Will The DOJ's Interpretation Of Email Privacy Make It Difficult To Prosecute Palin Email Hacker?

from the we-said-what-now? dept

While plenty of folks are talking about the cracking of Sarah Palin's personal email account, the EFF is noting that the Justice Department's own interpretation of email privacy laws may actually make it difficult to prosecute the hacker under the most obvious statute, the Stored Communications Act. You see, since the DOJ would prefer that your email not be considered private, it has interpreted emails that you've opened, but not deleted, as not being subject to the SCA. That's thanks to a somewhat contorted reading of the law that suggests that an opened email is no longer considered either in temporary or intermediate storage -- nor is it considered saved for backup purposes. Those happen to be the two requirements under the law. Thus, if the hacker accessed emails that Palin had already read, the DOJ may have trouble using the SCA, since its own statements (though, thankfully, not the courts) seem to believe that hacking in and reading already read emails is not covered by the law.

Filed Under: email, hacking, justice department, sarah palin, stored communications

Is The Justice Dep't Really Thinking About Going After All Of Google's Business On Antitrust?

from the political-extortion dept

We've been somewhat confused by the talk of an antitrust action against Google for its ad deal with Yahoo (which doesn't seem likely to raise prices despite what critics say). However, it's become increasingly clear that the gov't is very likely going to move ahead with this. As we already noted, the Justice Dep't has already hired a well-known outside attorney to lead the charge. It seems unlikely that they would do that if they weren't planning to make a big splash. Plus, news is spreading that the Justice Department is already sharing info on its case with California's Attorney General and potentially other state Attorneys General as well.

Now comes the news that the Justice Department isn't just thinking about stopping the ad deal between Yahoo and Google, but in going after Google in general as a monopolist. This is positively ridiculous, and is clearly politically motivated and funded by companies who simply don't like Google. Yet, nowhere has there been any evidence that Google's size has been used to abuse pricing power or to make things more expensive for consumers. Rather, almost everything it's done has been to make things easier or cheaper for consumers.

Unfortunately, it appears that in this politically motivated world, where Google didn't "play the game," a bunch of politicians and Justice Department officials want to charge Google with the crime of "being too successful." Honestly, that's about all they seem likely to have on the company, because it's hard to see how it's abused its monopoly power in a way that actually harms consumers or prevents competition from entering the market.

Filed Under: antitrust, justice department, monopolies, politics, search
Companies: google

Groups Urge Senate Not To Turn The Justice Department Into Hollywood's Private Police Force

from the bad,-bad,-bad-ideas dept

As we noted earlier this summer, Senator Patrick Leahy had introduced a companion bill to the House's dreadful Pro-IP bill, except that Leahy's bill went further. Beyond just adding a "Copyright Czar" position to the White House, it would authorize the Justice Department to start prosecuting civil copyright infringement lawsuits. In other words, it would have the government act as the private police for of the entertainment industry. This is scary stuff. Beyond already handing out unnecessary gov't granted monopolies, the gov't would now be using taxpayer money to settle business disputes from an industry that was only in trouble because it stubbornly refused to update its business model.

It's difficult to see why taxpayers should be paying FBI agents to protect one industry's obsolete business model.

A bunch of special interest groups made that argument to Senators this week, noting that it was a pure gift to Hollywood -- pointing out that all of the companies and groups in the industry already have their own enforcement arms, and it made little sense to have the FBI take part in private business disputes. Hopefully, there are still enough Senators who haven't been convinced by the propaganda provided by the entertainment industry on this issue to recognize what's actually at stake here.

Filed Under: business models, copyright czar, justice department, patrick leahy, politics, proip, senate

Will A Google/Yahoo Ad Deal Really Impact Ad Prices?

from the not-so-clear dept

The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) has sent a letter to the Justice Department opposing Yahoo's plan to hand much of its search advertising over to Google. We've already explained some reasons why this combination shouldn't set off antitrust alarms, but the reasons given by the ANA don't make much sense. It claims that the deal would basically mean that one company would control 90% of the market, which would lead to increased prices for advertisers. However, that doesn't necessarily seem true to follow -- because Google doesn't set prices for ads. Google's ad system is, famously, an auction system where the prices are set by the market. So it's difficult to see why the inclusion of Yahoo's ad inventory would significantly raise the prices -- unless the argument is that the market is artificially depressed right now, and this would just raise it to the proper levels. However, apparently, that might not matter much, as reports are coming out that the Justice Department has already hired a big time antitrust lawyer to use against Google. This is increasingly looking like a political attack on a company that is "big" rather than looking to see if its success actually harms or helps consumers.

Filed Under: advertising, antitrust, auctions, justice department, monopolies, prices, search marketing
Companies: google, yahoo

DOJ Finally Approves XM-Sirius Merger

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

It only took over a year of ridiculous protests from traditional radio stations, but the Justice Department has finally decided that XM and Sirius can merge without creating a monopoly. It will be interesting to see if the NAB's own lobbying efforts helped disprove its point. The NAB, representing terrestrial radio stations argued vehemently that if XM and Sirius merged, it would create a "monopoly." The only problem with that statement is that if that were the case, it would mean that terrestrial radio wasn't competing in the same market. And, if that were true, why would the NAB care? So, by arguing so vehemently against the merger, it effectively showed what we all knew: terrestrial radio and satellite radio compete in the same market. Of course, the merger isn't a done deal yet, as the FCC still needs to weigh in. But given the amount of time it has already taken for the DoJ to make its decision, you would hope that the FCC was at least close to being done with its review as well. Update: No surprise here, the NAB is "astonished" by the decision.

Filed Under: fcc, justice department, mergers, nab, radio, satellite radio, terrestrial radio
Companies: sirius, xm

Major Labels Under Antitrust Investigation

from the yet-again dept

Apparently the Justice Department is suddenly worried that the four major record labels are colluding in creating a new online music subscription service. The last time this happened was back when the record labels tried to (wait, this sounds familiar) create online music subscription services -- which were universally panned, rarely used and eventually shut down. So, even if the labels are colluding, given their strategic vision, it seems rather unlikely that they're going to leverage their position to dominate the market. They certainly could hold back other services -- but it seems like they've been doing that for years already, just with their own shortsightedness.

Filed Under: antitrust, collusion, justice department, labels, riaa, subscription service
Companies: riaa

Justice Department Comes Out Against PRO-IP, While Howard Berman Complains That It's Not Strong Enough

from the compare-and-contrast dept

We've made no secret of how ridiculous we think the new "Pro-IP" bill is. If anything, it's actually anti-IP. Surprisingly, it appears that the Justice Department actually agrees. In hearings on Thursday about the bill, the Justice Department slammed the bill as unnecessary and counterproductive. That's a bit of a shift from the DOJ's point of view under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who started pitching ridiculous IP legislation to have something to talk about other than the controversy surrounding everything else he was doing. Of course, the real reason why the DOJ is against it appears to be that they don't want enforcing copyright laws to be taken away from the DOJ itself, which would happen if the bill becomes law and an "IP Czar" position is created within the Whitehouse.

Of course, not everyone feels that way. Howard Berman, affectionately known as the Representative from Disney, who really should not be in charge of the intellectual property subcommittee, spent some time at those same hearings to suggest that the PRO IP bill doesn't go far enough, and it's time to get rid of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions. Yes, he wants to take about the only reasonable part of the DMCA and get rid of it. Safe harbors for service providers make perfect sense. They make sure that third party tool and service providers aren't held liable for the actions of their users. It's about making sure that companies can't just blame whoever is biggest or easiest to serve with a lawsuit -- but those actually responsible for breaking the law. Berman wants to get rid of those safe harbors, of course, because the entertainment industry hates them. Safe harbors mean they can't get away with, say, suing YouTube for $1 billion, which is much easier than adapting to a changing market place. Berman has always insisted that he's not just pushing Hollywood's perspective, but it's hard to see how that's the case when he makes statements like this.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, howard berman, justice department, pro-ip

Senators Ask Justice Department To Become Hollywood's Private Enforcement Agency

from the the-gov't-works-for-hollywood dept

In 2004, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced the Pirate Act, which would allow the Justice Department to go after people for file sharing in civil cases. Civil cases, of course, are between two private entities, rather than the gov't and a person. In other words, the government shouldn't be a part of it at all. Just because the legacy entertainment industry can't figure out a new business model, it doesn't mean they should be able to use the FBI and the rest of the Justice Department to enforce their old business model. Even folks in the Justice Department thought it was a bad idea, as they had no desire to be Hollywood's private enforcement arm. Luckily, that bill died off, and we thought it was all gone... until Senators Patrick Leahy and John Cornyn brought it back to life on Wednesday, introducing a very similar bill, also called the Pirate Act, which again would task the Justice Department with handling the entertainment industry's civil cases. It's difficult to see how anyone can justify having the Justice Department act to prop up the obsolete business models of a single industry, but that's exactly what's happening. Not surprisingly, the RIAA and the MPAA are thrilled to find out that your tax dollars may go towards artificially keeping their business model on life support.

Filed Under: justice department, pirate act, senate
Companies: mpaa, riaa