A Speculative Example Of CISPA's Potential For Abuse

from the just-barely-fiction dept

In all the talk about how CISPA represents a threat to privacy and civil liberties, it's easy to get lost in the legislative semantics and to lose track of the very real dangers the bill presents. It's not as though CISPA is going to be signed and the next day everyone's going to wake up having always been at war with Eastasia, but the bill is a significant step in the erosion of key privacy rights that stem from the 4th Amendment—the sort of rights citizens are supposed to be vigilant about giving up to the government, even if it doesn't mean their lives are going to change overnight. At the same time, it's not a purely philosophical issue: CISPA or a similarly problematic bill can and will be abused if it becomes law.

Over at Lifehacker, Adam Dachis spoke to law professer Derek Bambauer and used their conversation as the basis for a piece of speculative fiction from the point of view of someone who falls victim to CISPA abuse. It's a well-executed concept that steers clear of sensationalism and presents a realistic example of how CISPA would grant the government new powers in areas far beyond cybersecurity, and how innocents might get swept up by those powers. The fictional narrator, who struggles through an ethically challenging college assignment on child pornography laws, has his name dragged through the mud after the school turned its computer logs over to the feds as part of a hacking investigation and his search history landed him under scrutiny. This nicely demonstrates one of the big problems with CISPA: the affirmative search permissions it would grant, which allow the government to dig through cybersecurity data for evidence of other crimes.

The story's message can't really be conveyed in snippets, but here's a brief excerpt:

As I continued my research I found more and more instances of laws with vaguely-defined terms that were designed to be tough on crime. No one bothered to oppose them in fear of being painted weak, or as a lover of terrorism and sexual deviancy. As a result, innocent people ended up in jail as collateral damage. The law had chosen to try and assuage our fears by sacrificing our freedoms as payment. But even worse, it didn't seem to be working. When you cast a wide net, you not only catch too many fish but so many that you can't find the fish you're actually looking for. People who broke the law weren't getting caught because the resources previously utilized to catch them were diverted to finding offenders before they actually offended. It's a nice thought to think we can preemptively prevent a crime, but it just doesn't work.

Whether it's Chinese hackers or child pornography, it's vital that hot-button panics don't override evidence and common sense in crafting legislation. Even more importantly, people should only allow the government to bypass their rights under extremely limited circumstances, if at all. There's a famous quote about liberty and security, but I don't want to Google it lest I end up on a watch-list somewhere...

Filed Under: cispa, cybersecurity, derek bambauer, fiction, privacy

Paramount's Post-SOPA 'Outreach' To Law Students About 'Content Theft' Still Shows An Out Of Touch Operation

from the talking-at-cross-purposes dept

You may remember, in the wake of the SOPA/PIPA fight that Paramount Pictures (a Viacom company) reached out to a bunch of top law schools, asking if it could send its "Worldwide VP of Content Protection and Outreach" (seriously), Albert Perry, to teach the students about the evils of "content theft." It appears that Brooklyn Law School took them up on the offer, and Brooklyn Law school prof Derek Bambauer wrote up some great notes on the session. The law school also had professor Jason Mazzone (author of Copyfraud and this month's Techdirt book club author) provide a "response" to Perry.

Honestly, the talking points won't surprise anyone who pays attention to this stuff. Perry argues that Hollywood is suffering massively from "content theft" and that something must be done. Mazzone, thankfully, points out that Perry is being disingenuous in using the word "theft," when it's not theft under the law or in reality. Using the word "theft" unfairly biases the discussion and ignores both the realities of copyright, and the fact that copyright is not absolute. Perry, however, can't let go of the term, apparently. You could sum of Perry's talk by basically saying "well, the big Hollywood studios are suffering, and it's everyone's fault but our own."

He literally admits that there may be more indie films and such, but that those aren't the films that anyone cares about. Instead, you see, culture will be worse off if Hollywood can't produce the next Transformers movie:

While he said he didn’t want to get into copyright math, Perry noted that the number of films released by the six major motion picture studios has dropped from 204 in 2006 to 134 in 2011.... He suggested that online infringement affects ancillary (post-box office) revenues, which isn’t captured in rosy reports of ticket sales. Perry said he doesn’t believe that infringement will wipe out content – rather, it will shift it. We’ll see more small-budget or amateur films, and fewer major studio films. These movies, he suggested, are the iconic ones that people remember and reference, so piracy may have an important cultural impact.

Of course, there are a few problems in these claims. While the big six studios may have made fewer movies, many more movies were made overall in the global economy. Just looking at the US, while the major studios released 204 movies in 2006, indies released 390. His number is off in 2011. It was actually 141 movies released by the major studios... but indies increased their release numbers to 469. So, total movies released actually grew from 2006 until 2011. That certainly suggests that everyone else in the market is figuring out how to adapt. Why should we be concerned about six companies that are unwilling to adapt? And, is that ever condescending and insulting to suggest that indie movies can't possibly have the "cultural impact" of a movie like Jack and Jill.

Perry also praised totally one-sided and misleading "education campaigns" that copyright maximalist organizations like the Copyright Alliance have been able to get into schools, ignoring things like fair use (it was also noted that Perry ignored fair use in his initial statements). It's really silly that schools are accepting industry propaganda like that to teach kids. Thankfully, more accurate alternatives are being created.

The other bit of good news in all of this is that it sounds like the students were mostly skeptical of Perry's claims, and recognize that he's exaggerating -- though it sounded like he couldn't even comprehend where they were coming from:

The discussion was impressively thoughtful and civil. The students evinced skepticism about the movie industry’s good faith and bona fides, particularly given the drafting of SOPA / PROTECT IP, and also given the recording industry’s history of suing its users. Perry pointed out that Paramount is trying hard to make content available widely, cheaply, and easily, and that the only other way of altering the reward calculus to users is to engage in enforcement against end consumers, which no one likes. He was repeatedly puzzled by the attitude of law students that infringement isn’t a big deal (since it’s unlawful), particularly when this attitude is justified by reference to movie industry profits.

In the end, while it was civil, it sounds like the same old story of Hollywood just not understanding. The profits of six organizations is of little concern to the wider social benefit, and Hollywood cannot show that there's any wider harm (because there is no such proof). Thankfully, it appears that the students (and professors) at Brooklyn Law get this important point.

Filed Under: book club, derek bambauer, jason mazzone, law school, pipa, sopa
Companies: paramount, viacom

Why Can't PROTECT IP Supporters Just Admit That It's About Censorship?

from the they-should dept

I finally got to listen to a recent episode of Jerry Brito's excellent "Surprisingly Free" podcast, in which Brito spoke with law professor Derek Bambauer on how we could have a more intellectually honest discussion about the appropriateness of PROTECT IP, if its supporters would finally just admit that it's a censorship bill. The talk was based on a new paper from Bambauer, Orwell's Armchair, that compares "soft censorship" of the internet -- using indirect methods, such as pressuring companies to stop working with Wikileaks, and "hard censorship," in which the laws clearly censor content.

Bambauer isn't arguing that PROTECT IP is bad, necessarily. In fact, he argues that "hard censorship" is preferable to soft censorship, in that at least what's happening is upfront and clear, and that there are times when censorship might make sense. His main argument though, is that for there to be a rational and honest discussion about these things, everyone should first be willing to admit that PROTECT IP is absolutely about censorship, and then we can have a direct discussion on whether or not this form of censorship is appropriate.

He notes that supporters are afraid to admit this, and instead insist that it's got nothing to do with censorship, because it's about "stopping copyright infringement." But, as he also notes, pretty much anywhere you see censorship, those who agree with it always couch it in other terms. Thus, South Korea blocking sites about North Korea is about protecting its own people. Various attempts around the world to censor child pornography are seen as reasonable attempts to stop child porn. And China's political censorship has often been framed by the Chinese as protecting its citizens from dangerous ideas. But they're all forms of censorship.

Bambauer, not surprisingly, is not confident that the debate will ever actually move in this direction. It's just not politically expedient to do so. Of course, there's potentially another reason: supporters of the bill know it's about censorship, and they're just embarrassed to admit that. So, denying that it's censorship (and lashing out angrily at those who state the obvious) is just a way of compensating.

Filed Under: censorship, derek bambauer, free speech, protect ip