Copyright Continues To Be Abused To Censor Critics By Entities Both Big And Small

from the tools-of-abuse dept

We've talked far too many times about how the DMCA takedown processes across internet industries as they stand are wide, wide open for abuse. From churches wielding copyright to attempt to silence critics engaging in protected speech, to lawyers using copyright to try to silence critics engaging in protected speech, to freaking political candidates abusing YouTube's DMCA notice process to silence critics engaging in protected speech... well, you get the idea. The point is that we've known for a long, long time that the current method by which the country and companies currently enforce copyright law tilts so heavily towards the accuser that it's an obvious avenue for misuse.

And this is an issue created by bad actors big and small. Hell, apparently you cannot even criticique a sophomoric prank joke troop on YouTube without being targeted using copyright law.

Last week, Tripping, a smallish YouTube creator with about 88,000 subscribers, faced an uphill battle to keep one of his videos up. It was pretty standard as far as social commentary videos go on YouTube: an 11-minute presentation about “The Rise and Fall of NELK,” a prank channel that has nearly 7 million subscribers.

But since Tripping posted it in May, it’s been flagged for “copyright” infringement several times. Last week, it was successfully taken down by YouTube before being reinstated over the weekend, when 21-year-old Quentin, who owns the account, disputed it. But Quentin is now concerned that his video criticizing the pranksters was successfully censored by the Nelk Boys themselves through a loophole he says YouTube isn’t vetting carefully enough.

That appears to be precisely what happened. The back and forth over this 11 minute video is fairly amazing. The whole video called out the Nelk Boys for doing a bunch of dumb stuff, most specifically with regards to ignoring COVID and encouraging others to do the same. Other behavior was questioned as well. A week after posting it, Quentin's video got flagged for a copyright claim and was blocked. He fought that claim and the video was put back online. Then, months later, Quentin was assessed his first copyright strike by YouTube, meaning his account was now in jeapordy of being shut down if future strikes occurred.

And the email from YouTube listed Kyle Forgeard of the Nelk Boys as the copyright owner issuing the claim resulting in the copyright strike.

“They’re using copyright ... and YouTube’s system as a way to avoid the criticism; it’s a very common thing on YouTube,” he said. “There’s no way for YouTube to determine what’s this or that. If Nelk [claims copyright], they’re going to have to accept it out of respect for Nelk and YouTube not getting sued. But with fair use and for commentary, you’re allowed to use clips in that manner.”

When I reached out, a spokesperson at YouTube said users can file a dispute if they think their account was flagged erroneously, and, in this case, it was. I then asked them how YouTube is going to improve this system — especially when algorithmic moderation has become a widespread issue time and time again — but I did not hear back.

And that's why nothing ever changes. The onus for getting protected speech back online, in the vaunted opinion of YouTube, falls squarely on the victim of the censorship-by-copyright tactic. Any time you try to kickstart a conversation about how to improve this system to make it balanced instead of tilted towards the claimaint, you get crickets. And the end result is the YouTube creator community being completely rudderless as to what exactly they're supposed to do.

Quentin said he feels somewhat powerless when something like this comes up: “[Nelk] are so much larger than me. They have millions of subscribers and fans, and I only have a minimal fraction of what they have. All I’m betting on is YouTube is finally reviewing it and coming to terms with what’s right.”

He added, “I wouldn’t be surprised if they still want that video down.”

He just hopes YouTube “implement[s] a system that prevents larger channels from filing claims like this and have it go directly through because copyright is a serious thing.”

As is fraud and censorship, I might add. But for far too long YouTube has been reluctant to do anything about that side of this equation, preferring instead to molify the copyright industries and leave some segment of its user base hung out to dry.

Filed Under: censorship, commentary, copyright, dmca, takedowns, tripping
Companies: youtube

Survey Confirms Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Is Still Home To Dangerous Gangs, Has No Solid Plan To Eliminate Them

from the enjoy-being-brutalized-on-your-own-dime,-taxpayers dept

The Los Angeles Police Department has spent years compiling a "gang database." The term "compile" is used loosely, because the LAPD decides people are gang members just because they know gang members, or are related to them, or live in the same buildings, or work near them, or pass through gang-controlled neighborhoods, or go to school with gang members, or just (as non-gang people are wont to do) wear clothes, shoes, and hats. It's ridiculous.

And when that's not "inclusive" enough, LAPD officers fake it. LAPD officers have falsified records to justify unjustifiable stops and searches, something that ultimately resulted in criminal charges against three officers. But even with this wealth of bogus and barely supported information, the gang database (CALGANG) still has one glaring omission: the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department.

A 63-page civil lawsuit, filed on Sept. 18 in California Superior Court, alleges that the gang’s power stems from its close ties to Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who was elected in 2018 on the promise to “reform, rebuild and restore” the scandal-plagued department. Since then, however, disillusionment with Villaneuva has grown over several of his decisions, including deactivating misconduct investigations. In July, Los Angeles Magazine dubbed him “the Donald Trump of L.A. Law Enforcement.” And the eight deputies allege in their complaint that Villanueva protects the Banditos and other deputy gangs, even rehiring deputies fired for misconduct.  

According to the lawsuit, the approximately 90-member Banditos maintain a “stranglehold” on the unincorporated communities east of downtown through a reign of unlawful policing, violence, and intimidation from their base at the East Los Angeles station. Members sport tattoos featuring a pistol-wielding, sombrero and bandolier-wearing skeleton with a thick mustache and a unique number for each member.

Villanueva hasn't reformed the LASD. It's still as terrible as ever. And it still is home to gangs composed of LASD employees, which I guess is to be expected when your hiring pool consists of thieves, statutory rapists, and cops considered too tainted to be hired anywhere else.

The Los Angeles Times reports on an unsurprising new study that shows the LASD is still a great place to join a gang.

Hundreds of Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies said they have been recruited to join secretive, sometimes gang-like cliques that operate within department stations, according to the findings of a survey by independent researchers.

The anticipated study into the problematic fraternities — which L.A. County officials commissioned the Rand Corp. to conduct in 2019 — found 16% of the 1,608 deputies and supervisors who anonymously answered survey questions had been invited to join a clique, with some invitations having come in the last five years.

According to the survey, the LASD's "gangs" were still "actively adding members" as of 2020. Presumably, the ringing in of a new year hasn't changed that. There is some internal resistance, however. 37% of deputies said cliques should be prohibited, which aligns them with about 100% of the non-LASD population. But who's going to police the police?

Not Sheriff Alex Villanueva.

Sheriff Alex Villanueva has denied that “gangs” exist within the department but has also taken credit for addressing the problem with a policy that prohibits deputies from joining any group that commits misconduct.

You can't deny a problem exists and create a (weak, toothless) policy that addresses said nonexistent problem. And it would seem a straight reading of this policy would forbid LASD deputies from joining the LASD itself, which has a long. ugly history of misconduct.

And if Villanueva is so intent on addressing this problem (the one he says isn't a problem), why would he make it almost impossible for the Department's oversight to do its job?

Inspector General Max Huntsman said Friday that Villanueva appeared this week for an interview after initially resisting a subpoena to answer questions about deputy cliques. The sheriff, however, refused to testify under oath, at his attorney’s instruction, so Huntsman said he declined to question him and now plans to ask a judge to order Villanueva to give sworn testimony.

The study further found that what little was being done by the LASD to address its internal clique problem was too weak and too disorganized to have any effect. Add that to the normal insularity found in law enforcement agencies -- one that treats anyone attempting to apply any discipline as the enemy of the rank-and-file -- and the problem shifts from "troublesome" to "festering, infected wound."

Not ironically at all, the report also noted deputies wishing to join LASD gangs often committed misconduct to do so, most often engaging in deployments of excessive force. And yet, many inside the LASD see no problem with this misconduct, the misconduct committed by clique members, or the collateral damage to the public's trust.

About a quarter of those surveyed said they believe deputy cliques can be a positive influence by motivating a station’s staff or members of a particular unit…

Less disappointingly, a similar number said cliques hurt morale and alienate LASD employees. (Nothing was said about how these gangs affect the general public.) But, more disappointingly, the remaining 50% said having close knit groups of like-minded thugs on the force had no effect on the LASD's daily operations. And that may be true. But it's definitely having an effect on the victims of excessive force deployment and others who've had their rights violated by deputies who believe they're not only above internal policy, but above the law.

Filed Under: alex villanueva, calgang, la, lapd, lasd, police, police gangs

Google, NBC Bring Dumb Cable TV Blackout Feuds To Streaming

from the consumers-lose dept

For years cable TV has been plagued by retrans feuds and carriage disputes that routinely end with users losing access to TV programming they pay for. Basically, broadcasters will demand a rate hike in new content negotiations, the cable TV provider will balk, and then each side blames the other for failing to strike a new agreement on time like reasonable adults. That repeatedly results in content being blacked out for months, without consumers ever getting a refund. After a few months, the two sides strike a new confidential deal, your bill goes up, and nobody much cares how that impacts the end user. Rinse, wash, repeat.

And while the shift to streaming TV has improved a lot about cable TV in general, these annoying feuds have remained. The latest case in point: Comcast NBC Universal is demanding more money from Google for the 14+ channels currently on the company's YouTube TV live streaming platform. Google appears to be balking, resulting in NBC running a bunch of annoying banners on its channels warning about a looming blackout, and directing people to this website blaming Google for not wanting to pay more money for the same content:

In a blog post, Google notes that negotiations are ongoing, but suggests that Comcast isn't being reasonable in negotiations:

"Our ask is that NBCU treats YouTube TV like any other TV provider. In other words, for the duration of our agreement, YouTube TV seeks the same rates that services of a similar size get from NBCU so we can continue offering YouTube TV to members at a competitive and fair price."

As far as annoying corporate feuds go, this one isn't all that bad. Google says it will reduce the cost of its overall service by $10 should users lose access to NBC content after September 30 (traditionally, cable providers haven't been willing to lower their rates at all). Still, you're going to be seeing a lot more of these kinds of feuds as telecoms, cable TV companies, app makers, "big tech," and even hardware vendors like Roku all attempt to battle for not only viewership eyeballs, but access to user data collection revenues.

The problem is, consumers shouldn't be the ones paying the price for two companies' failure to negotiate new contracts like adults. For a moment there it looked like the FCC might update its rules to force companies to negotiate in good faith (and more importantly penalize companies that take out out their negotiating incompetence on paying subscribers) but as a movement it generally went nowhere. U.S. regulators genuinely view these feuds as just "boys being boys," and routinely don't care whether it results in paying subscribers losing access to content they have, in many cases, already paid for.

Filed Under: blackouts, cable, carriage disputes, retrans, streaming, tv
Companies: comcast, google, nbc universal, youtube

Daily Deal: The 2021 Google Software Engineering Manager Bundle

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

The 2021 Google Software Engineering Manager Bundle has 12 courses to help you learn software development. You'll learn about Data Science, Python, C#, Java, and more. Two courses will help you prepare for the CISA and CISM certification exams. It's on sale for $40.

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

Facebook's Latest Scandals: The Banality Of Hubris; The Messiness Of Humanity

from the it's-not-evil,-it's-not-incompetent dept

Over the last few weeks, the WSJ has run a series of posts generally called "The Facebook Files," which have exposed a variety of internal documents from Facebook that are somewhat embarrassing. I do think some of the reporting is overblown -- and, in rather typical fashion regarding the big news publications and their reporting on Facebook, presents everything in the worst possible light. For example, the report on how internal research showed that Instagram made teen girls feel bad about themselves downplays that the data actually shows a significantly higher percentage of teens indicated that Instagram made them feel better:

But, of course, the WSJ's headline presents it very differently:

None of this is to say that this is okay, or that Facebook shouldn't be trying to figure out ways to minimize people using the sites being made to feel worse about themselves. But the reporting decisions here do raise some questions.

Another one of the articles highlights how Facebook has different rules for different users with regards to content moderation. And, again, on a first pass this sounds really damning:

The program, known as “cross check” or “XCheck,” was initially intended as a quality-control measure for actions taken against high-profile accounts, including celebrities, politicians and journalists. Today, it shields millions of VIP users from the company’s normal enforcement process, the documents show. Some users are “whitelisted”—rendered immune from enforcement actions—while others are allowed to post rule-violating material pending Facebook employee reviews that often never come.

The report notes that nearly 6 million people are on that list (including, somewhat ironically, some high profile conservatives who have whined about how the site's policies are biased against them). There's simply no way this looks good -- as insiders at Facebook readily admitted in internal documents. But, rather than being particularly nefarious, there are some pretty understandable reasons why this might have come about. As early Facebook content policy guy, Dave Willner, explained on Twitter, such systems are pretty common and "they get proposed spontaneously as a way of controlling the chaos that occurs when moderation affects high-profile or influential accounts."

Another way to think about this is that -- as I've said often -- one of the trickiest parts of content moderation is understanding the wider context of any individual piece of content. This is way more difficult than most people realize. But context actually matters and looking at an individual piece of content outside of the context in which it was created gives you a misleading picture of the intent and impact of that content. And the idea of a sort of "be more careful with these accounts" list is a very inexact, and very messy, but is also a very quick and easy way of adding a contextual layer. It is basically initiated as a tool to say "hey, be careful with these accounts, because making a mistake with them has extra consequences." But, over time, because of human nature, it evolves into "these accounts are protected."

This isn't a defense of the list. As Robyn Caplan and Tarleton Gillespie rightly note in the Washington Post, no matter what the reasons for the list, any sort of setup that is (1) not transparent, and (2) seen to lead to unequal treatment very naturally breeds suspicion and distrust.

In the days since the Facebook Files came out I've been having a few conversations with people about the write-ups and what it all means. There is general agreement that none of this makes Facebook look good. And it shouldn't. There's really nothing in all of this that's good for Facebook. A few of the discussions, though, jumped to the argument that Facebook's executive team is "evil." A lesser version of this is that they're totally incompetent. I don't think either is quite true. Thinking it through, I think Facebook's executive team (1) is in deeper than they realize, and (2) falsely thinks it has a better handle on things than it really does.

This is an issue that is all too common, especially in the internet world, where there's a kind of myth around "visionary" founders. And that's certainly been applied to pretty much every successful internet founder. Indeed, recent research throws some cold water on the idea of brilliant founders leading to big breakthroughs, and suggests more that successful companies are about being in the right place at the right time with minimally competent leaders to keep everything from going off the rails.

This is (quite obviously) from the outside looking in, but my impression of much of Facebook leadership is that they've bought a bit too much into the myth of their own brilliance, and their own ability to work their way through challenges -- at the size and scale of an operation that isn't just providing a service to basically a third of the globe, but which is also seeking to get those people to interact with one another. Nearly all of human history is about our general failures to get along with one another, and many of the problems facing Facebook are also of that very nature.

There is something of an open question about which of these problems are merely revealed or exposed due to Facebook, which are exacerbated by Facebook, and which are actually decreased by Facebook. It seems likely that all three of these forces are at play, and there is no one who has a full grasp on how to deal with the problems that are a part of human nature -- or how to try to minimize humanity's worst impulses across the globe. I don't think Facebook has the answers, but sometimes I fear that some of the leaders at the company think that they do -- or that they can outthink the world in how they approach these problems.

The issues, which become clear in all of this reporting, are not of a company that is nefariously run by evil geniuses toying with people's minds (as some would have you believe). Nor is it incompetent buffoons careening human society into a ditch under a billboard screaming "MOAR ENGAGEMENT! MOAR CLICKS!" It seems pretty clear that they are decently smart, and decently competent people... who have ended up in an impossible situation and don't recognize that they can't solve it all alone.

Over and over again, this recognition seems to explain actions that might otherwise be incomprehensible. So many of the damning reports from the Facebook files could be evidence of evilness or incompetence -- or they could be evidence of a group of executives who are in way too deep, but believe that they really have a handle on things that they not only don't, but simply can't due to the nature of humanity itself.

Facebook and Instagram were never going to cure depression, or keep teen girls from feeling bad about themselves. And, hell, to give the company a tiny bit of credit (don't worry, I'll take it away in a moment), the very fact that they did this research in the first place and realized how shitty some people feel on the site is a step that many, many companies never take. On the flip side, how they actually handled this is a part of the problem. As Will Oremus points out at the Washington Post, the real issue here is in the burying of the findings, not necessarily in the findings themselves.

And, again viewed through the prism of a hubristic "we can fix this, because we're brilliant!" mentality, you can see how that happens. There's a correct realization that this report will look bad -- so it can't be talked about publicly, because Facebook seems to have an inferiority complex about ever looking bad. But the general belief seems to be that if they just keep working on it, and just make the latest change to the UI or the algorithm, maybe, just maybe, they can "show" that they've somehow improved humanity. It's a belief in themselves and their ability that simply isn't realistic. But it does explain how the company handles nearly all of these scandals.

One thing I've grown to appreciate as I've gotten older is how much more complex the world is than it seems at times. More and more often, I've realized how the complex interplay of different variables means that nobody understands anything perfectly. There's always another variable (or several) missing. I'm realizing that I am (increasingly) valuing input from a larger and more diverse set of sounding boards that can point out the giant thing that I'm missing in trying to understand complex topics. But it also makes me that much more skeptical of those who act as though they have figured it all out.

I don't think the Facebook Files show a company that is evil or incompetent. It seems to show a company that is in way too deep, but still thinks it can totally get things back under control.

Filed Under: depression, evil, humanity, incompetence, mark zuckerberg, scandals, social media, social problems
Companies: facebook

CIA, NSA Block Ads Network-Wide To Protect Agencies. Ron Wyden Says Rest Of Gov't Should Do The Same.

from the [glaring-pointedly]-they're-not-wrong dept

Not everyone uses an ad-blocker. But most people do. And no matter how much online publications claim ad blocking is the same thing as stealing, it really isn't. If they're bent out of shape about it, it's because they assault users with ads, burying content behind a wall of uncurated virtual salesmen. If it bleeds, it leads, the old saying goes, but now it refers to readers' processing power and data allotments.

Far too many online publications consider processing the check on the ad buy to be the end of their responsibility. But ad servers get hijacked. Other ad companies get purchased by ad pushers with more malleable morals. Everyone collects reams of data on every site visitor. The end user of sites seems to be the last concern for ad brokers and the people who sell to them, so it's no surprise more people are deploying ad blockers, seeing as readers of even supposedly-reputable sites have been hit with malware, spyware, and auto-playing video when just trying to access some content.

Ads can be dangerous. They can compromise systems and hijack browsers. The general public definitely knows this. Enjoy this shade thrown at ad saturation and website design overcompensation:

The government knows this as well. And it should, although it really shouldn't be a trailing indicator on abusive ad deployment. The spyingest agencies of the Intelligence Community don't just suggest employees should use ad blockers. It mandates them. Here's Joseph Cox for Motherboard:

Lots of people who use ad blockers say they do it to block malicious ads that can sometimes hack their devices or harvest sensitive information on them. It turns out, the NSA, CIA, and other agencies in the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) are also blocking ads potentially for the same sorts of reasons.

The IC, which also includes the parts of the FBI, DEA, and DHS, and various DoD elements, has deployed ad-blocking technology on a wide scale, according to a copy of a letter sent by Congress and shared with Motherboard.

The letter [PDF], written by Senator Ron Wyden, suggests the rest of the federal government follow the NSA's lead and implement "network-based ad-blocking technologies" at all federal agencies.

While the intelligence community has acted to protect its personnel and computers from malvertising based threats, many other federal agencies have not, and are unlikely to until they are required to do so. To that end, as OMB [Office of Management and Budget] finalizes its recently released draft Federal Zero Trust Strategy, detailing the specific actions that OMB is requiring federal agencies to take to secure their systems from hackers, I urge OMB to also require agencies to implement the CISA and NSA guidance to block ads.

"Zero trust." That sounds like an accurate court of the trust most online advertisers have earned. It's a cesspool out there and publications looking for the easiest way to convert readers to dollars have proven willing to splash around in it under the assumption they'll always be able to blame the foul odors on their ad partners. But that assumes people will be willing to forgive continuous abuse as long as they can access "free" content. That's a risky assumption.

And it doesn't have to be this way. Techdirt has experimented with a blend of ads and direct connection with readers to pay the bills. As ad providers have become less trustworthy and old standbys (like Google's AdSense) have become increasingly erratic with their policy enforcement, Techdirt has dropped ads completely. There are no Google ads on Techdirt and no analytics trackers logging reader info for data brokers who not only help serve up "targeted" ads but also sell data in bulk to government agencies. Techdirt runs clean and is almost entirely reader-supported. Very few sites are willing to give up money to ensure the safety and privacy of their readers and that's why ad blocking has never been considered a threat to Techdirt's business model.

Ad blocking is a must-have these days, even for the federal government. Too much abuse and too little oversight has turned a nicety into a necessity. And if online publications don't like the current state of affairs, they really have no one but themselves to blame.

Filed Under: ad blocking, cia, cybersecurity, intelligence community, nsa, ron wyden

Misquoting Einstein Is Fast And Stupid, But Not Accurate

from the so-here's-an-accurate-meme dept

I was writing something a while ago, and had reason to quote the famous aphorism “Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid; humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate, and smart.” I’ll bet you’ve heard a variation on that quote before, and probably have seen a meme or two with it. It’s usually attributed to Einstein.

(wait, who’s Tom Asacker?)

But when you’re writing a research paper, and you need to add the source citation into Zotero for bibliographic and reference management, you need the actual publication title and date, as well as the author. So I went looking. 

About 25 links and a Wiki-hole later, I stumbled over this article by Ben Shoemate, a web architect and developer who’d come across the same problem I had--in 2008.

Ben had sought this quote as well, thinking that with tens of thousands of search results pointing to Einstein as the quote’s author, there must be a source somewhere.

Even at NASA’s showcase at the conference called Supercomputing 2006, this quote was attributed to Einstein, and then later fact-checked. No one can find out who said it. The closest anyone had gotten was Ben finding a single page (page 691) of a screenshotted article that seemed to have it.

Well, I was sitting in England, in a small room in Oxford to be precise, in lockdown, a short walk from the most extensive library on earth since the Library of Alexandria first smelled smoke. I had plenty of things better to do but a bee in my bonnet, nonetheless. I started trying to track down the source article Ben had mentioned; it was something from the Instrument Society of America. However, while I was a short walk from the Bodleian, the lockdown meant no one could go inside. Oddly, that turned out to be a boon for this little quest. Because most university libraries in the world right now are cooperating with each other to an extraordinary extent, I was able to talk the librarian at the Bod into calling whichever university would have the article I needed--the one surrounding page 691. 

It turned into a combination of Telephone and Who’s On First. 

“I need the article that contains page 691 in 1969 from the ISA.” 

“Ok, what is the author name and the title of the article?” 

“I have no idea; that’s what I’m trying to find out.” 

“But the webform won’t let me submit a request for an article if I don’t know the name of the author and title.” 

“But you know the page number in the article; can you request the five pages before and after that page?” 

“No, I can only scan and deliver one article at a time and that might be more than one article. We could breach our sharing agreement.” 

“What about getting the entire paper journal issue shipped here on Interlibrary Loan?”

“We don’t have the budget for that and it can take months to have a paper copy shipped, even if they’re willing to do so with their only copy.”

“Can you call the library and see if someone will walk down there and look at the article?”

“I’m sorry, madam, they are eight hours behind us and we share no business hours in common.”

“AHA they’re on the West Coast of the United States, AREN’T THEY??”

“Ahem. Perhaps I can send an email asking if someone could look around.”

“That would be lovely; thank you so much for your time.”

VICTORY.

Several weeks later, I had this article in my inbox. From the Instrument Society of America’s 1969 proceedings, and written by H.D. Couture and Marion Keyes. 

H.D. Couture was at Eastex Incorporated, and didn’t have too many other articles and patents; like many of us, it’s probable that much of his contributions were private or under the name of his company. Marion Keyes, however, was a prolific inventor and patent holder. Keyes seems to have been an electrical engineer, and I say “seems to be” because although I am a reasonably intelligent person, I have no idea what most of the words in that patent search listing mean.

Seriously: what does “A load control for a system comprised of a plurality of energy converters wherein the energy output of all converters is adjusted in parallel to maintain the total rate of energy output from the system equal to demand and wherein during steady-state conditions the rate of energy conversion for that converter having the lowest incremental cost is increased and simultaneously the rate of energy conversion for that converter having the highest incremental cost is decreased a like amount” even mean?

I like to think that after decades in electrical engineering, Marion Keyes had seen it all. It turns out he was raised in Bellingham, Washington, just north of me here in Seattle. His obituary was lovely, and says he was survived by his wife, one of their three sons, and all six of his grandchildren.

H.D. Couture is harder to find, but I do know now that his name was Herbert Daniel Couture, Jr. He was a correspondent for the Temple-Inland Employee Newsletter, which rarely mentioned him other than as a writer, but does have him as part of the Utilities group doing work on operational improvements. He is buried at the Resthaven Cemetery in Silsbee, Texas. 

I knew by this point that I wanted to write this down somewhere. One of the hardest issues in disinformation is that when there are hundreds of thousands of results saying that something inaccurate is true, computers cannot parse between them for the credible or true result. It might seem a bit nuts to go to these lengths to find a citation for a research paper, but it matters when I find a fact that people have been misusing. When it’s a simple meme on Tumblr, it’s just annoying. When it is a fact or part of history that we use to build technology, security, or health policy upon, it grows much more important. 

But who the heck was Ben Shoemate and how could I tell him that his quest to find the Grail of Quotes was at an end...and warn him that I was about to link his 13 year old Medium article? Back to the Googles I rode, finding his profiles on Twitter, LinkedIn, and more. I DMed him on Twitter. I connected with him on LinkedIn, I messaged him on his website’s contact form, and emailed something I found on some lookup site. Crickets. Three different times I tried, and finally, I tried publicly tweeting him.

Ben sent me a terse email of one line (as any of us would when contacted the first time by a stranger who is requesting our time without being too specific), and I replied with the PDF of the article...at which point he sent me back a warm and happy email so we could have a chat. We spoke for a while, and discovered we were something of kindred spirits in our annoyance tolerance for made-up facts, as well as really enjoying digging into why someone would pursue a source citation this far. It was a wonderful chance to reward him for a long, long ago post that put a bit of useful information out into the world that gave me a place to continue, and it’s the reason I finally have the quote I need for my paper.

So, in thanks for Ben’s humor and point of reference, and for H.D. Couture’s and Marion Keyes’ humor and quotability, I give you a true meme at last:

Tarah Wheeler is an information security researcher and social scientist, and a cybersecurity fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Filed Under: albert einstein, h.d. couture, marion keyes, memes, quotes