New York City Cooks Up Annoying Plan That Will Pressure NYC Businesses To Buy .nyc Domains They Don't Want Or Need

from the but...-money dept

New York City officials are apparently all excited about a guaranteed $3.6 million "risk free to taxpayers" after signing a deal with a Virginia company to offer .nyc domains. This is one of those things that sounds good until you think it through, and then you realize it's effectively a hidden business tax. NYC gets to promote it as a way for more companies in NYC to have domains, and to identify themselves as NYC-based companies. But for companies already based there, they now need to buy up these domains they don't want or need, just to keep others from buying them up.

To businesses, which only need one website address, new domain names are often a tax they must pay to protect their brand. It’s as if someone printed an alternate copy of the White Pages and asked companies to buy a listing before it was sold to someone else.

In this case, a New York City company like Bloomberg would have to buy Bloomberg.nyc or face having to buy it back at a higher price. Other iconic New York City brands will likely watch nervously to see what becomes names like of “gossipgirl.nyc” or “magnoliabakery.nyc”

The company behind this is asking people to pre-register "for free," but (tellingly) does not share how much the .nyc domains will actually cost once registration opens for real. So while NYC officials can pretend that they've "found" money here, the reality is that they're creating a totally wasteful business tax and a true nuisance for NYC businesses.

Filed Under: domains, gtld, new york city, nyc, tax

If Phishing Email Can Kill NY Power Grid, Lack Of Cybersecurity Legislation Is Not The Problem

from the oh-come-on dept

We've been talking about the faux urgency to pass some cybersecurity legislation coming from the federal government, with plenty of fear mongering from politicians who never seem to want to point out any factual basis for why we need such new laws. Instead, it's all been about Hollywood movie script-style scenarios about planes falling from the skies. It appears that the White House is heavily involved in this bogus fear mongering as well, having recently set up a "simulated cyberattack on New York City's power supply" to convince elected officials to move forward on the legislation.

During a classified briefing in the Office of Senate Security, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan showed lawmakers how a hacker could breach control systems of the city’s electric system and trigger a ripple effect throughout the population and private sector, according to a source familiar with the scenario.

“The fact that we could be subject to a catastrophic attack under the right circumstances and we now know some of the things that would help us to protect against such an attack, that’s why it’s important now for the Congress to take this up,” Napolitano said in an interview with POLITICO.

Now that's interesting. Just how could a hacker breach control systems of the power grid? Apparently with an email phishing attack:

During the simulation, the hacker gains access to the electric supply’s control system through a simple “spearphishing” attack, in which a worker merely clicks on a link in an email that appears to be from someone they know.

Um, there's your problem. If the NYC power grid is attached to the public internet in such a way that it can be taken down, then um, shouldn't we take it off the internet? This isn't about cybersecurity, this is about common sense, where things like the power grid should not be accessible via the internet -- and I'm pretty sure they're not (back here in reality). But in the world where we need fear, uncertainty, doubt and the ability for the federal government to spy on private networks, we have to pretend such a scenario is likely.

Of course, I also question why the White House chose NYC as the showcase for the simulation and suggested that there would be deaths and other massive harm from such a power grid takedown. After all, it was just about a decade ago that the power grid in the Northeast did, in fact, fail. It was an inconvenience for many people, certainly, but it was hardly damaging in the way the White House seems to have implied with this scare tactic.

So, once again, can we take a step back and ask some simple questions: what's the real threat and the real risk here? If it's that the NYC power grid is accessible by a simple password over the public internet, then the problem isn't cybersecurity, it's whoever was stupid enough to connect the power grid to the internet. Let's fix that. But let's not regulate and spy on large segments of the public internet to cover for a few bad decisions.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, fear mongering, hype, nyc, phishing, power grid, terrorism, white house

Reminder: Create A PSA About The Impact Of Technology On Creativity And You Can Win $1,000

from the step-on-up dept

As you may remember, NBC Universal via New York City, is running a contest trying to get NYC school children to create anti-piracy public service announcement (PSA) propaganda videos. In exchange for that, they're giving the "winner" $500... but also taking their copyright. We think it's a bit ironic that a contest where you're forced to only talk about how great copyright is also forces you to give up your copyright.

Anyway, thanks to some generous Techdirt readers (and a matching grant from us directly), we're offering our own contest and the deadline is rapidly approaching. You've basically got a week left. We're looking for the PSAs to be about the impact of technology on creativity. We're not giving you talking points, or even a specific view you have to take. Unlike NBC Universal and New York City, we trust you to make your own arguments, not regurgitate what you've been handed. We're also offering twice the amount of money they are... and we don't force you to give up your copyright. So, step on up. Details of how to enter can be found here.

Filed Under: culture, nyc, psa, technology
Companies: nbc universal

Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?

from the why-videotaping-police-is-important dept

Before I get into the details of this post, I will say that I don't quite get the purpose of the whole "Occupy Wall Street" protests. I mean, I guess that they're supposed to be some sort of American version of the Arab Spring protests or the riots in London, but, honestly -- like many of these things in the US -- they strike me as people protesting for the sake of protesting. I just don't quite see the point. The folks in the Middle East had real problems with their government. Protesting against a "financial system"? What does that do?

That said, since we've been writing so much about law enforcement and videotaping their actions, one story coming out of the ongoing protests is worth looking at in more detail. On Saturday, there were a bunch of arrests, but the story getting a lot of attention was the decision by one officer (according to this blog, his badge says "Bologna") to walk up to a group of protesting women and spray their eyes, point blank, with pepper spray. You can see the slow motion video, which highlights the officer's actions: From that video, it seems pretty clear that the guy just walks up to a group of the protesters, sprays them, and walks away. So here's where it gets more interesting. The NY Police Department have insisted to the NY Times that the pepper spraying was appropriate, even as they admit they only use pepper spray in extraordinary circumstances:

The Police Department’s chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, said the police had used the pepper spray “appropriately.”

“Pepper spray was used once,” he added, “after individuals confronted officers and tried to prevent them from deploying a mesh barrier — something that was edited out or otherwise not captured in the video.”

Of course, accounts in that same article from one of the women who was sprayed (who wasn't arrested) suggests a different story. While admitting there were some "rough" people there, she says that she and the folks around her had done nothing to cause the police to single them out with pepper spray. Furthermore, the folks at USLaw.com have more information including an additional video taken by one of the pepper-sprayed women. While right as the pepper spraying happens the camera is facing away from the action, and there was a lot of screaming and activity a bit earlier, it's hard to see how anything anyone did in that area provoked the sudden spraying: On the YouTube page for that video, the woman states that, for the most part, she supports the police force and believes they're good and honorable people. Right before she was sprayed in the video, she appears to be asking police politely where they want her to go.

Yes, this was a chaotic situation with lots of people yelling and lots of movement. But the evidence from the two videos (and two of the women sprayed) certainly suggests that the police spokesperson is lying in saying that the use here was "appropriate." I find this interesting not because of anything to do with the protest itself, but because of the way the ability to record and upload videos like this is really able to impact and change the debate. In the past, it would have been the police's word against the protesters, and lots of people would have simply believed the police. But, as chaotic as the situation may be, law enforcement around the world is going to have to learn that they can't hide behind false claims of acting appropriately if they didn't, in fact, act appropriately.

Filed Under: nyc, nypd, pepper spray, police, protests, video evidence

Mayor Bloomberg Demands SAIC Pay Back $600 Million In Cost Overruns For NYC Computer System

from the good-for-him dept

Over the years, we've chronicled a number of absolutely ridiculous over-budget computer systems for government agencies. My favorite still remains the FBI computer system -- which was over budget by hundreds of millions of dollars, was useless at finding terrorists, was so bad that a contractor had to use some free internet tools to hack into the system just to get his work done, and was so confusing that a computer science professor who reviewed the system said he and some others thought of going on a crime spree the day the FBI switched over. That system was built by SAIC, and the FBI ended up scrapping it and starting from scratch. But, as far as I know, the FBI never asked SAIC for the $600 or so million in taxpayer money it spent on the system back.

Apparently, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has had a similar experience with SAIC and the new computer system for NYC it's been building. But, Bloomberg is a businessman by trade, rather than a politician, so when a company charges you $600 million (way overbudget from the original $63 million), he knows that you ask for your money back. So that's what he's doing. He's demanding a $600 million refund from SAIC. Part of the issue is that, as with many of these type of projects, there appears to have been significant fraud involved:

The recent indictment of SAIC's leader project manager on the CityTime job, Gerard Denault, as well as the guilty plea to criminal charges made by SAIC systems engineer Carl Bell, who designed the software, are "extremely troubling and raise questions about SAIC's corporate responsibility and internal controls to prevent and combat fraud," he added. Denault and Bell were charged with were charged with taking kickbacks, wire fraud and money laundering.

Also recently indicted were Reddy and Padma Allen, a couple who head up New Jersey systems integrator TechnoDyne, which was SAIC's primary subcontractor on the CityTime project. Federal authorities allege that the Allens and others conducted an elaborate overbilling and kickback scheme that siphoned millions of dollars from the project.

Federal authorities have also contended that SAIC had received a whistleblower complaint about the project as far back as 2005, Bloomberg said in the letter. "It is unclear what SAIC did at that time to investigate these serious allegations."

I would imagine that SAIC has no interest in paying back $600 million, but it could make for an interesting lawsuit if Bloomberg decides to press the matter.

Filed Under: computers, cost overrun, michael bloomberg, nyc
Companies: saic

Instead Of Hiring Film Crew To Make PSA About Out Of Work Film Crews, ICE Just Reruns Someone Else's Video

from the wow. dept

Well, this is just bizarre. You may recall that late last year, NBC Universal worked with New York City to create a silly "anti-piracy" propaganda video that was not even close to accurate. It amusingly claimed that there is "no such thing as a free movie," while using YouTube, a free video platform... for free. We were left scratching our heads, a few weeks back, when pointing out that Homeland Security's ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) was now using the same video on its YouTube account -- stripped of all references to New York City.

Well, as part of World Intellectual Property Day, ICE has flat out lied and is pretending that this video is a "new" PSA that it's put together, and which it will now be placing on the domains it illegally forfeits, without any sort of adversarial hearing.

Shouldn't we be just a bit concerned that Homeland Security's ICE group is placing a video, financed by NBC Universal, which makes blatantly false statements concerning copyright law and the impact of copyright infringement, on domains that it has seized illegally? Even worse, the press, who should know better, are simply parroting the claims from ICE that this is a new PSA from ICE. It's not. It's from NY City at the urging of NBC Universal. It's also not accurate.

Of course, what would be funny, if it weren't so sad, is that ICE's John Morton thinks that this video will "educate the general public about the real consequence of IP theft." That's doubtful. As has been explained over and over again -- including in the recent SSRC report -- the issue is not education at all, but better business models. This kind of propaganda is simply laughable and its insulting that Morton thinks the American public is so stupid as to be fooled by false statements about intellectual property.

In the meantime, though, can we point out the serious irony here: ICE and the feds are apparently too freaking cheap to pay for the creation of their own anti-piracy PSA about putting video crew people out of work. Yes, ICE could have hired a nice film crew, like the one in the video that will be put out of work due to "piracy." But, instead, it just used a video that was already made... meaning it didn't actually help put anyone to work. The film crew that the Stop Piracy in NYC site originally highlighted as being at risk due to piracy... are they getting any money from ICE?

Filed Under: ice, nyc, psa
Companies: nbc universal

Irony Alert: NYC's Anti-Piracy Propaganda Campaign Using 'Free' YouTube

from the free-free-free dept

A few weeks back, we wrote about the anti-piracy propaganda campaign that NYC has been running, paid for by taxpayer dollars, which spreads typical MPAA FUD, and concludes with the line: "There's no such thing as a free movie." However, in looking over the campaign, I just realized that the videos are hosted on YouTube... for free. In other words, while NYC and its Hollywood friends are claiming that if you get something for free, it must be illegal, they're making use of free online services themselves. Without YouTube, they'd have to pay for the hosting, bandwidth, streaming software, etc. themselves. But this way, they get it for free.

Now, it's absolutely true that YouTube could monetize the videos with ads (though, I don't see any on that video right now), but that sort of reinforces the point. There are all sorts of business models that allow you to offer something for "free" to the end user, but are monetized elsewhere. YouTube does exactly that. It offers what would otherwise be quite expensive (hosting, bandwidth, streaming software, etc.) and gives it all away for free, and has built a whole business around that. There's nothing saying that the movie industry can't do the same thing. Rather than falsely stating that there's no such thing as a "free" (to the consumer) movie, there are certainly plenty of ways that the movie industry could monetize movies that were offered free to consumers. It's just that the legacy players choose not to. And then complain. And get politicians to waste taxpayer money...

Filed Under: anti-piracy, business models, free, hosting, nyc, propaganda
Companies: youtube

NYC (Finally) Creates System For Giving Press Passes To Online Journalists

from the but-separate-from-the-lawsuit dept

A year and a half ago, we wrote about some online/alternative journalists who sued the NYC Police Department because of a refusal to give those journalists press passes. As we noted at the time, it was difficult to see the legal justification for the lawsuit. Just because you are a reporter (alternative, online or traditional) it doesn't mean that the city has to grant you press access. This upset some folks in the comments who thought I was supporting the idea that "bloggers aren't journalists" or that this was somehow a free speech issue. It was not. The reporters were absolutely free to report on whatever they wanted and say whatever they wanted, but that did not mean that anyone had to grant them access. Hell, I even thought that the NYC police were wrong in not granting these journalists access -- but that didn't mean it was illegal.

Soon after that lawsuit was filed, the police backed down anyway and granted those journalists access, making the lawsuit somewhat meaningless, though it continued. Separately, however, a lawsuit in California proved the point that being a journalist does not give you the right to unfettered access, such as at crime scenes.

So, when one of the journalists involved in the original lawsuit, David Wallis, sent in a submission this week declaring Masnick was wrong!!!!, I thought I'd check it out -- since everything had indicated that I was not wrong. However, it appears that Wallis also seems confused about the difference between what the NYC Police should do and what they're legally required to do. The reason for the email is that NYC has smartly put in place rules and procedures for credentialing online journalists as part of the agreement to settle the lawsuit.

I think this is an absolute good thing -- and a smart move. If anything, I'm sort of surprised that such a policy didn't already exist. But, unlike Wallis' claim, this does not change my stance on the original lawsuit. While it may have pressured NYC into putting in place a policy, that doesn't mean there was any legal leg to stand on in the lawsuit. As I said, I always thought that the police should have given credentials to these journalists -- and should have had a policy in place for giving credentials to journalists who meet certain criteria, even if they're not employed by the traditional media. But that does not mean that the police have to give access to anyone who declares themselves a journalist. So I'm happy for Wallis and the other journalists that NY has changed its policy and made it more reasonable in response to the lawsuit, but that doesn't change the likelihood that the original lawsuit was not going anywhere on a legal basis.

Filed Under: access, free speech, nyc, press

NYC Cabbies Who Resisted Credit Card Machines... Now Making More Money Because Of Them

from the resisting-technology dept

A rather common theme around here is how often various industries resist the use of new technologies, fearing that those technologies will somehow harm or even destroy the industry. And yet, before too long, the opposite turns out to be true. Remember how Jack Valenti declared the VCR to be the "Boston Strangler" to the movie industry? Just a few years later, revenue from VCR rentals and sales represented a massive part of the movie business's yearly income. It happens over and over again. The NY Times has a different kind of example of the same basic thing. Two years ago, Mayor Bloomberg in NY pushed for taxis to be required to take credit cards. The cabbies resisted, complaining that it would cause all sorts of problems. They even went on strike over the issue.

And yet, two years later, having easy to use credit card readers in the back of every cab means that more people are taking cabs, because it's easier, and they tend to tip more as well. Part of that is because the machines have "preset" tip suggestions that many riders use, which often result in higher tips than average. While the article still quotes a few angry cab drivers who insist that higher tips aren't true, the reporter was able to review the receipts from a few cabs and found that the average tip was 18%, with the preset tip suggestions being used more than half the time. While it's still early, it certainly seems like this was yet another overreaction to new technology that has actually ended up helping, rather than hurting.

Filed Under: cabs, credit cards, nyc, technology

NY MTA The Latest Public Transportation Group To Declare It Owns Facts

from the sigh dept

What is it with public transportation groups? Over the past year or so we've seen time and time again that these companies seem to think they own the data on their schedules, and have come down hard on anyone who supplies an iPhone app that gives people good schedule info. The reason many public transportation groups do this is they think they can make some money licensing the data, but this is silly. If an individual or a hobbyist can provide better data in a better format to users, that just encourages more people to actually buy tickets for the train ride, which is what you would think these train operators would want.

The latest example of this battle, sent in by Anthony Townsend, is the MTA in NY making life difficult for a guy who created a scheduling app for the Metro North train line. The guy also happens to have a blog about Metro North, that he's used to draw attention to problems with the service. That seems to have upset the MTA people, who claimed his site was "pretending to be an official MTA website." He pointed out how ridiculous that was, since most of the blog posts were highly critical of the MTA. Any reader would quickly recognize that it was not an official site.

Soon after that, though, the MTA threatened him over the scheduling app, claiming that it violates the MTA's copyright on its data. Except... you can't copyright facts. The MTA argues that if someone misses a train due to the guy's info, they'll get mad at the MTA. I'd argue that's overblown. First, so long as the app is clear that it's not official, there shouldn't be much of an issue. And, honestly, how often would that sort of problem occur? The real thing is that the MTA wants to squeeze money out of the guy, and sent him a licensing agreement demanding a share of any revenue he makes, but wants him to back pay for the past year or so, plus a non-refundable $5,000 fee. It also refuses to give him any notice as to when the schedule changes. Given the MTA's claims that they're against the app because people might miss the train, the fact that they're fighting him over being alerted to scheduling changes seems to make clear that the MTA is lying.

It's difficult to see how the MTA has much of a legal leg to stand on here, but they don't seem to have a problem being a bully against a developer who's actually helping riders have a better experience.

Filed Under: copyright, facts, metro north, mta, nyc, train schedules