US Judge Gets It Right: AI Doesn't Get Patents

from the HAL-says-this-is-correct dept

A month ago, we wrote about a perplexing (and dangerous) decision down in Australia ruling that an AI can be listed as the inventor of a patent. As we had explained, there was a concerted effort by a small group patent lawyers and this one dude, Stephen Thaler, to seek out patents for "inventions" that an AI created by Thaler called Dabus ("device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience"). As we explained in that and earlier posts, the entire point of the patent system is to provide incentives to humans to invent. An AI does not need such incentives. As we've highlighted in the past, the USPTO and the EU patent office have both rejected AI-generated patents. Australia's patent office had done the same, but a judge there rejected that and said an AI could be listed as an inventor.

All of these situations involve Thaler/DABUS, as did a new ruling in the US which... thankfully has rejected the idea that an AI deserves patents after Thaler filed a lawsuit because of the USPTO rejection. I think there's a separate issue here: which is what standing does Thaler have in the first place? If the argument is that "DABUS" is the inventor, it seems that... um... only DABUS should have the necessary standing to challenge the rejection of its patent application. The fact that Thaler thinks he has standing more or less shows how ridiculous the entire claim is in the first place.

After going through the background of the case, and discussing what level of deference the USPTO deserves, Judge Leonie Brinkema gets straight to the actual point, which is pretty simple: AI doesn't get a patent.

Even if no deference were due, the USPTO's conclusion is correct under the law. The question of whether the Patent Act requires that an "inventor" be a human is a question of statutory construction. Accordingly, the plain language of the statute controls.... As the Supreme Court has held: "The preeminent canon of statutory interpretation requires us to 'presume that [the] legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.' Thus, our inquiry begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well if the text is unambiguous."...

Using the legislative authority provided by the Constitution's Patent Clause... Congress codified the Patent Act in 1952... and has amended the Patent Act a number of times in the ensuing sixty years. In 2011, Congress promulgated the America Invents Act, which, as relevant here, formally amended the Patent Act to provide an explicit statutory definition for the term "inventor" to mean "the individual, or, if a joint invention, the individuals who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention."... The America Invents Act also added that "joint inventor" means "any one of the individuals who invented or discovered the subject matter of a joint invention."... Additionally, Congress has required that "[a]n application for patent shall be made, or authorized to be made, by the inventor . . . in writing to the Director."... "[E]ach individual who is the inventor or a joint inventor of a claimed invention in an application for patent shall execute an oath or declaration in connection with the application" which "shall contain statements that--... such individual believes himself or herself to be the original inventor or joint inventor of [the] claimed invention."

See where this is going?

As the statutory language highlights above, both of the definitions provided by Congress for the terms "inventor" and "joint inventor" within the Patent Act reference an "individual" or "individuals."... Congress used the same term--"individual"--in other significant provisions of the Patnet Act which reference an "inventor," including requiring that "each individual who is the inventor or a joint inventor" execute an oath or declaration...

The court then notes that in analyzing other laws, courts have long said that "individual" means human. And it also highlights that the language in the Patent Act makes it clear that it was intended to apply to humans -- humans who can make a declaration about their own beliefs.

Congress's use of the term "individual" in the Patent Act strengthens the conclusion that an "inventor" must be a natural person. Congress provided that in executing the oath or declaration accompanying a patent application, the inventor must include a statement "such individual believes himself or herself to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application."... By using personal pronouns such as "himself or herself" and the verb "believes" in adjacent terms modifying "individual," Congress was clearly reference a natural person.

Then there's a fun bit of judicial eye-rolling, stating: "having neither facts nor law to support his argument," the judge notes that Thaler's argument is basically "but this is good for innovation." But that's not going to fly (leaving aside the fact that allowing AI to get patents would be objectively terrible for innovation, it's also not how any of this works):

Plaintiff provides no support for his argument that these policy considerations should override the plain meaning of a statutory term.

It gets even worse for Thaler's arguments. He argued that the PTO hadn't properly considered the policy ramifications of not allowing AI to get patents, but as the judge notes, that's clearly not true. It had. And it rejected the dumb idea.

Specifically, the USPTO points to a conference on artificial intelligence policy it held in January 2019, and to requests for public comment "on a whole host of issues related to the intersection of intellectual property policy and artificial intelligence" it issued in August and October 2019. In October 2020, the USPTO issued a comprehensive report on those comments.

And... what did that report say?

Many commentators disagreed with plaintiff's view that artificial intelligence machines should be recognized as inventors...

Given how active Thaler and his lawyer friends have been around the globe, I imagine this is hardly the end of these campaigns. I imagine this ruling will be appealed, and how long will it be until some sucker of a Senator or Member of Congress, convinced by Thaler's nonsense, will introduce a bill to amend the Patent Act to enable AI patents?

Filed Under: ai, artificial intelligence, dabus, patents, stephen thaler, uspto

Cop Who Killed A Suicidal Man Less Than 11 Seconds After Entering His House Convicted Of Murder

from the officers-express-concern-over-disturbing-frequency-of-lightning-strikes dept

It's rare enough to see a law enforcement officer convicted of murder. It's even rarer to see it happen twice in one year.

In June, Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murdering George Floyd. Chauvin placed his knee on the neck of the unarmed, unresisting Floyd for more than nine minutes -- and for two minutes after another officer said he couldn't detect a pulse. For this brutal act -- one that prompted months of heated protests around the nation -- Chauvin was sentenced to twenty-two years in prison.

It has happened again. A Huntsville, Alabama police officer has been convicted on murder charges and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

William Ben Darby, the Huntsville police officer convicted of murder for shooting and killing Jeff Parker, was sentenced today to 25 years in prison.

[...]

A Madison County jury on May 7 found Darby guilty of murder for shooting and killing Parker, a 49-year-old man threatening suicide, three years ago.

Officer Darby was not the only officer to respond to the call about the suicidal man. He wasn't even the first to arrive. Officer Genisha Pegues was already there, trying to de-escalate the situation. The suicidal Parker had already told Pegues he had no interest in hurting her. He was holding a gun, but it was pointed at his own head.

Darby arrived, and within 30 seconds had retrieved a shotgun from his cruiser and killed Parker by shooting him in the face. Darby's entire interaction with the suicidal man consisted of him shouting four times for Parker to drop the gun and yelling at Officer Pegues to point her gun at Parker. All of this -- Darby's entry and his murder of Parker -- took only eleven seconds.

In another rarity, one of the witnesses testifying against Darby was Officer Pegues, who had the situation at least partially under control before Officer Darby burst into the house and decided the only way to help the suicidal man was to kill him.

Pegues, testifying for the prosecution, told the jury that she never felt threatened by Parker and that she didn’t need Darby to save her life. She testified that Parker told her he didn’t want to hurt her.

Robert Tuten, Darby’s lead defense attorney, went after Pegues.

Tuten asked whether Pegues put herself and other officers in danger by standing in front of an armed man with her gun pointed down, rather than at Parker.

“Dangerous is the job,” Pegues, who was a police officer for six years, replied. She said tensions rose during the encounter when Darby arrived.

Pegues, who violated one of the many unwritten rules of policing by testifying against a fellow cop, has since left the Huntsville Police Department. She applied for a job with the FBI. She's probably better off anywhere else. The PD's internal investigation cleared Darby of wrongdoing. Obviously, the jury of his peers disagreed with PD's assessment.

And she's probably better off being out of Huntsville altogether. The PD tried to get Darby off the hook. So did the city itself, which decided it would spend taxpayer money defending the cop from criminal charges. The city council passed a resolution to pay up to $75,000 of Darby's legal expenses. And it did this without viewing body cam footage of the shooting, despite the fact the city had access to the recordings.

Two powerful figures backed Darby throughout the case.

Huntsville Mayor Tommy Battle and Police Chief Mark McMurray say Officer William Darby did nothing wrong and isn't a murderer.

And continued to support the officer even after Darby was convicted.

Mayor Tommy Battle and Police Chief Mark McMurray even questioned the guilty verdict after the trial.

Once again, they're at odds with a jury that decided the officer did do something wrong and handed down a conviction that says he's a murderer.

And even after the conviction and sentencing, the city continued to support Darby, at least indirectly. The city refused to release footage of the shooting, despite these recordings being entered as evidence in a trial that had reached its conclusion. Journalists from several news outlets (led by AL.com) had to get a court order to obtain copies of the recordings.

AL.com has published the recordings. This is what the jury saw: a cop enter a house and decide -- within 11 seconds -- to kill someone who posed only a threat to himself. The jury also saw another cop already on the scene, one that felt this situation needed to be handled with care and concern, rather than with bullets and violence. Her decision was overridden by Officer Darby, who had had no interaction with the suicidal man other than shouting at him.

Officer Darby didn't spend much time mulling things over before deciding to shoot a fellow human being in the face with a shotgun. He'll have plenty of time to think about it now.

Filed Under: alabama, huntsville, jeff parker, mark mcmurray, murder, police, tommy battle, william darby

ProtonMail Turned Over French Activist's IP Address To Law Enforcement Following A Request From Swiss Authorities

from the vet-your-secure-providers,-folks dept

ProtonMail has long advertised itself as a particularly privacy-conscious email service. The free end-to-end encrypted email service promises more privacy and security than many of its competitors. But there are limits. ProtonMail operates out of Switzerland, making it subject to that country's laws (which, to be fair, are hardly draconian). It also (at least temporarily) retains a certain amount of information about users' emails -- metadata that can be used to verify accounts in the case of a lost password.

And while email between ProtonMail accounts is encrypted, the same protection isn't applied to emails between services, like communications sent to or from ProtonMail from other email services. This is an understandable limitation, which is why many seeking secure communications have moved to encrypted messaging services, rather than email offerings that collect metadata about communications.

These inherent weaknesses have been exploited by French law enforcement to obtain information about a French activist -- something it achieved with the assistance of Swiss authorities.

ProtonMail, a hosted email service with a focus on end-to-end encrypted communications, has been facing criticism after a police report showed that French authorities managed to obtain the IP address of a French activist who was using the online service. The company has communicated widely about the incident, stating that it doesn’t log IP addresses by default and it only complies with local regulation — in that case Swiss law. While ProtonMail didn’t cooperate with French authorities, French police sent a request to Swiss police via Europol to force the company to obtain the IP address of one of its users.

ProtonMail wasn't able to hand over much information due to its refusal to gather much information about its users. But it did hand over some, which made it clear that ProtonMail not only collects some email metadata, but will actively collect more metadata if forced to do so by local law. French law may not apply to the Swiss-based email company, but Swiss law certainly does.

Proton's founder, Andy Yen, offered up this explanation, which said local law supersedes the privacy ProtonMail claims it offers its users.

Proton must comply with Swiss law. As soon as a crime is committed, privacy protections can be suspended and we're required by Swiss law to answer requests from Swiss authorities.

And that's how foreign governments can extract information from an encrypted email service that gives users the impression that it's capable of protecting even the limited information it collects from nosy officials. The message going forward, however, is that ProtonMail is subject to the laws of multiple countries in the European Union and will comply with Europol orders if issued/forwarded by Swiss authorities.

As Karl Bode (hey, I know that guy!) points out in his article for Motherboard, there are two problems here. The first is that what's advertised appears to exceed what ProtonMail can actually guarantee its users. The other problem is the communication method itself, which generates a lot of information that other communication methods don't, creating a metadata paper trail that can be scooped up/gathered in bulk by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

While ProtonMail does take some steps to protect user privacy better than other email service providers, the fact remains that email is inherently a protocol that requires a lot of information to be shared between parties, and is notoriously difficult to encrypt.

[...]

Ultimately, many of the security and privacy weaknesses are not necessarily ProtonMail's fault but are weaknesses with email itself. Security experts have pointed out that for highly sensitive communications, email is almost never the best option.

These unavoidable facts -- along with its cooperation with French and Swiss authorities -- have led ProtonMail to revise its claims about user data. It no longer claims it does not collect personal information to create accounts or log IP information "by default."

It now says simply:

ProtonMail is email that respects privacy and puts people (not advertisers) first. Your data belongs to you, and our encryption ensures that.

Well, except for when your data is subject to Swiss government demands for data, either directly or by proxy. User beware is the rule going forward now that this successful metadata grab has been exposed.

Filed Under: email, encryption, france, ip address, metadata, privacy, switzerland
Companies: protonmail

Facebook Says It Violates The Terms Of Service Of Their New Snoopervision Glasses If You Cover The 'I'm Recording You' LED

from the like-that'll-work dept

You've likely heard by now that Facebook has launched their own version of sunglasses with a built-in camera, in partnership with Ray Ban, called "Ray Ban Stories" (because, seriously, which brand is cooler right now? Facebook? Or Ray Ban?). Lots of people are comparing it to the failed disaster that was Google Glass (which gave rise to the term "Glassholes") or SnapChat's similar product, and lots of people are calling out the potential privacy issues associated with these snoopervision glasses. To be honest, personally I feel like at least some of those concerns are typical moral panics, akin to people freaking out when the camera itself was invented, such as this story about early Kodak cameras:

The appearance of Eastman's cameras was so sudden and so pervasive that the reaction in some quarters was fear. A figure called the "camera fiend" began to appear at beach resorts, prowling the premises until he could catch female bathers unawares. One resort felt the trend so heavily that it posted a notice: "PEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN TO USE THEIR KODAKS ON THE BEACH." Other locations were no safer. For a time, Kodak cameras were banned from the Washington Monument. The "Hartford Courant" sounded the alarm as well, declaring that "the sedate citizen can't indulge in any hilariousness without the risk of being caught in the act and having his photograph passed around among his Sunday School children."

And, frankly, if someone wants to record people surreptitiously, there are tons of ways to do so today already that are a lot easier (and often a lot cheaper) than an ugly pair of sun glasses. I think the bigger issue in the long run is going to be coming up with a new set of social norms and social cues for what is and what is not appropriate here. But that's a debate for another day.

What amazes me about the rollout of Facebook's glasses is that they seem to think that they can stop people from covering the LED light that goes on when you're recording... by claiming that it's a terms of service violation. That's what a Facebook VP told Buzzfeed writer Katie Notopoulos, whose article on the whole Facebook glasses thing is absolutely worth reading. But this bit is just pure silliness and makes Facebook look ridiculous:

Although you can’t turn off the light on the glasses or through the app, I was able to do this the old fashion way: I put a tiny piece of masking tape over the LED light and colored the tape black with a Sharpie. It covered it up perfectly.

Sometimes to stop the creeps, you have to become...a creep.

Alex Himel, VP of AR at Facebook Reality Labs, informed me over a Zoom chat that taping over the LED light was a violation of the terms of service of the glasses, which prohibit tampering with the device. Be warned.

Yeah, that's not how any of this works. Claiming that putting a piece of tape over a light is "tampering" that violates the terms is highly questionable. Second, thinking that that even matters is just exceptionally silly. If people want to cover the light, they'll cover the light. At least confront that head on rather than with a "ooooh, you'll break your warranty" kind of nonsense. But this is Facebook and Facebook is going to do Facebook type things and believe that the terms of service rules all.

Beyond the ridiculousness of this response, it drifts into right to repair territory and questions of ownership. Facebook has taken over enough of people's lives as is. They shouldn't be out there telling you what you can do with physical products you purchased, even if they're associated with the product.

Filed Under: cameras, glasses, led lights, ownership, privacy, ray ban stories, right to repair, stories, sunglasses, tape, terms of service
Companies: facebook, ray ban

Apple Mostly, But Not Entirely, Wins Against Epic; No Antitrust Violation, But Must Tweak Practices To Comply With CA Law

from the antitrust-is-hard dept

If there's something that's been made clear over the last year or so in the world of antitrust it's that just because some people don't like big companies and their practices, that doesn't mean it's an antitrust violation. It rarely is. In the well, rather epic lawsuit that Epic brought against Apple, we initially described it as a contract negotiation by lawsuit and predicted that it didn't seem likely to actually meet the bar for an antitrust violation. It seems that District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with us, rejecting the antitrust claims entirely. As the judge wrote:

Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal. The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist.

Key to any antitrust ruling is the market definition and everyone always wants that definition to fall in their own favor. Those bringing antitrust lawsuits like to narrow down the market to basically "exactly what this company provides and no more," while defendants try to define the market as broadly as possible. The judge rejected both Apple's and Epic's market definitions here and found something more reasonable in the middle -- but in the end the definition helped Apple much more than it did Epic.

Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds that the relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store. The mobile gaming market itself is a $100 billion industry. The size of this market explains Epic Games’ motive in bringing this action. Having penetrated all other video game markets, the mobile gaming market was Epic Games’ next target and it views Apple as an impediment.

Further, the evidence demonstrates that most App Store revenue is generated by mobile gaming apps, not all apps. Thus, defining the market to focus on gaming apps is appropriate. Generally speaking, on a revenue basis, gaming apps account for approximately 70% of all App Store revenues. This 70% of revenue is generated by less than 10% of all App Store consumers. These gaming-app consumers are primarily making in-app purchases which is the focus of Epic Games’ claims. By contrast, over 80% of all consumer accounts generate virtually no revenue, as 80% of all apps on the App Store are free.

The ruling itself is a rather epic 185 pages, but the key point is what's above. The judge knows this is going on appeal, and it seems like the massively thorough ruling is more about covering all the bases for the 9th Circuit judges, than for the parties in the case.

Almost all of the claims are dismissed with one partial exception. The court did find that Apple violates California's unfair competition law. Epic doesn't get a complete win on this claim either. The court notes that it failed to show any unlawful practices under California's law, but some unfair ones. But even then the victory is somewhat limited, and many of Epic's claims of unfairness fail as well. The only bit that succeeded regarded Apple's anti-steering provisions. These are the rules Apple places on app store developers preventing them from telling people about ways to pay outside of the iOS App Store.

As explained before, Apple uses anti-steering provisions prohibiting apps from including “buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase,” and from “encourag[ing] users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase” either “within the app or through communications sent to points of contact obtained from account registrations within the app (like email or text).” Thus, developers cannot communicate lower prices on other platforms either within iOS or to users obtained from the iOS platform. Apple’s general policy also prevents developers from informing users of its 30% commission.

The court found that a step too far -- and frankly, that makes sense. It was always a really shitty thing to do in the first place, and extremely anti-consumer. And the court found that even if there weren't actual antitrust violations by Apple, the anti-steering provisions "threaten an incipient violation of an antitrust law" by restricting information from consumers.

Thus the court grants the only remedy to Epic: an injunction against such practices:

While Apple’s conduct does not fall within the confines of traditional antitrust law, the conduct falls within the purview of an incipient antitrust violation with particular anticompetitive practices which have not been justified. Apple contractually enforces silence, in the form of anti-steering provisions, and gains a competitive advantage. Moreover, it hides information for consumer choice which is not easily remedied with money damages. The injury has occurred and continues and can best be remedied by invalidating the offending provisions. In terms of balancing, Apple’s business justifications focus on other parts of the Apple ecosystem and will not be significantly impacted by the increase of information to and choice for consumers. Rather, this limited measure balances the justification for maintaining a cohesive ecosystem with the public interest in uncloaking the veil hiding pricing information on mobile devices and bringing transparency to the marketplace.

[....]

Accordingly, a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining Apple from prohibiting developers to include in their:

Apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP.

Nor may Apple prohibit developers from: Communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.

Frankly, this seems like the right outcome overall. Apple's restrictions on companies providing information to their users was always pretty shady. But the rest of the antitrust claims were pretty silly in the first place.

Another interesting tidbit in the opinion suggests that Epic's arguments may have gone a step too far and undermined a stronger antitrust case that it could have made:

While the Court has found that evidence suggests Apple’s 30% rate of commission appears inflated, and is potentially anticompetitive, Epic Games did not challenge the rate. Rather, Epic Games challenged the imposition of any commission whatsoever

Oops.

Either way, this has to be seen as a pretty big victory for Apple, and I'm confused by some reports saying it's a "major win for Epic Games." It's not.

But, of course, this is just the District Court. There is no way that Epic is not going to appeal this ruling.

Filed Under: antitrust, california, competition, fortnite, unfair competition
Companies: apple, epic

Daily Deal: The Complete 2021 Cybersecurity Super Bundle

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

The Complete 2021 Cybersecurity Super Bundle has 24 courses designed to help you become a cybersecurity expert. You'll learn about network security, database security, cloud security, and project management security procedures. It's on sale for $70.

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.

Brazilian President Bans Social Media Companies From Removing Disinformation & Abuse

from the well-that-will-work-out-just-great dept

Ah, great. Just after Australia made it clear that media organizations are liable for comments on social media (demonstrating one aspect of a world without intermediary liability protections), Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro has announced new social media rules that effectively force social media sites to keep all content online (demonstrating the flipside to a world without intermediary liability protections). The two most important things that Section 230 does -- limiting liability for 3rd party intermediaries and freeing websites of liability for moderation choices -- each going away completely in two separate countries in the same week.

To be clear, the rule in Brazil can only stay on the books for 120 days -- since it's a "provisional measure" from the President -- and if they're not enacted into law by the Brazilian Congress by then, they'll expire (and there's at least some suggestion that the Brazilian Congress has no interest). But, still, these rules are dangerous.

Under the new policy, tech companies can remove posts only if they involve certain topics outlined in the measure, such as nudity, drugs and violence, or if they encourage crime or violate copyrights; to take down others, they must get a court order. That suggests that, in Brazil, tech companies could easily remove a nude photo, but not lies about the coronavirus. The pandemic has been a major topic of disinformation under Mr. Bolsonaro, with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all having removed videos from him that pushed unproven drugs as coronavirus cures.

Imagine needing to get a court order to remove content? That's ridiculous. Bolsonaro's government put out a twitter thread (in English) claiming that this is the country "taking the global lead in defending free speech" when the reality is exactly the opposite. Compelled speech, which includes the compelled hosting of speech, is the exact opposite of "defending free speech." Here's what the government is saying about this dangerous proposal:

Brazilian government is taking the global lead in defending free speech on social networks and protecting the right of citizens to freedom of thought and expression.

As noted, compelled speech is not defending free speech. And freedom of expression does not mean you get to force someone else to let you speak on their property.

The Provisional Measure issued today by the Brazilian government forbids the removal of content that may result in any kind of "censorship of political, ideological, scientific, artistic or religious order".

Hilariously, though, it does allow for the removal of copyright infringing material, which already undermines the idea that it does not allow for censorship of "artistic" works.

It is also guaranteed that the social network will have to justify the removal of content under the terms of Brazilian laws. Without a just cause, the social network will have to restore the removed content.

This may be the most pernicious part here, because (as we've discussed before), the most bad faith, abusive trolls are the ones who are most likely to demand justification -- and then to act shocked and pretend to be offended at claims that they were acting as bad faith, abusive trolls. This provision just allows trolls to make an even bigger nuisance of themselves. Which seems to be exactly what Bolsonaro wants, knowing he has more bad faith, abusive trolls on his side.

This measure forbids selective deplatforming by requiring that social media provide a just cause for the suspension of services and restore access should the suspension be considered unlawful. This measure is based on precedent in Brazilian law and freedom of expression.

Compelled speech is never freedom of expression. As for "precedent," Brazil once led the way in passing smart internet rules. This makes a mockery of them.

Attention: the law does not prevent the social network from removing content that violates Brazilian law, such as child pornography. The Brazilian government stands for both freedom and democracy!

That's a pretty damn Orwellian statement right there.

This measure has been emitted as a result of ongoing concern with actions taken by social media groups that have been perceived as harmful to healthy debate and freedom of expression in Brazil, and hope it will serve to help restore online political dialogue in the country.

Basically, we're doing this because our President is not doing well in the polls leading up to a national election, and has been taking a page from Trump's playbook and talking about how he can only lose by election fraud -- and we need to make sure that social media companies don't actually stop our bullshit propaganda from spreading widely.

The real question now is how will the social media companies respond. According to the NY Times:

Facebook said that the “measure significantly hinders our ability to limit abuse on our platforms” and that the company agrees “with legal experts and specialists who view the measure as a violation of constitutional rights.”

Twitter said the policy transforms existing internet law in Brazil, “as well as undermines the values and consensus it was built upon.”

YouTube said it was still analyzing the law before making any changes. “We’ll continue to make clear the importance of our policies, and the risks for our users and creators if we can’t enforce them,” the company said.

There's also this:

In July, YouTube removed 15 of Mr. Bolsonaro’s videos for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus. And late last month, YouTube said that, under orders from a Brazilian court, it had stopped payments to 14 pro-Bolsonaro channels that had spread false information about next year’s presidential elections.

Brazil’s Supreme Court has also been investigating disinformation operations in the country. Mr. Bolsonaro became a target of those investigations last month, and several of his allies have been questioned or detained.

Of course, it seems notable that it was just a few years ago that Brazil arrested a Facebook exec because the company refused to hand over information on WhatsApp users, and has, at times, blocked the entirety of WhatsApp in the country. So, it would be interesting to see what will happen if the companies refuse to follow these ridiculous rules.

But, between this and what happened in Australia, we'll now get to see two examples of the dangerous situation that happens when you don't have strong intermediary liability protections, including for the ability to moderate websites how best you see fit.

Filed Under: brazil, compelled speech, content moderation, election misinformation, free speech, jair bolsonaro, marco civil
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube

Amazon, Space X Throw Hissy Fits As They Bicker Over Government Contracts, Subsidies

from the nobody-wins dept

We've noted a few times that the Space X, Starlink satellite broadband service isn't going to be quite as disruptive to telecom as many people might think.

For one, capacity constraints mean that the company will only be able to serve somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 subscribers in the first few years. That's a drop in the bucket when you consider 42 million Americans don't have broadband, and 83 million live under a monopoly (usually Comcast). Once Musk fanboys flock to limited subscriber slots to outfit their boats and RVs, there likely may not be many left for those that genuinely need access. And at $100 per month (plus a $500 equipment cost) the service doesn't really help with the primary reason for low broadband adoption: high costs.

Starlink, like a lot of what Musk does, is really about other things. One, to help drive up company value via press excitement (like that recent dancing robot vaporware). Two, to help subsidize Space X's other space ventures (Starlink recently courted controversy for nabbing nearly $900 million in FCC funds to serve a few parking lots and traffic medians). Other companies have the same idea as they try to hoover up government subsidies and nab lucrative contracts, which is why we've been seeing a significant boost in hissy fits between companies like Space X, Amazon, and ViaSat.

ViaSat has been trying to derail Space X by (accurately if not self-servingly) pointing out the company's low-orbit satellites may pose environmental and light pollution threats. Amazon has also been ramping up its verbal assault on Space X and Starlink, claiming the company's plan to launch updated low-orbit satellites violates FCC rules. In filings this week with the FCC, Amazon lamented the fact that when it comes to Starlink and Space X, rules often just don't apply:

"Whether it is launching satellites with unlicensed antennas, launching rockets without approval, building an unapproved launch tower, or re-opening a factory in violation of a shelter-in-place order, the conduct of SpaceX and other Musk-led companies makes their view plain: rules are for other people, and those who insist upon or even simply request compliance are deserving of derision and ad hominem attacks.

While Amazon, like ViaSat, is absolutely engaged in self-serving behavior here (it doesn't want competition, wants government subsidies and contracts for itself, isn't much of a fan of regulatory authority, etc.), that doesn't mean it's not true. The Trump administration for example twisted itself into pretzels to throw hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies at Starlink for broadband coverage promises that made no coherent sense. But when it comes to the light pollution both Starlink and soon Amazon are creating (something researchers say can't be fully mitigated), U.S. regulators are just completely asleep at the wheel.

Amazon's specific complaints in their latest filings focus on claims that Space X is violating FCC rules governing inconsistent and incomplete applications, and has redesigned several antenna arrays "clandestinely." The company then whined to the FCC that when you point out the company's tendency to play fast and loose with government rules, Space X acts like a brat:

"Try to hold a Musk-led company to flight rules? You’re “fundamentally broken.” Try to hold a Musk-led company to health and safety rules? You’re “unelected & ignorant." Try to hold a Musk-led company to U.S. securities laws? You’ll be called many names, some too crude to repeat. In the words of the Wall Street Journal, Elon Musk wages a “War on Regulators,” the public servants charged with uniformly applying the same rules to all. As the Journal reported, “Federal agencies say [Musk is] breaking the rules and endangering people . . . . Rather than engaging in a give-and-take with government authorities, Mr. Musk’s default response includes making public, sometimes crude, remarks via Twitter disparaging them."

Of course Amazon's sudden concern about regulatory authority is highly performative as a company that routinely enjoys tap dancing around regulatory obligations and rules when it suits it (like say its union busting). But again, that doesn't mean it's wrong that Space X is also terrible in this particular arena. Because Space X doesn't deem it necessary to have a functioning PR department, the best you get in response to Amazon's allegations is often just... more Musk tweeting:

Starlink is currently in beta and will likely launch next year. Amazon's comparable low-orbit satellite broadband service isn't expected to go live until 2023. While both services will provide users with an additional option for broadband access, limited capacity and physics means it will be some time before either has the impact their billionaire owners promised, assuming both projects can remain financially viable that long (the low-orbit satellite market is a historical highway of failures). Honestly, at least in terms of broadband access, it remains utterly uncertain if any of this endless drama is going to actually be worth it.

Filed Under: competition, elon musk, fcc, jeff bezos, low earth orbit, satellite broadband, spectrum, starlink
Companies: amazon, spacex, starlink, viasat

Police Department Caught Falsifying Evidence Logs Used In Trial Of PD Employee Who Was Caught Falsifying Evidence Logs

from the Ouroboros-PD-is-proud-to-serve-the-residents-of-Miami-Beach! dept

The Miami Beach Police Department is so full of what we colloquially call "bad actors" that it can't even make its way through a criminal trial of one of its employees without implicating even more employees. Proper evidence handling? Chain of custody? These are things the Miami Beach PD can't be bothered to concern itself with.

The case against former Miami Beach crime-scene technician Jason Bruder boiled down to this: He was supposed to transfer evidence from a cabinet to the police property room. He didn’t. So to cover up his sloppiness, prosecutors alleged, he later made entries in a police log to make it appear as if he’d actually moved the evidence.

On the plus side, no evidence was lost. And, so far, the Miami Beach PD claims the sloppiness didn't affect any criminal cases or undermine any convictions. But the PD can't be trusted.

[T]he case took a twist Wednesday when it was noticed that copies of key evidence logs, shown to jurors by prosecutors, appeared to have been altered by other members of the Miami Beach Police Department.

That was enough to cast at least one trial in doubt -- that of technician Jason Bruder. The judge declared a mistrial and the State Attorney's Office wants answers from the Miami Beach PD.

But what kind of answers is it expecting? Straight answers? The Gang That Can't Keep The Chain Of Custody Straight isn't exactly the source I'd go to if I wanted honest, unaltered answers. Internal Affairs is supposedly all over this now, but it seems like IA should have been in control of these logs long before this, considering the tech was charged (with nine misdemeanors) all the back in 2018.

Three years later, he's getting a second chance to convince a jury he committed no crimes. At the very least, he'll be able to demonstrate he's no worse than his co-workers. If the Miami Beach PD handles this right, the tech will be joined by other officers who've been criminally-charged and fired.

But who expects the Miami Beach PD to handle this correctly or even competently? It seems the better solution would be to let anyone other than the PD perform the investigation. Officers appear to have no qualms about falsifying evidence. And the PD appears to have little interest in performing internal oversight.

So, if evidence is whatever the PD says it is, hundreds of criminal convictions should be questioned. It should be on the PD to demonstrate it has not falsified evidence or evidence logs. If public safety is threatened by the release of possibly wrongfully convicted people, that's on the PD as well. It can't serve and protect if it can't do the little -- but very crucial -- things needed to ensure justice is served.

Filed Under: evidence logs, falsifying, jason bruder, miami beach, miami beach pd, miami beach police

Another Mod War: Jagex Demands Shutdown Of HD RuneScape Mod, Retracts After Public Backlash

from the mod-squad dept

The gaming industry modding wars continue. We had recently discussed Nintendo's continued war on anyone who mods its games, including shutting down tournaments for incredibly minor uses of mods that make those tournaments possible. We've also been discussing Take-Two's attack on its modding community for the Grand Theft Auto franchise. On the flip side, companies like CD Projekt Red and Bethesda have so embraced their own modding communities as to have hired some of them onto their teams as salaried employees.

I have no idea why this has suddenly become a thing over the past several months, but these binary stories are coming far more frequently than they previously did. Everyone is in one camp or the other: embrace the modding community of fans or smack them around. There is a correct answer to all of this, of course, and it seems clear that the answer is to treat your greatest fans in a way that is cool and human. Nintendo, giant in the industry as they might be, loses good will and gains little by exerting strict control over how its games are played. Take-Two, same story. Meanwhile, those that embrace their biggest fans get to keep their games relevant for longer through mods, build up good will with their customers, and even get to pull from a talent pool that materializes all on its own.

But some companies just don't get it and have to be educated in the court of public opinion. Jagex, makers of RuneScape, are just such a company. Just days ago, the company announced a shutdown of a major RuneScape mod that would bring HD graphics to the game, called Runelite HD. It was scheduled to be released on 9/8/21, but then...

In this blog we’d like to clarify our stance on third-party HD clients (and other projects which seek to radically change the visual appearance of the game). We know you’ve got lots of questions about them, and we think this will provide you with all the clarity we need.

Yesterday we contacted the developers of known HD projects and we asked them to stop development of their projects, because this is a project we are directly investigating at Jagex. We look forward to being able to share progress as our own in-house project with Old School’s visuals unfolds.

As Kotaku notes, there are a couple of problems with this. First off, nothing in what Runelite HD offers appears to violate the modding guidelines that Jagex has published. So, mods are allowed under certain rules, and Runelite HD developer 117 appears to have followed those rules, but the project was still shut down the day before its release. Second, based on 117's own public statements, Jagex's plan to have a graphical update to RuneScape was still essentially in the exploratory phase, leading 117 to offer a simple solution.

I offered a compromise of removing my project from RuneLite once they are ready to release theirs, in addition to allowing them collaborative control over the visual direction of my project. They declined outright.

So, it appears that this is the end. Approximately 2000 of hours of work over two years. A huge outpouring of support from all of you. I could never have imagined the overwhelmingly positive response I’ve had to this project.

Jagex outright declined... and RuneScape fans absolutely lost their minds. And, as a result of in-game and IRL protests over its actions, Jagex reversed course the very next day.

We hear your feedback loud and clear and we’ve been discussing that feedback all day and, while discussions continue, we absolutely intend to act on it.

Our conversations today have also included 117Scape and Adam from RuneLite and we are actively exploring options on how we can work together to offer 117Scape’s plug-in as a bridge until our own version is ready for release.

The very compromise that 117 offered is now what's on the table. This whole thing could have been completely avoided if Jagex hadn't decided that direct profits and control were somehow worth pissing off a major swath of its biggest fans. It's a complete own-goal, in other words, where the end result is what the community wanted all along, only now they're absolutely furious with the company.

Again, how is this smart? How is it good business? How does this desire for complete control keep happening, even when it regularly results in public blowback?

Filed Under: mods, runescape, video games
Companies: jagex