neutrality was not lost on many people, who didn't miss the opportunity to tweet some replies mocking the whole net neutrality proposal.

.@FCC can I haz priority access?

— Falk Steiner (@flueke) June 2, 2014

@FCC Don't worry. If you pay $8M more to Comcast you might get a better connection. They might even throw in a $4M/m server lease agreement.

— Richard Risner (@Kowder) June 2, 2014

@FCC Maybe because you servers are running on the "slow lane" internet? Since when do you read comments that dont include cash bribes?

— Mark Rodgers ツ (@KC8GRQ) June 2, 2014

.@FCC You didn't save the "fast lane" for yourself? How sweet. https://t.co/BCSSbwhV1H #NetNeutrality

— Daniel Wallen (@TheWallenWay) June 2, 2014

Filed Under: comments, fcc, john oliver, net neutrality, web hosting

John Oliver: Stop Calling It Net Neutrality; It's 'Preventing Cable Company F**kery'

from the a-bit-more-on-target dept

In last night's John Oliver show (technically "Last Week Tonight"), his "top story" was all about net neutrality. This is both surprising (because the issue has received little mainstream attention) and awesome, because it needs much more mainstream attention. Not surprisingly, it's both insightful and hilariously funny. He mocks how the FCC has made the issue sound incredibly boring. He mocks telco industry lawyers claiming it's "not about fast lanes and slow lanes" but "fast lanes and hyperspeed lines." Oliver summarized that quote simply as "bullshit." He shows this graphic of Netflix's speed on Comcast before and after it agreed to pay up, and directly compares it to a mafia shakedown. He highlights how the broadband companies (though he unfortunately lumps telco companies in as "cable companies") have basically bought off Washington DC, amusingly comparing an FCC run by a former lobbyist regulating the cable industry to an Australian couple hiring a dingo to babysit.

And, finally, he has an amusing call to action for "internet commenters" who he suggests have been training their whole lives for this moment, when the FCC has asked people for comments on its proposal. It's just too bad he pointed them directly at the confusing FCC.gov site, rather than the EFF's much better interface at DearFCC.org.

Either way, it's great to see Oliver take on this issue in an amusing way -- and hopefully it will spur more people to speak up on the issue.

Filed Under: broadband, cable companies, fast lanes, john oliver, lobbying, net neutrality, open internet, politics
Companies: at&t, comcast, time warner cable, verizon

What Does It Say About The US Press That The Toughest Interview Keith Alexander Has Is From A Comedian?

from the too-much-and-none-of-it-good dept

Last night was the debut of comedian John Oliver's new show on HBO called Last Week Tonight. Oliver, of course, is well known from his years on The Daily Show (though, if you're not familiar with it, you should also listen to his podcast, The Bugle). On his first show, Oliver was able to get former NSA boss Keith Alexander, who retired about a month ago. The resulting ten minute interview is well worth watching, not just because it's pretty damn funny, but because it's one of the few times a journalist has actually asked Alexander direct tough questions about the NSA -- and it's not even from a journalist: Seriously, compare that interview to the one Alexander gave to 60 Minutes, a show that used to be associated with asking the tough questions of people in power.

Alexander kicks off this new interview claiming that Americans don't understand that they're not the target of the NSA, and Oliver immediately shoots back:

Oliver: No, the target is not the American people, but it seems that too often you miss the target and hit the person next to them going 'Whoa, him!'

Alexander: You see, we're not just out there gathering information, listening to their phone calls, or collecting their emails. But, that's the first thing that people jump to.

Oliver: But you are out there doing that. You're just saying that you're not then reading them. You are gathering that data.

Alexander responds with the usual NSA talking points about "we just collect metadata" and again, Oliver immediately hits back:

Oliver: That's not nothing. That's significant information. Otherwise, you wouldn't want it.

Oliver also pushes back on the whole "needle and haystack" argument, by pointing out that people's "concerns" are that the NSA is also collecting "the whole farm, and the county and the state, and now you've got photos of the farmer's wife in the shower as well." Later on, after a series of funny exchanges, including Oliver being shocked that Keith Alexander has never heard of Pinterest (where Oliver suggests all the worst people in the world gather), Oliver asks:

Oliver: In your mind, has the NSA ever done something illegal.

Alexander: In my time, no. Not that I know of. You know, one of the most impressive things that I've seen in my career was people who made a mistake, that could be a huge mistake, stepping up to say 'I made a mistake.' And in every case, to my knowledge, everyone but 12 individuals stepped forward at the time they made those mistakes.

Oliver: Right, but you can't say 'everyone... except for 12.' That's like saying 'I've never killed anyone... apart from those three people I have buried under my patio at home.'

Alexander: The key issue I was trying to make was, in every case, we reported. In some cases, those who made a mistake, but were still caught.

Alexander is being incredibly dishonest here, not surprisingly. The NSA's own internal audit highlighted that the NSA abused its power to spy on Americans thousands of times each year. The NSA's Inspector General's report noted a track record of flagrant abuse which led to the program almost getting shut down. As for those "12 individuals," Alexander is simply wrong. As we detailed, most of those 12 actually self-reported the details but often did so years later (in one case seven years later).

So Alexander is flat out lying in saying that there were 12 non-self-reported cases that got caught. In fact, it's pretty clear that if most of those 12 had chosen to keep their abuses secret, we'd have never known about them. Which should lead to the obvious question: how many people within the NSA abused the powers to spy on people, didn't self-report, and therefore were never caught. It's incredible for him to basically be arguing that everyone who abused the system was caught, when the details show they actually failed to discover most of the intentional abuses until someone admitted to them much later.

And we won't even get into the fact that a court and the federal government's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) have both found the entire program to be illegal and unconstitutional.

Either way, those are only a few examples, but the pushback against Alexander still seems much greater from Oliver than any journalist so far, and that says something (not good) about the state of journalism today.

Filed Under: john oliver, journalism, keith alexander, nsa, surveillance

Daily Show Takes On NSA Surveillance: It's A Little Weird That Feds Didn't Have To Break Any Laws To Spy On Everyone

from the making-the-point-nicely dept

John Oliver has temporarily taken over The Daily Show's host chair while Jon Stewart is off making a movie, and the NSA has given him a fair bit of material to kick off with. In last night's episode, he did a fantastic job highlighting just how ridiculous the position is of those who defend the NSA, saying:

"I think you're misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr. President. No one is saying you broke any laws. We're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to."

That's a much funnier and more clever way of highlighting the point we made yesterday that the real scandal may be how much of what was done was technically "legal." Oliver also covers James Clapper lying to Senator Wyden and the fact that the FISA court has become a rubber stamp. It's a good bit all around (and, yes, we know that The Daily Show's web stream is not available in many non-US locations -- blame Viacom if you can't watch this):

For all the hope by some that this story isn't going mainstream, it seems to have gone very, very mainstream.

Filed Under: daily show, john oliver, nsa, nsa surveillance