NSO Pegasus Malware Deployed To Spy On Palestinian Human Rights Activists

from the now-who-would-want-to-do-a-thing-like-that? dept

Another day, another revelation about the abuse of NSO malware by its customers. The latest report shows NSO Group's powerful Pegasus malware was used to target Palestinian human rights activists. Citizen Lab is again on the case, providing the forensic examination of the detected malware and coming to this conclusion:

In October 2021, the human rights non-governmental organization (NGO) Front Line Defenders (FLD) began collecting data on the suspected hacking of the devices of several Palestinians working for civil society organizations based in the West Bank. FLD shared the data they collected with the Citizen Lab and Amnesty International’s Security Lab for separate independent peer review of their initial findings. FLD’s analysis indicated that six devices belonging to six Palestinian human rights defenders were hacked with Pegasus, a spyware developed by the cyber-surveillance company NSO Group. Both the Citizen Lab and Amnesty International’s Security Lab independently confirmed these findings.

Given the targets of the hacking, one would suspect the Israeli government was involved in this targeting of Palestinian activists. Citizen Lab and Amnesty International have made no allegations as to the source of these attacks, but there are some details that suggest Israel's government is involved.

One of those details comes from the Citizen Lab report:

Of interest is the fact that four hacked phones exclusively used SIMs issued by Israeli telecoms companies with Israeli (+972) phone numbers. NSO Group has said that exported versions of Pegasus cannot be used to hack Israeli phone numbers.

If exportation is key to this restriction on targeting Israeli phones numbers, deploying it from home presumably bypasses this protection.

Adding to the perception that the Israeli government might be behind these hacks is the timeline of the attacks and the publication of these findings. The attacks were apparently carried out in July 2020. The three entities investigating the hackings published their findings November 8, 2021. Shortly before these publications, the Israeli government declared the organizations these targets worked for as "terrorist organizations."

Israel on Friday effectively outlawed six prominent Palestinian human rights groups by declaring them terrorist organizations, a major escalation of its decades-long crackdown on political activism in the occupied territories.

The declaration appeared to pave the way for Israel to raid their offices, seize assets, arrest staff and criminalize any public expressions of support for the groups. Most of the targeted organizations document alleged human rights violations by Israel as well as the Palestinian Authority, both of which routinely detain Palestinian activists.

That happened on October 22. On November 6, the dossier that supposedly justified the designation was leaked. And it didn't appear to have much in it to support Israel's unilateral declaration that these rights groups were actually terrorist groups.

A confidential Israeli dossier detailing alleged links between Palestinian human rights groups and an internationally designated terrorist organization contains little concrete evidence and failed to convince European countries to stop funding the groups.

The 74-page document appears to have been prepared by Israel’s Shin Bet internal security service and shared with European governments in May. The Associated Press obtained the document from the online +972 Magazine, which was the first to report on it, along with the Hebrew-language Local Call.

Here's why this matters: it turns the targets from activists to terrorists, which gives the Israeli government permission (albeit in arrears) to engage in malicious hacking of devices. Protections and rights tend to evaporate pretty quickly once a government -- any government -- decides you're a terrorist. Given the lack of solid intel in the dossier, this almost looks like the laundering of previously illegal surveillance activities. It also gives the government permission to do more of the same in the future.

No one's made any accusations (other than noting NSO customers love targeting opposition leaders and activists), but the defensive statements have been delivered anyway. At best, this is some really lazy deflection by the Israeli government and more of the same "hey, we just sell the stuff" excuses from NSO Group.

The Israeli prime minister’s office and the Defense Ministry denied that Pegasus had been used to hack the Palestinians’ phones. An NSO spokeswoman said that the company would not say who used the software and that it did not have access to information about whom the program was used against.

Well, the Citizen Lab report says otherwise. And this non-denial doesn't say the government didn't hack the phones. All it says is that these two government reps are on record denying something that can't actually be denied while refusing to confirm anything about the activists' targeting by the Israeli government.

This all looks pretty shady. And it's unlikely to persuade the US government to drop NSO from its export regulation blacklist, despite NSO's protestations that its largely-unregulated sales to human rights violators contributes to the overall security and well-being of the entire planet.

And there's this postscript, which suggests NSO is now so toxic even one of its principals wants nothing more to do with it. (Google Translated from the original Hebrew.)

Itzik Benvenisti leaves NSO less than two weeks after being appointed CEO. In August, Benvenisti was appointed co-president of the company.

Calcalist has learned that Benvenisti informed the chairman of the NSO board of directors, Asher Levy, on Tuesday that in light of the special circumstances created in the company, he decided that he would not be able to enter the position of CEO.

The "special circumstances?" Apparently it's the ongoing PR nightmare NSO is battling along with its blacklisting by the US government. According to the Calcalist article, Benvenisti said it was not possible to carry out his plans for the company while being blacklisted. One presumes Benvenisti is well aware that remaining with the company would make his name just as toxic as NSO's since there's no reason to believe this is the last negative press the company will generate.

Filed Under: activists, human rights, israel, malware, palestinian, spyware, surveillance

Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle has 6 courses to help you gain the skills needed to become a tech professional. The courses contain hands-on lessons and exam prep for Python MTA, ITIL, CompTIA Cybersecurity, and GDPR certification exams. The bundle is on sale for $29.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers

from the dude,-come-on dept

Former President Donald Trump really has perfected every little thing he doesn't like being a grievance that he thinks he can sue over. It's funny because the Republican Party used to insist that "the left" was the party of victimhood, and yet in Trumpist world, they're always victims all the time, and always have to whine about how victimized they are. The latest is that Trump is literally threatening to sue the Pulitzer Prize Committee if they refuse to retract the 2018 prize that was given to the NY Times and the Washington Post for reporting on Russia's attempted interference with the 2016 Presidential campaign.

In a letter sent to the Pulitzer Committee, Trump lawyer Alina Habba has some, well, bizarre theories about basically everything.

... it is hereby demanded that the Pulitzer Prize Board take immediate steps to strip the New York Times and The Washington Post of the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting. Pulitzer Prize Board’s failure to do so will result in prompt legal action being taken against it. Please be guided accordingly.

What is the basis for this? Well, Trump is massively exaggerating the recent indictments of Michael Sussmann and Igor Danchenko by a grand jury working with Special Counsel John Durham. Sussmann was indicted for lying to the FBI regarding who he was representing when he spoke with the FBI about concerns associated with what was in the Steele dossier. The Danchenko indictment is moderately more damning in suggesting that he provided sketchy information that ended up in the Steele dossier, but that's got little to do with what the Pulitzer Prize was about.

While it's now fairly clear that parts of the Steele dossier were highly questionable (which was pretty much known from the beginning given the nature of how it was put together), Trumpworld has run ragged in arguing that this means anything at all about Russia's attempted interference is now disproved.

Except, that's not at all true, and Sussmann's indictment isn't even about any of that. The charges for Sussman are entirely related to whether or not he lied to the FBI in a single conversation, not about the dossier, but about who he represented. The charges against Danchencko are also about lying to the FBI, but regarding how he obtained certain information that was eventually passed on to Steele and ended up in the dossier.

But, in Trumpworld, these indictments are being used to claim that anything about "Russia" and the "2016 election" are completely disproved, despite that not being the case at all.

As highlighted in President Trump’s letter, it has recently become apparent that the subject articles were based on incontrovertibly false information provided by dubious sources who were maliciously attempting to mislead the public and tarnish our client’s reputation.

These sources are now facing criminal charges for their illicit conduct. On September 16, 2021, attorney Michael Sussman was charged with providing false statements to the FBI when he reported potential incidents of cooperation between our client and Russia. It has now been revealed that he was acting at the behest of the Clinton Campaign and that the accusations made by him were entirely fabricated.

Thereafter, on November 3, 2021, another analyst associated with the Clinton Campaign, Igor Danchenko, was charged with making false statements to the FBI. Specifically, it is alleged that Mr. Danchenko, who has been identified as a key contributor to the widely debunked “Steele Dossier,” lied to the FBI when he denied colluding with the Clinton Campaign in providing his contributions to same.

Despite these revelations, the Pulitzer Prize Board has failed to take any action to correct, retract, or otherwise repudiate the false reporting contained in the subject articles.

Except, as Liz Dye at Above The Law notes, the vast majority of the reporting that resulted in the Pulitzer Prize had nothing to do with the dossier.

Never mind that the prize encompassed a full year of coverage, including stories about Russia’s social media influence operation and coordination with Wikileaks, Don Jr.’s cack-handed effort to get dirt from a Russian spy — “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” — Michael Flynn’s promise to the Russian ambassador to ditch sanctions once Trump got elected, and FBI Director James Comey’s dismissal. None of which has been disproven.

In fact, only one of the stories for which the prize was awarded had the dossier as its main focus. It referred to the document as “controversial” and acknowledged that the FBI might have paid investigator Chris Steele.

And, even if that wasn't true and the reporting was about the dossier, there's nothing that the committee did that gives a cause of action to Donald Trump. The Pulitzer Prize is, inherently, a subjective opinion of the committee. And that's the committee's own protected speech. The letter claims that the committee awarded the prize "erroneously" to the Times and the Post, but that's not his call, nor is it a legal issue. If the Pulitzers want to give an award to terrible reporting, that's it's fundamentally protected 1st Amendment right.

In short, Trump is saying that the Pulitzer Prize committee is not allowed to express an opinion, and such a threat is fundamentally both petty and censorial. What a sad little man, threatening bogus censorial lawsuits over petty little grievances based on someone's opinion he doesn't like.

Filed Under: donald trump, free speech, journalism, opinion, pulitzer prize, reporting, russia, steele dossier, threats
Companies: ny times, pulitzer committee, washington post

'Anonymized Data' Is A Gibberish Term, And Rampant Location Data Sales Is Still A Problem

from the doing-nothing-helpful dept

As companies and governments increasingly hoover up our personal data, a common refrain is that nothing can go wrong because the data itself is "anonymized" -- or stripped of personal identifiers like social security numbers. But time and time again, studies have shown how this really is cold comfort, given it takes only a little effort to pretty quickly identify a person based on access to other data sets. Yet most companies, many privacy policy folk, and even government officials still like to act as if "anonymizing" your data actually something.

That's a particular problem when it comes to user location data, which has been repeatedly abused by everybody from stalkers to law enforcement. The data, which is collected by wireless companies, app makers and others, is routinely bought and sold up and down a major chain of different companies and data brokers providing layers of deniability. Often with very little disclosure to or control by the user (though companies certainly like to pretend they're being transparent and providing user control of what data is traded and sold).

For example, last year a company named Veraset handed over billions of location data records to the DC government as part of a COVID tracking effort, something revealed courtesy of a FOIA request by the EFF. While there's no evidence the data was abused in this instance, EFF technologist Bennett Cyphers told the Washington Post Veraset is one of countless companies allowed to operate so non-transparently. Nobody even knows where the datasets they're selling and trading are coming from:

"A lot of these data brokers’ existence depends on people not knowing too much about them because they’re universally unpopular,” Cyphers said. “Veraset refuses to reveal even how they get their data or which apps they purchase it from, and I think that’s because if anyone realized the app you’re using … also opts you into having your location data sold on the open market, people would be angry and creeped out."

While a long list of companies continue to insist that the massive scale this data is bought and sold at is no big deal because the data is "anonymous," experts (with mixed success) keep pointing out that's not really true:

"If you look at a map of where a device spends its time, you can learn a lot: where you sleep at night, where you work, where you eat lunch, what bars and parks you go to,” Cyphers said. Because of that, he added, it’s extremely simple “to associate one of these location traces to a real person."

After major location data scandals at both Securus and wireless carriers, it looked like we might see actual reform on this front, but those efforts have largely stalled. Bills specifically targeting location data have gone nowhere. The occasional fines levied against such companies are a tiny fraction of the revenues made from the data in the first place. And our 20-year effort to have anything even vaguely resembling a useful federal privacy law for the internet era remains mired in gridlock thanks to a massive coalition of cross industry lobbying opposition with a near-unlimited budget.

Which means most of these companies are going to keep collecting and selling access to this data, while pretending they don't sell access, that the data they collect is anonymous and harmless, and that absolutely any oversight or transparency requirements are unnecessary. And the parade of scandals, breaches, and abuse of this data will continue, until eventually there's a scandal so large that the problem can no longer be cavalierly brushed aside.

Filed Under: anonymized data, location data, privacy
Companies: veraset

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the words-with-friends dept

This week, Stephen T. Stone takes both top spots on the insightful side. In first place, it's a comment about the FBI raid on Project Veritas:

What’s sad is that Project Veritas can now use this situation as a pretext to grift gullible moro…I mean, fundraise for future bullshit stories by (somewhat accurately) claiming persecution at the hands of Democrats. Even when they “lose”, they win.

In second place, it's a comment about the trademark threat we received from North Face:

Hire dumbass lawyers, get dumbass results.

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with an anonymous response to a commenter who served up a tired old screed about doing anything the police tell you (and deserving whatever you get if you don't) under the header "Ideas":

More ideas:

Having an expired registration does not merit a death sentence.
Having marijuana in a car does not merit a death sentence.
Smoking marijuana in a car does not merit a death sentence.
Fleeing a traffic stop in which no weapon or other violence was involved does not merit a death sentence.

I have seen daily duty reports submitted by police. I have seen many, many occasions where the duty report indicated that the officer terminated pursuit because circumstances dictated it became too dangerous to the community to continue.

The cop may have been doing his job, but he was doing it badly and he caused more harm than he prevented.

Next, it's an anonymous comment about legacy media's insistence that Facebook makes society worse:

Legacy media makes society worse by produing deliberately divisive ragebait (as if modern politics wasn't too full of hate and division already). Facebook is where we see the results.

Over on the funny side, both our winners come from the post about the threat from North Face. In first place, it's Thad with a thought about our response letter:

I'm not sure I would have had the self-control not to open with "Hey fuck-face".

In second place, it's MightyMetricBatman with a response to that comment, suggesting an addendum:

Don't forget to add 'Behave yourself accordingly.' to the end of said letter.

For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out one more comment from that post, this time from basstabs with a revision to the takedown letter:

"I, the undersigned, state under penalty of perjury, that I do not have any understanding of trademark infringement."

Finally, it's Pixelation with another take on the legacy media talking about Facebook, specifically a revision to our headline:

FTFY

"Media Spends Years Making Society Worse; Then Trumpets A Poll Saying People Think Facebook Makes Society Worse"

That's all for this week, folks!

Filed Under: history, look back

This Week In Techdirt History: November 14th - 20th

from the long-ago dept

Five Years Ago

This week in 2016, we were dealing with the fallout of Trump's election. It was apparent that the First Amendment was under attack given things like Trump's constant whining about the New York Times, we spotted some big copyright problems with Trump's transition website, the incoming administration was preparing to gut the FCC's reforms, and the TTP was dead (for the wrong reasons) but we feared what would come next. At the same time, the role of fake news and fact checking became a prominent subject as people tried to figure out what happened.

Ten Years Ago

This week in 2011, it's no surprise that the single biggest subject was SOPA. The House Judiciary Committee was holding hearings that were stacked five-to-one in favor of censoring the internet (though they insistently denied this was the case) — and they were predictably a lovefest for the bill. We featured pieces on how SOPA would be bad for filmmakers, online music services, VPNs and other important security and privacy tools, video games, investment in innovation, the health of Americans, and even the websites of Canadians. Opposition to the bill started lining up: major internet companies, lawyers and law professors, hackers, the ACLU, consumer rights groups, human rights groups, and all kinds of other people — not to mention general public opinion. But the fight was far from over...

Fifteen Years Ago

This week in 2006, we took a look at the intense hatred of the RIAA for the Consumer Electronics Association which was aptly opposing their propaganda, one defendant in a RIAA lawsuit was hoping to be covered by the settlement with Kazaa, and Larry Lessig was challenging the constitutionality of opt-out copyright. The MPAA was suing a firm for loading legally-owned DVDs onto iPods, while Universal Music was going after MySpace. There was still a lot of bandwagon-jumping from companies when it came to social media features and video sharing platforms, while we were concerned about YouTube's trigger-happy lawyers going after third-party tools. Also, we saw an important Section 230 ruling in a lawsuit against Craigslist.

Filed Under: history, look back

Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights

from the but-for-the-cops'-own-video dept

It's not often a citizen shoots at a cop and lives to tell about it. It's even rarer when they walk away from criminal charges. When it's considered "assault" to be anywhere in the general location of an angry cop, actual shots fired tend to be greeted with severe charges. Acquittals are unicorns in the court system, which largely tends to believe people who shoot at cops always have zero justification for their actions.

One black Minnesota resident has bucked the odds. Jaleel Stallings was arrested after he fired his gun three times at Minneapolis police officers during protests following the murder of George Floyd by Officer Derek Chauvin. Without further facts, one would assume Stallings was part of the problem, a violent protester willing to kill or injure police officers.

But the facts are in. And they are ugly. Stalling, represented by Eric Rice, was able to secure an acquittal thanks to some extremely damning body camera footage recorded by the officers he shot at. The footage was captured by officers in an unmarked van that were driving into areas "enforcing" curfew by shooting rubber bullets at random people on the street from the moving vehicle. That recording can be viewed here.

Deena Winter has an amazing write up of the recording's contents at Minnesota Reformer. It shows cops aggressively targeting people doing nothing more than violating a curfew order. The officers in the unmarked van trolled Lake Street, looking for victims to absorb their violent policing, apparently in retaliation for having to endure ongoing protests triggered by other violent actions by other violent cops.

Here's just a taste of what the recording contains:

Before the white, unmarked cargo van of the Minneapolis Police Department drove down Lake Street, an officer gave Sgt. Andrew Bittell his orders: “Drive down Lake Street. You see a group, call it out. OK great! F*** ’em up, gas ’em, f*** ’em up.”

Bittell turned to his SWAT unit in the van and said, “Alright, we’re rolling down Lake Street. The first f***ers we see, we’re just hammering ’em with 40s,” according to body camera footage described in court documents. He was referring to “less lethal” plastic projectiles sometimes called rubber bullets or 40mm launchers or rounds.

The SWAT team headed down Lake Street, trying to lure Minneapolis residents closer to the van so their shots could do more damage. Sgt. Bittell and his supervisor urged each other on, cheering on successful shots and expressing their disappointment when shots failed to connect. During this shooting spree, the SWAT team opened fire on a gas station owner and his friends who were helping protect the business from looters. They also shot a Vice News reporter who had his hands up and was shouting "Press" as the officers opened fire.

Eventually, the officers worked their (violent) way to Jaleel Stallings, who understandably thought he was being shot by violent non-cops:

About an hour later, three blocks to the west, they opened the sliding door of the van and began firing plastic rounds at people in a parking lot.

They hit Jaleel K. Stallings, 29, a St. Paul truck driver, who says he didn’t know they were cops because they were inside an unmarked white cargo van with the police lights off. He thought they were real bullets. And, he says he was mindful of warnings earlier that day from no less than Gov. Tim Walz that white supremacists were roaming the city looking for trouble.

Just as understandably, Stallings, a military veteran, returned fire with his fully legal pistol. He fired low towards the front of the van and dropped to the ground behind his truck. Almost immediately after firing, Stallings realized police officers were in the van. This realization was driven home by multiple officers swarming the man -- who was prone, face down on the ground with his pistol out of his reach, a move he made voluntarily when he realized the unmarked van was operated by the Minneapolis PD.

None of this mattered to the SWAT team, which greeted mistaken violence with deliberate violence. This was the end result of that violence:

Court documents describe bodycam footage that show he dropped his gun on the ground and lay face down, with his hands to the side above his head, as though he was surrendering.

He didn’t move for 20 seconds as the officers approached.

“You f***ing piece of shit!” Stetson yelled, and began kicking and punching Stallings in the head and neck, according to court documents.

Stallings didn’t move. He was trying to surrender and de-escalate the situation, he said in an interview.

Bittell began kneeing and punching Stallings in the stomach, chest and back. The beating went on for about 30 seconds — with Bittell and Stetson punching and kicking Stallings in the head, neck, stomach, chest and back.

Midway through the beating, Stetson told Stallings to put his arms behind his back, and after handcuffing him, Bittell sat him up and kicked him in the ribs as Stetson continued hitting him in the head.

In summation, from the Minneapolis Star Tribune report:

The beating left Stallings with several injuries, the lawsuit said: a fractured eye socket, bruising, trauma, paranoia and anxiety. He had also been shot in the chest with a marking round, which resulted in labored breathing, the suit said.

This was the other aftermath:

Following the May 30 incident, Stallings was charged with second-degree attempted murder, first-degree assault, second-degree assault and second-degree riot, among other counts.

That's how the state responded to provoked violence triggered by officers' unprovoked violence. Prosecutors offered him a plea deal that would have netted him a 13-year prison term but he fought the charges. Prosecutors kept trying to punish him for reacting to the PD's (unmarked) violent actions but the jury didn't find the cops sympathetic. They likely didn't find them believable either.

Back to Deena Wilson's coverage of this case, which also includes a detailed look at the contradictory testimony (you know… LIES) offered by SWAT team members, who had to do some hasty revisions on their sworn statements once Stallings' lawyer obtained body cam footage.

The complaint said officers “deployed one 40-mm round at Stallings” even though officers fired two rounds before Stallings returned fire.

Stallings “quickly ran away” and was handcuffed “after a struggle,” according to a press release issued by Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, who said Stallings was charged for “shooting at police officers amidst riots and protests” and “firing multiple shots at SWAT officers during riots.”

“None of the officers, nor Stallings, were injured,” the release said, even though Stallings’ bruised, scraped face on his mugshot clearly indicates otherwise, and he was taken to a hospital after his arrest.

[...]

Stetson acknowledged he never told the investigating officers he shot Stallings, or that he called him a “f***ing piece of sh**” and kicked him in the head four times.

“He had just shot at us; we needed to have full control over him before we do any sort of interview,” he testified.

Asked why he continued to beat Stallings even after both his hands were behind his back, Stetson said Stallings wasn’t complying with him.

“Again, emotions were high, I just shot — got shot at. I thought I was going to die.”

The testimony may have contained even more "contradictions" (it's pronounced "LIES") but the Minneapolis PD unanimously decided to stop creating incriminating evidence against itself.

About nine minutes after the shooting, the unit was ordered to turn off its body cameras.

Now, the Minneapolis PD is being sued for rights violations. The filing of this lawsuit [PDF] against these officers immediately followed Stallings' acquittal. If you think anyone covering this is giving you an overwrought depiction of these officers, their actions, and their attitudes, keep in mind these depictions contain direct quotes from police recordings… quotes like these (from Stallings' lawsuit):

After protesters moved away, Sgt. Bittell instructed officers to “wait” and “draw [the protesters] in.” He wanted protesters to come closer to the line of officers so that officers could shoot the protesters with 40mm rounds.

[...]

Officer Stetson fired a 40mm round and struck a distant civilian. Officers Stetson yelled “gotcha” at the civilian that he had struck. Other officers laughed and congratulated Officer Stetson. Officer Dauble gave Officer Stetson a fist bump.

[...]

Lt. Mercil mocked journalists who had been covering the protests. [...] Lt. Mercil expressed encouragement and approval to Officer Osbeck regarding improper use of force toward journalists and others.

[...]

Sgt. Bittell met Unit 1281 officers by their van. Sgt. Bittell told his team about their mission: “We’re rolling down Lake St. The first f***ers we see, we’re just handling them with 40[mm rounds].” Sgt. Bittell asked his team if that was a “good copy.” Unit 1281 officers responded with laughter and enthusiasm.

[...]

A Unit 1281 officer joked about “hunting” civilians that evening.

[...]

The officer complained that civilians were “p*****s” and explained that “[officers] get within thirty feet of [civilians] and they run.” Sgt. Bittell agreed and responded, “Exactly, you got to hit them with the 40[mm rounds].”

Blessed are the peacemakers, said Jesus. These officers aren't getting free pass to the better parts of the Kingdom of Heaven, however. These officers weren't trying to keep the peace. They were out joyriding, attempting to inflict pain in retribution for four nights of protests and looting. These officers willfully forgot what triggered the protests and violence, and decided it was their turn to inflict misery, forgetting that the constant infliction of misery over decades led to the flashpoint that made them (very briefly) feel like the underdogs.

While it's heartening to see Stallings acquitted by a jury of his peers, his lawsuit is far less likely to succeed. Even with all of their lies, the officers will likely be able to justify their actions with claims they feared for their safety -- a fear enhanced by four straight nights of often violent protests. What they may not be able to explain away so easily is their decision to continue beating an unarmed man who threw away his weapon and immediately surrendered to officers -- something captured by a nearby CCTV camera. The arrest may have probable cause backing it but the violence preceding the arrest isn't so easily explained.

And, so far, the officers involved in this rolling shooting gallery have yet to be disciplined by the Minneapolis PD, which means the department implicitly approves of officers using the streets of the city as a shooting gallery, especially if it allows officers to vent a little frustration and anger at the public's unwillingness to ignore yet another murder of an unarmed black man by white police officers.

Filed Under: jaleel stallings, minneapolis, police brutality, police shooting, swat team

Biden Administration Intervenes In Donald Trump's Silly Lawsuit Against Twitter To Defend Section 230

from the good-for-them dept

As you'll recall, a few months ago, former President Donald Trump sued Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube claiming that his own government violated the 1st Amendment... because those three private companies kicked him off their services for violating their policies. Yes, the premise of the lawsuit is that while he was president, the actions of three private companies somehow proved that the government (which he ran) was violating his rights. The lawsuits are nonsense and they have not gone well for Trump at all. Part of the (very) ridiculous argument is that Section 230 is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit against Twitter was recently transferred from Florida (where Trump filed it) to the Northern District of California (where Twitter wanted it), and now the Justice Department has said it will be entering the case specifically to defend the constitutionality of Section 230.

The United States is entitled to intervene in this action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by statute. Rule 5.1(c) permits the Attorney General to intervene in an action where, as here, the constitutionality of a federal statute is challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(c). Rule 24 further permits a non-party to intervene when the non-party “is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1). The United States has an unconditional statutory right to intervene “[i]n any action . . . wherein the constitutionality of any Act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn in question[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a). In such an action, “the court . . . shall permit the United States to intervene . . . for argument on the question of constitutionality.” Id. Here, Plaintiffs have “drawn in question” the constitutionality of 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), and the United States has an unconditional right to intervene to defend the statute.

This is, of course, slightly interesting, because President Biden himself has called for "revoking" Section 230 and the DOJ has an unfortunate recent history of terrible ideas around Section 230. So, there was at least some fear that perhaps they wouldn't bother to defend the law.

Still, the DOJ likely realizes what a horrible precedent such a case could present, even if it doesn't fully agree with the law, so it's good to see them step in and defend the law. That said, it's hard to believe that any judge would actually take the ridiculous claims in the lawsuit seriously.

Filed Under: content moderation, doj, donald trump, section 230
Companies: twitter

Instagram Founder's Instagram Locked When One Person Convinced Instagram He Had Died

from the i-feel-happyyyyy dept

We have talked a long, long time about how the concept of content moderation at the kind of scale of the largest internet and social media platforms is essentially impossible. But it's not just content moderation that is proving difficult for those platforms. Policing those platforms for anything that relies on user-based input is difficult as well. For instance, Instagram recently found out that its process for locking up the accounts of the deceased may need some work, as one person was able to get Instagram founder Adam Mosseri's Instagram account locked.

Mosseri’s Instagram account was locked because of Instagram’s memorialization feature, where users can report to the company that an Instagram account holder has died. In response, Instagram will block anyone from logging into the account, and stop the ability to make any changes to already uploaded content.

“I find it ridiculous how Instagram lets such things even happen on their platform in the first place,” the scammer who claimed responsibility for the lock on Mosseri’s account, and who used the handle Syenrai, told Motherboard in an online chat. “The entire banning community needs to be discovered and reported to Instagram so they can put an end to this—it’s basically the dark side of Instagram.”

So, what is that memorialization feature? Well, an email goes into Instagram's team to trigger the account change. Instagram then requests proof that the person in question is now deceased. That admittedly morbid request takes the form of a request for either a death certificate or obituary. While that seems reasonable, it should be obvious where the flaw in this system is.

“I have a method which is as simple as finding an online obituary of a person who recently passed away,” they explained. “I then submit a memorialize request for the victim’s account using the random obituary I found, and it takes 1-2 days for support to process.”

“As long as the obituary is recent (within same week) the target will be memorialized,” Syenrai said. “It works 98% of the time.”

While, sure, it's fairly funny to see Instagram lock up and memorialize the account for its own boss, who is very much alive, this all becomes less funny when you understand how this goes for the average, every day user of Instagram. It's also worth noting that this is one of many vulnerabilities that nefarious actors use to harass targets on Instagram.

As for the memorialization process specifically, Instagram's comments have all been canned-style responses indicating that big platforms occasionally have tools like this abused and that Instagram has hires "investigators and cybersecurity specialists" to keep nefarious actors at bay. But it's obviously not working. That Mosseri's account was locked down pretty much proves that.

If the head of Instagram can fall victim to this, what hope is there for the rest of Instagram's usership?

Filed Under: adam mosseri, content moderation, memorial
Companies: instagram

Miramax's Bizarrely Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Quentin Tarantino Over His Pulp Fiction NFTs

from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept

Miramax, the film studio originally founded by Harvey Weinstein before being sold to Disney, then spun out, and currently owned jointly by a Qatari media company, beIN, and ViacomCBS, is in the news for suing Quentin Tarantino over his collection of NFTs about Pulp Fiction -- one of Miramax's biggest hit films in the 90s, and the one that put Tarantino on the map. Like many other content creators, Tarantino is exploring the NFT space, and his experiment is actually somewhat interesting. It's using a modification of typical NFTs, where some (or all) of the content remains "access controlled" and only available to the purchaser. In other words: it's DRM'd NFTs, which seems to miss the entire point of NFTs, which is creating a new scarcity of ownership without the scarcity of content access. But, hey, it's Hollywood, so restricting access and using DRM is kind of in their DNA.

That said, the NFTs are supposedly handwritten bits of the original Pulp Fiction screenplay. From the page:

The NFT collection contains the handwritten, never-before-seen screenplay of Pulp Fiction, one of the most influencing artworks of modern film. Each NFT consists of a single iconic scene, including personalized audio commentary from Quentin Tarantino. The collector who will purchase one of these few and rare NFTs will get a hold of secrets from the screenplay and a glimpse into the mind and the creative process of Quentin Tarantino. The owner will enjoy the freedom of choosing between:

1. Keeping the secrets to himself for all eternity
2. Sharing the secrets with a few trusted loved ones
3. Sharing the secrets publicly with the world

Anyway, the complaint makes a bunch of claims that don't seem to be supportable. Specifically, it argues (1) breach of contract (2) copyright infringement (3) trademark infringement and (4) unfair competition. The breach of contract claim seems weak. Part of that dispute is that when he sold the movie to Miramax the contract did say that Tarantino reserved the rights to "screenplay publication" himself -- and Tarantino's lawyers contend that that's all this is. Miramax says that an NFT does not constitute publication -- which... is weird? Because it certainly seems like it should?

But the bigger issues are the copyright and trademark claims, which really don't seem to be based on an understanding of how NFTs work. Here's the basics of the copyright claim:

The finished motion picture Pulp Fiction and all elements thereof in all stages of development and production are all original works containing copyrightable subject matter for which copyright protection exists under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et. seq. Except for Tarantino’s limited set of Reserved Rights, Miramax is the exclusive owner of rights under copyright in and to the motion picture Pulp Fiction, and all elements thereof in all stages of development and production. Miramax owns copyrights in and to Pulp Fiction (and, pursuant to the Original Rights Agreement and the Tarantino-Miramax Assignment, “all elements thereof in all stages of development and production”), including, without limitation, the registered United States copyrights thereto with U.S. Copyright Office registration numbers PA0000704507 and VA0001224051, and the copyrights assigned to Miramax in the Tarantino-Miramax Assignment and the B25 Instrument of Transfer, which are recorded with the U.S. Copyright Office as document numbers V2917P169 and V3005P270, respectively.

Through Defendants’ conduct alleged herein, including Defendants’ sale of rights relating to Pulp Fiction, and preparation and reproduction of derivative works based on Pulp Fiction without Miramax’s permission, Defendants have directly infringed Miramax’s exclusive rights in Pulp Fiction and the elements thereof in violation of Section 501 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501.

But... no. That's not how this works. The NFT is just a database entry in a distributed ledger. It's not a "derivative work." There's no copyright-covered content in the NFT itself. The NFT will point to some content, but it seems ridiculous to argue that the content it points to is infringing either. It's going to be a scan of just a small part of the script that Tarantino wrote (and again, his contract explicitly says he can publish the script). So, what copyright is being infringed here? There is some new content -- the "secret" content -- as well, but from the descriptions, that's just Tarantino explaining something about the scenes in question. And he's allowed to do that.

So, I don't see what copyright could possibly be infringed here. Even if there were some way you could argue that a link to a scan of a few pages of a handwritten movie script somehow implicates the copyright in the movie (which it cannot), there's still an incredibly strong fair use argument (but, again, it shouldn't even get there).

Indeed, to highlight the lack of any copyright infringement here, law professor (and NFT conceptual artist) Brian Frye created (and then quickly sold) his own Secret Pulp Fiction NFT, noting that:

Ownership of this NFT constitutes ownership of certain secret and confidential thoughts I created about the movie Pulp Fiction (1994), which was directed by Quentin Tarantino. The owner of the NFT will have exclusive access to those thoughts, which they may use in any way they like.

Basically, anyone is allowed to sell their "secret" thoughts and ideas about the movie Pulp Fiction, including Quentin Tarantino, and it doesn't violate Miramax's rights.

As for the trademark claim, it too seems like a huge stretch. I looked up the trademark registration and it covers certain classes, including magnets, ornamental pins, calendars, posters, tote bags, wallets, cups and mugs, t-shirts, sweatshirts, hoodies, fashion garments, jackets, blouses, pants, caps, hats, socks, ties, Halloween and masquerade costumes, costumes for children's use, action figures, bendable toys, jigsaw puzzles, puzzle games, collectible toy figures, rubber character toys, and a few more such things.

I don't see how a link in a distributed ledger database is covered by any of those. Nor do I see how a scan of a handwritten part of a script is any of those. That's not how trademark works. On top of that, where is there likely to be any confusion here? The sale is quite clearly coming from Tarantino, not Miramax, and despite the complaint saying that consumers will believe this whole thing is sponsored by Miramax, there's no reason to believe that's actually true.

All of this seems like typical Hollywood studio overreach, demanding ownership over things they don't have control over, just because they have lawyers who think they can get away with it.

Filed Under: breach of contract, copyright, derivative works, nfts, pulp fiction, quentin tarantino, trademark
Companies: miramax