FBI's Scorched Earth Approach To Apple Means That Tech Companies Now Have Even Less Incentive To Help Feds

from the stupid-and-shortsighted dept

On Friday, we debunked a key FBI talking point, which the press has been parroting, that Apple had helped the FBI in 70 previous cases, and only changed its mind now for "marketing" or "business model" reasons. As we explained, that's not even remotely true. In the past, Apple helped out because it had access to the content, and so it got it and turned it over following a lawful search warrant/court order. In this case, the situation is entirely different. Apple does not have access to the content that the FBI wants, and is now being forced to create a backdoor -- build an entirely revamped operating system -- that undermines some key security features found on iPhones today. That's quite different.

But here's something we didn't point out -- but which was highlighted by Chris Soghoian. The FBI's scorched earth policy here in pushing that talking point is really going to backfire in a big bad way. The lesson the entire tech industry is going to get from this is: if you ever help the FBI and if you ever push back later, they'll use your earlier cooperation against you.

Tech companies: If you provide any voluntarily assistance to the gov, they will use that help against you if you try to fight a demand later

— Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) February 19, 2016

Indeed, the FBI is going on and on in the press and in court filings pointing to those "previous" times, as if it's proof that Apple has suddenly "changed its mind" for "marketing" reasons. From the motion to compel on Friday: Given all that, why would any tech company voluntarily help the FBI going forward? It's only going to be used against them if they ever protest an overbroad request. We keep hearing government folks say that Silicon Valley has to stop treating the government as an adversary -- and I think the only proper response to that is: you first.

Filed Under: doj, encryption, fbi, going dark, help, tech companies
Companies: apple

DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston

from the do-something dept

Apparently, the last mile of the Boston Marathon was dedicated to the Newtown shooting victims, so it seems that much more messed up that participants in the Boston Marathon may need some help due to senseless bombings. Below are just a few helpful links for anyone out there who might need to find loved ones in the Boston area.

• The Red Cross has a website for finding people after emergency situations. Unconfirmed reports say that many of the runners of the Boston Marathon have been donating blood, so blood supplies are sufficient for the moment.
• The Salvation Army has been helping out with food and other assistance. If you'd like to help out the Salvation Army....
• Google.org also has a person finder website for this tragic event.

Filed Under: boston marathon, help, tragedy

Once Again, Helping A User Doesn't Take Away Section 230 Protections

from the a-little-reminder dept

One thing we often hear from folks is that Section 230 safe harbors only apply to service providers who do not actively participate in the services they provide. That is, some of our commenters insist that if you "moderate" or if you, as a service provider, are actively involved in what a user does, then Section 230 safe harbors do not apply. Yet, time and time again, courts have found this not to be the case. In the latest such example, Eric Goldman points us to a lawsuit filed against an online auction site, Proxibid, which apparently is similar to eBay, but the company is somewhat more involved in the auctions. That is, it reviews the auctioneers before letting them use the site, and in this particular case, a Proxibid employee apparently helped the company doing the selling unilaterally extend an auction. A bidder in that auction was upset about the unilateral extension, as well as the belief that the selling company was issuing shill bids to drive up the price. He sued both the seller and Proxiweb, and tried to claim that Proxiweb was liable, because its actions made Section 230's safe harbors inapplicable.

Not so, according to the court:

Plaintiffs have essentially asserted that Proxibid is liable to them in tort for tortious interference with a contract, aiding and abetting a breach of a fiduciary duty, negligence, unfair trade practices, and conversion because Proxibid allegedly helped Danhauer deprive Plaintiffs of the items for which they were the highest bidder in the auction at 4:00 a.m. Plaintiffs' sole bases for maintaining these claims against Proxibid arise from Proxibid's facilitation of Danhauer's reopening of the auction and Proxibid's alleged failure to thwart Danhauer's efforts to bid in its own auction in violation of the website rules. Plaintiffs do not dispute the fact that Proxibid is a website service provider, much like Ebay. Plaintiffs also do not dispute that Danhauer was responsible for conducting all aspects of the auction. There is no evidence that Proxibid posted any information or conducted any actions other than those provided by or at the direction of Danhauer. In this case, Proxibid is nothing more than an interactive computer service provider and cannot be held liable for the information and actions originating from Danhauer. Accordingly, Proxibid is also entitled to the immunity provided under the CDA, and Plaintiffs may not pursue the tort claims in their Complaint against Proxibid.

Yet another reminder that Section 230 safe harbors still apply, even if the service provider is somewhat more involved. There are, obviously, some limits to that involvement, but if it's merely moderating, or following the requests of users, it appears that the safe harbors remain -- as they should.

Filed Under: help, protections, section 230