Yes, The Democratic National Committee Flat Out Lied In Claiming No Donor Financial Info Leaked

from the it-leaked-like-a-seive dept

You may recall, from last month, that a hacker (who many have accused of working for the Russian government) got into the Democratic National Committee's computers and copied a ton of stuff. All of the emails that were obtained (a little over 19,000, from seven top DNC officials) are now searchable on Wikileaks, so there are tons of stories popping up covering what's been found. The Intercept, for example, appears to be having a field day exposing sketchy behavior by the DNC.

But one point that hasn't received as much attention: the DNC appears to have flat out lied right after the hack happened. In its statement on the hack, the DNC had insisted that no personal donor info got out:

The hackers had access to the information for approximately one year, but that access was wiped clean last weekend, The Washington Post reported, noting that the DNC said that no personal, financial or donor information had been accessed or taken.

Except, well, no. There had been reports, driven by the hacker, that the files absolutely did include personal donor info, and now you can see some of that for yourself. For example, it took me all of about 5 minutes to find a list of donors and their email addresses, which I won't be sharing here, but I'm sure others can find as well. And, then, of course, you can find things like this discussion about a potential donor, Niranjan Shah, with "ties" to disgraced and convicted former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, noting that there were "pay to play" accusations associated with him. The DNC noted that they "could be ok" with Shah donating to the DNC, but that the administration might not want him to show up at their events. And, of course, there are emails detailing specific donations by specific people.

There are claims that some emails contain credit card data, though I haven't seen that myself. Either way, it certainly appears that in the rush to "nothing to see here" the leak of the info, the DNC simply lied about what was leaked.

Filed Under: computers, dnc, donors, hacked, personal info, private info

Podcasting Patent Troll Files Bogus Subpoena To Intimidate Donors To EFF's 'Save Podcasting' Campaign

from the extreme-obnoxiousness dept

A year ago, we wrote about the ridiculous situation of a company called Personal Audio, which claimed to have a patent that covered podcasting and had started going after a bunch of the top podcasters, including Adam Carolla and How Stuff Works. The patent in question, 8,112,504, was for an attempt to deliver news on audio cassettes. The patent itself is exceptionally broad and ridiculous. It never should have been granted. Even if it was legit, the idea that it has anything to do with podcasting is simply ridiculous. Last summer, NPR's Planet Money had a good episode all about this patent, in which the lawyer and the patent holder made some ridiculous claims, pretending that this patent was "the roadmap" that taught people how to podcast.

The good folks at EFF started a "save podcasting campaign" and raised some money, which they used to file a challenge against the patent at the Patent Office. That process is still ongoing, but it appears that Personal Audio and its lawyer have decided to go to war with the EFF and its donors, trying to intimidate them. In one of its lawsuits over the patent (completely unrelated to the challenge at the USPTO), Personal Audio sent a subpoena to EFF demanding a whole bunch of stuff, including identifying information on everyone who donated to the campaign. Here's the full list of what they're actually asking for:

1. Any communications between the EFF and Defendants specifically Concerning the '504 patent, including but not limited to the construction of any claim terms and any alleged prior art relevant to any claim of the patent.
2. Any communications between the EFF and any actual or potential witness specifically Concerning the '504 patent or prior art to the '504 patent.
3. Any communications between the EFF and any third parties specifically Concerning the '504 patent, including but not limited to any communications with the Cyberlaw Clinic at the Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Julie Samuels, Mark Cuban, RPX, Article One Partners, Mark Lemley, Durie Tangri Page Lemley Roberts & Kent LLP, the Open Innovation Network, StackExchange, Google, Inc and/or their representatives, agents or counsel.
4. Any non-privileged communications regarding the prior art cited in any proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office Concerning the '504 patent.
5. All fundraising activities in connection with the proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office specifically Concerning the '504 patent, including but not limited to the Identification of the names of all Persons who donated or contributed and Identification of the amounts contributed by each Person, as well as the Identification of any promised contributions which have not been received yet as well as the Persons who promised such contributions and the amount thereof.
6. All steps taken in order for the EFF to be "fully prepared" to take on Personal Audio with respect to the '504 patent.
7. Identification of any Information Concerning any prior art (whether or not included in any Patent and Trademark Office proceeding) that would tend to show either: (1) the art did not disclose any element of the claims of the '504 patent or (2) the art was not demonstrably available prior to any filing date of the '504 patent.
8. Any nonprivileged analysis or Communications Concerning the following: (1) the claims of the '504 patent; (2) any prior art to the '504 patent; and (3) the meaning or construction of any of the terms in the claims of the '504 patent.

EFF is fighting the subpoena, arguing a variety of points about how this goes way beyond any reasonable effort. It's not just seeking information totally irrelevant to the case, but it's trying to get EFF to disclose private information about individuals, violating their First Amendment rights of association. As the EFF notes in its blog post about this:

We believe that Personal Audio’s subpoena to EFF is improper for a number of reasons that are laid out in detail in our motion. Above all, we are outraged that Personal Audio is seeking to invade the privacy and associational rights of hundreds of our donors. EFF takes the privacy of its members and supporters extremely seriously—and so does the Constitution. As we explain in our motion, the First Amendment protects our donors’ right to privacy, and Personal Audio’s supposed need for the information does not trump those rights.

Personal Audio’s tactic is also improper for several other reasons. For example, it is appears to be primarily intended to avoid the well-defined limits of the PTO discovery process. The petition we filed follows a new, streamlined and therefore relatively inexpensive process. Rather than respond to that petition following the rules of that process, Personal Audio is trying to use entirely separate litigation as an excuse to raise the stakes on EFF – something Congress never intended. If Personal Audio succeeds, we fear it will send a message that this new process can be made invasive, cumbersome and expensive after all, which will in turn discourage others from using it to challenge low quality patents. That would be a shame for all of us.

Beyond that, this seems like a clear attempt by Personal Audio to intimidate both EFF and its donors -- though if they were even remotely aware of the EFF and its backers, they should have known how badly that plan would backfire. Hopefully the court will rightfully quash the subpoena and, perhaps, make it clear to Personal Audio's lawyer, Jeremy Pitcock, that this is totally improper.

Filed Under: adam carolla, donors, patents, podcasting, subpoena
Companies: eff, personal audio

Major Political Donors Have Access to TPP Documents. Everyone Else? Not So Much

from the shockingly-unshocking dept

The good folks over at MapLight have taken a look at the members of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights (ITAC-15). As we've discussed in the past ITAC 15 is a committee of high powered corporate representatives who are basically the only ones with full access to the text of the intellectual property chapter of the TPP. Those on ITAC 15 are allowed to see the latest text by logging into a system from the comfort of their desks. If Congress wants to see it? No luck. Members of Congress are allowed only to visit the USTR offices, where they'll be shown a copy of the document in a sealed room. They're not allowed to bring staff (such as the experts who would understand this stuff). They're not allowed to take notes or make any copies. Basically, the corporate interests have a lot more oversight over the whole process than Congress does.

So how does one get onto ITAC 15? It's not easy. Lawyer Andrew Bridges (whose name you might recognize) sought to get onto ITAC 15 as one of the country's foremost experts on copyright law and its impact on innovation and startups. He was nominated... but denied. But who does get on there? According to MapLight's analysis, it helps to be a major corporate donor to political campaigns:

• The 18 organizations represented by ITAC-15 gave nearly $24 million to current members of Congress from Jan. 1, 2003 - Dec. 31, 2012.
• AT&T has given more than $8 million to current members of Congress, more than any other organization represented by ITAC-15.
• House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has received $433,350 from organizations represented by ITAC-15, more than any other member of Congress.
• Democrats in Congress have received $11.4 million from organizations represented by ITAC-15, while Republicans in Congress have received $12.6 million.
• The members of Congress sponsoring fast-track legislation, which would allow the President to block Congress from submitting amendments to the TPP, have received a combined $758,295 from organizations represented by ITAC-15. They include Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus ($140,601), Senate Finance Committee Ranking Members Orrin Hatch ($178,850), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman David Camp ($216,250), House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade Chairman Devin Nunes ($86,000), and House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions ($136,594).

I'm sure that's all just a coincidence, right? If the USTR was really seeking to convince the world that the TPP isn't just a corporatist power grab to give political crony's a leg up against innovators, it's doing a piss poor job of convincing anyone that's the case.

Filed Under: donors, itac 15, lobbyists, politics, tpp, ustr