FBI Director Still Won't Say Which Encryption Experts Are Advising Him On His Bizarre Approach To Encryption

from the perhaps-there's-a-reason-he-won't-say... dept

For the past few months, we've talked about how FBI Director Chris Wray has more or less picked up where his predecessor, James Comey, left off when it came to the question of encryption and backdoors. Using a contextless, meaningless count of encrypted seized phones, Wray insists that not being able to get into any phone the FBI wants to get into is an "urgent public safety issue."

Of course, as basically every security expert has noted, the reverse is true. Weakening encryption in the manner that Wray is suggesting would create a much, much, much bigger safety issue in making us all less safe. Hell, even the FBI used to recommend strong encryption as a method to protect public safety.

Last month, we wrote about a letter sent by Senator Ron Wyden to Wray, simply asking him to list out the names of encryption experts that he had spoken to in coming to his conclusion that it was possible to create backdoors to encryption without putting everyone at risk.

I would like to learn more about how you arrived at and justify this ill-informed policy proposal. Please provide me with a list of the cryptographers with whom you've personally discussed this topic since our July 2017 meeting and specifically identify those experts who advised you that companies can feasibly design government access features into their products without weakening cybersecurity. Please provide this information by February 23, 2018.

Technically, Wray still has a week or so to answer, but earlier this week during an open Senate hearing involving the heads of various law enforcement and intelligence agencies, Wyden asked Wray when he might get that list and Wray sidestepped the question entirely, other than saying he'd discuss it later (in a closed session):

If you can't see that, here's my quick transcript (though I do recommend watching the video just to see the smartass smirk on Wray's face through much of it).

Wyden: On encryption. Director Wray, as you know, this isn't a surprise because I indicated, I would ask you about this. You have essentially indicated that companies should be making their products with backdoors in order to allow you all to do your job. And we all want you to protect Americans and at the same time, sometimes there are these policies that make us less safe and give up our liberties. And that's what I think we get with what you all are advocating which is weak encryption. Now this is a pretty technical area, as you and I have talked about it. And there's a field known as cryptography. I don't pretend to be an expert on it. But I think there is a clear consensus among experts in the field against your position to weaken strong encryption. So I have asked you for a list of the experts that you have consulted. I haven't been able to get it. Can you give me a date this afternoon when you will give me... this morning, a sense of when we will be told who are these people who are advising you to pursue this route. Because I don't know of anybody who is respected in this field who is advising that it is a good idea to adopt your position to weaken strong encryption. So can I get that list?

Wray: I would be happy to talk more about this topic this afternoon. My position is not that we should weaken encryption. My position is that we should be working together -- the government and the private sector -- to try to find a solution that balances both concerns.

Wyden: I'm on the program for working together. I just think we need to be driven by objective facts, and the position you all are taking is out of sync with what all the experts in the field are saying and I'd just like to know who you all have been consulting, and we'll talk more about it this afternoon.

So, a few points on this. First, Wray doesn't answer the actual question of when he'll be giving Wyden a list, but rather suggests he'll discuss this topic in the closed session. But the question of when he'll be delivering his list of experts he's consulted shouldn't be a classified piece of information. It's just a date. Second, Wray immediately misrepresents the issue, by saying he's not asking to weaken encryption. Because he has to realize by now that that's exactly what he's asking to do. If he doesn't recognize that then it's clear he doesn't understand the first thing about how encryption actually works. Third, he's incorrectly talking about "balancing both concerns." But there's no balancing question here. It is not a "balance" between "security" and "civil liberties" as some keep trying to make it out to be. This is a concern between good security and bad security that makes everyone less safe (oh, and also has the potential to violate civil liberties).

It does not inspire confidence to have Wray have trouble answering such a basic question and then totally misrepresent how this all works, even in his two sentence answer.

Filed Under: backdoors, chris wray, cryptographers, encryption, experts, fbi, ron wyden

Over 190 Engineers & Tech Experts Tell The FCC It's Dead Wrong On Net Neutrality

from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept

There's now 11 million comments on the FCC's plan to kill net neutrality, a record for the agency and a significantly higher output than the 4 million comments the FCC received when crafting the current rules. And while many of these comments are fraudulent bot-crafted support for the FCC's plan, the limited analysis we've seen so far suggests the vast majority of those organizations, companies and individuals prefer keeping the existing rules intact. And most people generally understand that removing regulatory oversight in the absence of organic market competition doesn't end well for anybody not-named Comcast.

One of the more notable recent filings (pdf) from this tidal wave of opposition comes from a collection of engineers, technologists, professors, current and former IETF and ICANN staffers, and numerous network architects and system engineers. Collectively, these experts argue that the FCC is not only making a mistake in killing net neutrality protections, it doesn't appear to understand how the internet actually works:

"Based on certain questions the FCC asks in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we are concerned that the FCC (or at least Chairman Pai and the authors of the NPRM) appears to lack a fundamental understanding of what the Internet's technology promises to provide, how the Internet actually works, which entities in the Internet ecosystem provide which services, and what the similarities and differences are between the Internet and other telecommunications systems the FCC regulates as telecommunications services.

This shouldn't be particularly surprising to you if you've watched FCC boss Ajit Pai wage a facts-optional assault on net neutrality, ranging from claims that the rules actively encouraged dictators in Iran and North Korea, to claims that ISPs are utterly innocent of anti-competitive behavior, but Netflix was violating net neutrality simply by running a content delivery network (CDN).

But the engineers single out numerous technical mistakes in the FCC's Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), including incorrect assessments and conflation of the differences between ISPs and edge providers (Netflix, content companies), incorrect claims in the NPRM about how the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 functions, how firewalls work, and more. But the engineers and architects also warn, as countless others have before them, that not having meaningful rules in place will result in an "balkanized" internet that will be nothing like the one that drove decades of innovation:

"If ISPs could engage in this sort of blocking, throttling, and interference (which would no doubt occur in the absence of the light-touch, bright-line rules in the Open Internet Order), it would transform the Internet from a permission-less environment (in which anyone can develop a new app or protocol and deploy it confident that the Internet treats all traffic equally) into one in which developers would first need to seek approval from or pay fees to ISPs before deploying their latest groundbreaking technology. Developers and engineers would no longer be able to depend on the core assumption that the Internet will treat all data equally. The sort of rapid innovation the Internet has fueled for the past two decades would come to a sudden and disastrous halt.

Well, not that sudden. It seems likely that if the rules are killed, large ISPs like Comcast will try to remain on their best behavior for a short while to give the impression that axing the rules was a good idea. But with no meaningful regulatory oversight (keep in mind the goal here isn't just killing net neutrality, but nearly all oversight of ISPs), and no meaningful competition, they're simply not going to be able to help themselves. If the ability to act anti-competitively without repercussion is presented on a golden platter, they will take full advantage in their unyielding quest for improved quarterly earnings.

Of course this isn't the first time Ajit Pai and the FCC have been informed that they're wrong on this subject, and are gutting meaningful, popular and important consumer protections solely to the benefit of a handful of massive (and growing) telecom and media conglomerates. They just don't care. And while Pai and pals will still likely ignore this cacophony of opposition and vote to kill the rules anyway, with all of the recent examples of shady behavior at the agency on this subject, you'd like to think that something vaguely resembling accountability will wander in their direction... eventually.

Filed Under: experts, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, technologists

Senator Lindsey Graham Finally Talks To Tech Experts, Switches Side In FBI V. Apple Fight

from the a-road-to-Cupertino-conversion dept

On February 18th, Senator Lindsey Graham had this to say about the FBI v. Apple court battle.

Our nation is at war and this iPhone was used to kill Americans. We need to protect our homeland, not terrorists. To Tim Cook and Apple, cooperate with the FBI.

As surprised as we were to learn it was an iPhone that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, rather than the attackers and the weapons they wielded, Graham had yet another surprise in store for us.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who last December called on Silicon Valley to stop selling encrypted devices, expressed serious concern on Wednesday about the precedent the Department of Justice would set if it successfully compels Apple to break iPhone security features.

“I was all with you until I actually started getting briefed by the people in the Intel Community,” Graham told Attorney General Loretta Lynch during an oversight hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I will say that I’m a person that’s been moved by the arguments about the precedent we set and the damage we might be doing to our own national security.”

This is what happens when legislators stop following their gut instincts on subjects they know little about and actually seek input from those who do know what's involved and what's at stake. Graham -- without speaking to "people in the Intel Community" -- originally presented terrorism as Apple's problem. With the benefit of technically-adept hindsight, Graham is now seeing this for what it is: a push for a dangerous precedent that won't end with this one iPhone and Apple. It will move on to other manufacturers, service providers and communications platforms. Because this one iPhone (which is actually twelve iPhones) is just the foot in the door. Apple does not hold a monopoly on encrypted communications.

“One of the arguments Apple makes is that there are other companies that make encryption,” Graham said to Lynch during the hearing. “So from a terrorist point of view, you’re not limited to Apple’s iPhone to communicate are you?”

“I think the terrorists use any device they can to communicate,” the Attorney General responded.

“So this encryption issue, if you require Apple to unlock that phone that doesn’t deny terrorist the ability to communicate privately does it, there are others ways they can do this,” Graham noted.

The FBI -- which sees any communications it can't access as nothing more than a collection of smoking guns comprised of 0s and 1s -- will not stop with Apple. It already has its eyes on WhatsApp, one of the biggest messaging apps in the world -- one that also features end-to-end encryption.

The underlying point Graham is making -- having now spoken with those with the most at stake -- is that a successful push to force American companies to provide unprecedented access to law enforcement does little to stop global terrorism, while causing tremendous damage to those forced into complicity. If the FBI manages to pry open the front door, every other nation in the world is going expect Apple to hold the door open for them as well. And if they can't find a way to force Apple to do that, they may block it from selling its products in their countries. Or Apple may decide the market isn't worth the security hit. Either way, it hurts Apple, and terrorists will just move on to the next service/platform/manufacturer.

It's heartening to see Graham come around on this, especially considering he's spent the last few months coming down harshly on phone manufacturers for refusing to immediately comply with every ridiculous government demand.

Filed Under: doj, encryption, experts, fbi, going dark, intel community, lindsey graham
Companies: apple

FBI's James Comey: I Know All The Experts Insist Backdooring Encryption Is A Bad Idea, But Maybe It's Because They Haven't Really Tried

from the that's-the-spirit dept

As was widely expected, FBI Director James Comey appeared before two separate Senate Committees yesterday -- the Judiciary and the Intelligence Committees -- to talk about the "risks" of "going dark" if the government is not allowed to backdoor encryption. You can watch the Judiciary Committee hearing and the Intelligence Committee hearing at those two links. I'd embed the videos here on Techdirt as well, but I can't because (guess what?) neither offers an encrypted HTTPS version, so they wouldn't appear on our site, since we force HTTPS connections.

Most of Comey's comments were pretty much what you'd expect him to say, with a few clear themes repeated over and over again:

• American ingenuity is great, so I don't really believe all these computer science experts who say that it's "too hard" to give the government access. I think they haven't really tried.
• I don't have a proposal myself (which experts would ridicule for the problems it would create), but rather I'm just trying to "start a conversation" on this.
• We have no data to actually support the fact that encrypted communication has become a real problem, but I can tell you scary stories about (boo!) ISIS.

That was about the crux of it. There were a few times where he would kind of admit that maybe, just maybe the computer scientists were right, but he still thinks they could try harder. The most ridiculous was where he literally said:

"Maybe the scientists are right. But, I’m not willing to give up on that yet."

Earlier in that same hearing, he said:

"A whole lot of good people have said it’s too hard … maybe that's so.... But my reaction to that is: I’m not sure they’ve really tried."

There are a few problems with all of this. First, he keeps claiming that people are saying it's "too hard." But they're not. They're saying it's impossible to give him what he wants without seriously undermining the basic foundations of private communications online. And that's not just private communications in the form of messaging, but also financial transactions, medical records, business dealings and the like. In short, the "solution" the FBI wants puts everyone at risk.

The second big problem is that it's fairly stunning that Comey keeps insisting that those bright minds in Silicon Valley can sprinkle some magic pixie dust and give him what he wants, but at the same time claims it's too difficult for the FBI to actually quantify how big a problem encryption is for its investigations. Furthermore, he can't even provide a single real world example for where encryption has been a real problem. Even when pushed on this, he noted that when the FBI comes across encrypted communications, they move on to other avenues to investigate those individuals. Which sounds a lot like encryption really isn't that big of a problem.

The lack of an actual proposal, and the idea that he's just "starting a conversation" is equally ridiculous, since this conversation was conducted twenty years ago and it was shown what a bad idea it was to backdoor encryption. The idea that we need to do this all over again is just stupid.

Two other quick comments: A few times Comey noted that some big companies are able to encrypt data, but still get access to the underlying content. He used this to argue that it's "possible." But he leaves out the fact that those are not end-to-end encryption, but something different entirely which is much less secure than end-to-end encryption. He's comparing two very different things without recognizing the massive trade off in security associated with what he's talking about. His technical ignorance -- which he underlined multiple times, is kind of bizarre. If he admits he's so ignorant, why does he brush off the arguments from people who have been in this field working on these issues for decades.

The other comment: multiple times he and some of the Senators hinted that the FBI actually stopped some sort of nefarious plot that was supposed to happen on July 4th weekend. As we noted, despite lots of hype on cable news, the FBI has been making these kinds of failed predictions ever since 9/11 without a single one turning out to be accurate. So it seemed curious that he and others kept hinting at the idea that the FBI had to work overtime last week to actually stop an attack. If true, then you'd think there would be an arrest somewhere, but nothing appears to have been announced. It seems likely that this was just more FUD, but we'll be curious to see if the FBI ever explains something that it actually did to prevent a real attack.

We'll likely have a few more posts about some of what was discussed at the hearing a little later. But it's not just troubling that Director Comey is pushing for efforts to backdoor encryption, he's wasting the time of lots and lots of smart people who should be focusing on making our communications more secure, rather than proving to Comey and elected officials how ridiculously short-sighted it is to make communications less secure.

Filed Under: backdoors, encryption, experts, james comey, security, senate intelligence committee, senate judiciary committee

How The Patent Office Outsourced Its Job To Non-Expert Jurors

from the this-is-sad dept

I already wrote about Larry Downes blog post suggesting that Paul Allen's patent lawsuits might actually be an attempt to expose problems with the patent system, but I wanted to discuss a different point Downes raised earlier in the post, in discussing the problems of the patent system. Obviously, we've discussed many ways in which the patent system today fails to do what it's supposed to do, and a big part of the problem is the fact that the USPTO seems to approve a ton of crappy patents. This isn't because the examiners aren't trying hard, but just because the very nature of the system, and its inherent lack of scalability, mean the incentives are always going to lead to approvals of bad patents.

But what does this mean in practice? Downes highlights the problem this causes in a very simple way: it's the USPTO outsourcing the patent review process to unskilled juries:

The result has been the creation of a shadow patent examination process through litigation. The grant of a patent is no longer the final step, in other words. The de facto examination really takes place when the holder tries to enforce the patent against an alleged infringer, and the defendant claims invalidity of the patent as a defense. When such cases go to trial, which they rarely do, a jury of laymen are then tasked with doing the work avoided by the patent examiner.

In effect, the patent office has outsourced its job to the judiciary and in particular to a jury of non-experts. If nothing else, that is a feature of the modern system that absolutely no one is happy with, or in any event that no one can justify.

This is a pretty big problem when you think about it. Already, there are concerns that the supposed patent examiner "experts" often don't have enough expertise to judge the non-obviousness of certain inventions. To then shift the burden to inherently unskilled non-experts to make that decision, even with advocates for both sides fighting it out in front of them, seems to go against the very idea that patents are supposed to only be allowed if they are non-obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art. Asking those not skilled in the art to make that judgment seems like a mistake.

Filed Under: experts, juries, obviousness, patents

Can We Please Put The 'Amateur Brain Surgeon' Strawman To Rest?

from the please,-make-it-go-away dept

For years, the common criticism of Wikipedia was the "brain surgery" myth, which usually was something along the lines of saying, "you wouldn't let an amateur or 'the crowd' perform brain surgery, so why would you let them create a reference book?" Of course, that makes a bunch of bogus assumptions. First, it assumes that there's some sort of equivalence between creating an encyclopedia and doing brain surgery. But that's silly. Second, it assumes that no one involved in Wikipedia is an expert, which is not true. In fact, there are some brain surgeons who patrol Wikipedia as well. Finally, it assumes that these kinds of services are based on everyone being on equal footing, rather than recognizing that well-supported content is what gets through.

Along those lines, we've now got people using the same bogus "brain surgery" myth to attack the concept of "citizen journalism":

First, would you trust a citizen neurosurgeon to remove your kid's neuroblastoma? No, you wouldn't. You would not trust a citizen dentist either for your cavities. Or even a people's car repairman.

Of course not. But most people seem to recognize the basic difference between reporting on something and cutting into someone's brain. And, many people also recognize that most reporters themselves are often not experts in the field they're reporting on -- and what participatory journalism and the internet enable is the ability for actual experts on the topic to take part in the discussion and reporting as well.

Filed Under: amateurs, experts

Does The Mainstream Press 'Make' or 'Own' The News?

from the you-make-it,-we-bake-it dept

Part I - Who Makes The News
In his recent post, Mike discussed how there is a two-way street between blogs and newspapers, in which both become aware of stories from each other, and both borrow ideas. Techdirt believes this is part of the free market for ideas, and that nobody can own news, but we contrast this belief with the mainstream media moguls, who rant about how bloggers "poach" the news from the newspapers, offering naught in return. There is a trend of major publishers talking about how they "own" the news they "made", even when they themselves are just reporting on stories that occurred to other people. If anyone made the news, isn't it the people involved? But news is really just facts, and nobody can "own" reality.

Continuing along the lines Mike laid out, let me introduce another group of people who often create a great deal of the content in mainstream news, but go under-credited in this debate: Analysts and Experts. When news breaks, or a general interest piece is planned for a mainstream publication, the reporters often seek the advice and opinions of industry analysts and experts. I know, because I'm often called regarding issues in the Telecom industry. The reporters will ask your expert opinion, some catchy quotes, and will integrate them into their story. However, oftentimes, I find the reporter is just starting the writing process (in 'research'), and actually doesn't know exactly what is interesting about the story. In these cases, I often spend half an hour on the phone with them explaining the background, the trends, the real scuttlebutt, the interesting aspects, who else they should talk to, what is "real" and what is spin (IMHO, of course), and who they can contact for an opposing view. Independent analysts also normally have less bias than a corporate PR rep. Often, I will refer the reporter to an article I've written or a Techdirt post on the subject. The eventual story occasionally follows my narrative quite closely.

Am I angry about this state of affairs? No. I think it's great. All I ask is that the reporter put a quote or two from me in the piece. I get some marketing exposure, and I'm more than happy to help them build their story in return. This is one way reporters do their job, and it IS useful and productive. One would guess that lots of stories are made this way. There is no problem with this, but there is a problem when the news organizations start to think they "own" the story. What they did was add professional writing, fact checking, additional interviews, but most importantly provided distribution and an audience - all of which adds value, but none of which conveys ownership.

Allow me to triple repeat myself: I have no problem with this, and in fact seek out opportunities to work with reporters. This is a system that works...right up until the publishers act like - nay, claim - they are the sole creators of the news and that bloggers are mere parasites. In many cases, the bloggers are just the same experts going straight to the market with their ideas. As an analyst, I know I can go straight to market, but I'd rather go through the NYT, because that's where the audience is.

Part II - Paywall Paradox:
So what happens when newspapers go behind a paywall, and reduce their readership by 90% to the 10% of people willing to pay? What if, at the same time, Huffington Post, Techdirt, and WiFiNetNews all offer their stuff for free? It's not just the advertisers that will follow the audience: the experts want to go where the exposure is, where the readers are. If the mainstream media reduces their audience to a small fraction of payers, then analysts would have to revisit the cost/benefit of spending half an hour with mainstream reporters. If my contribution to their mainstream article is not indexed by Google, it does ME a lot less good. I want my quotes in the results when someone searches on "muni wifi" or "derek kerton". If they're locked up, they don't promote me, and I can't link to them.

Result: many experts will prefer to work with the free publications, where the larger audience reads, and where their quote is indexed by Bing and linkable. Subsequently, paywall newspapers will find sources harder to find, and less willing to spend time. Big media reporters are accustomed to everyone eagerly returning their calls within 30 minutes. That kind of enthusiasm follows the readership, not the newspaper.

Next step: guess where the writers will want to work...

Filed Under: analysts, experts, journalism, news

People Tend To Follow The Advice Of Experts Over Their Own Common Sense

from the rational-behavior dept

Just as yet another new startup is launching, designed to give individuals "expert" decision making advice, reader ChurchHatesTucker points us to a new study that notes that people all too often stop thinking after being given "expert" advice -- even if that advice is bad. While the folks behind the study use this as another crack to make fun of economists who believe in rational behavior, I'm not sure they're right. What's more likely is that individuals are still acting rationally. It's just that they believe that the "experts" really do have more information/knowledge/wisdom about a certain topic -- and thus they trust it over their own info. That's still quite rational. The real question should be just how often the "experts" give really bad advice. The problem with the study in question was that the expert was giving bad advice that he wouldn't normally give, making much of the actual experiment kind of meaningless. This sort of thing really is only a problem if the experts frequently give bad advice.

Still, this probably isn't too surprising. We've seen over time that people tend to rely on any sort of "expert" input, even if it's from a computer (such as driving off a cliff thanks to GPS or believing a financial model that suggests the likelihood of massive subprime mortgage defaults is almost non-existent). It's not so much about going against common sense. It's just that we tend to believe the "authority" over common sense, because we know we don't have all the info that we need in many cases -- so, we assume (often reasonably) that the authority or expert is better prepared to direct us than our own common sense.

Filed Under: common sense, economics, experts, rational thinking

Cablevision Might Be Better Off Not Talking To Newspaper Experts

from the just-a-thought dept

Long Island-based cable company Cablevision is buying Long Island-based newspaper Newsday from the Tribune Company. While not all of Cablevision's shareholders are happy about this, it seems pretty likely the deal will go through. What's interesting, though is that Cablevision's Charles Dolan is admitting that the company knows very little about the newspaper business, but he's promising to "consult widely and seek advice from people who have backgrounds and are professionals in the field." To be honest, my first reaction on reading that is that doing so is the exact wrong thing the new owner of a newspaper should be doing. It seems like there are so many folks in the newspaper business these days who are still living in the past, trying to pretend they can bring back the glory days when there was no real competition. What newspapers need these days might be a completely different mindset, rather than one encumbered by the legacy thinking that has made it so difficult for many newspapers to adapt to the changing market.

Filed Under: experts, newspapers
Companies: cablevision, newsday

IFPI Witness Used To Work For IFPI -- Is That Such A Big Deal?

from the it's-not-that-crazy dept

I think that anyone who reads Techdirt on a regular basis would recognize that we're pretty harsh on the entertainment industry and the way it goes about its business. Yet, there seems to be an unrealistic expectation that we should obviously slam the entertainment industry for every move it makes -- and if not, we're somehow wrong. That's simply untrue. While, yes, it is easy to trash the incredibly dumb things the industry does all of the time, that doesn't mean you should automatically jump to conclusions about the entire industry. Last week, in writing about how a lead investigator on the case against The Pirate Bay had taken a job with Warner Brothers after the investigation concluded, I suggested this wasn't as ridiculous or "shocking" as some made it out to be. As long as there was no additional evidence of questionable activities, switching jobs isn't that surprising. The industry has a long history of hiring former police investigators and prosecutors for its anti-piracy activity. That, alone, shouldn't be considered strange or questionable -- but a lot of folks immediately assumed that something nefarious was up. In fact, one commenter even accused me of being on the take from Warner. Given just how frequently I've totally trashed Warner Music's activities (in just the last year alone), including the faux epiphany of boss Edgar Bronfman, this seems rather laughable.

However, it is important to recognize that not everything is a conspiracy theory, and not every move the industry makes is as ridiculous as it's made out to be by critics. Totally overreacting to these things doesn't help the case of those of us trying to help educate the industry on why their strategy of suing fans and blaming piracy for their own inability to adapt and grow is a problem. So, while I'm sure I'll get beaten up over it again, the latest report that an expert witness in the Danish lawsuit against The Pirate Bay used to work at the IFPI still doesn't seem particularly shocking or troublesome. TorrentFreak, who normally has excellent coverage, continually paints this news as "shocking." However, I just don't see it. It's not surprising that a guy who used to work on IFPI investigations would go on to work at an anti-piracy company. And, just because he does so, it doesn't mean that he's obviously biased on their side (I certainly don't think fondly of all of my ex-employers). The simple fact is that any expert witness has a bias. They're hired to help support one side of the case. So, of course he's going to present the IFPI's case in the best light. That's what he's paid to do -- and the court should take that into account. The fact that he used to work for the IFPI seems rather meaningless.

Filed Under: experts, hiring, recording industry, trials
Companies: ifpi