The GOP's Blisteringly Hypocritical Road From Whining About Net Neutrality To Supporting Trump's Idiotic Attack On Social Media

from the you-have-zero-credibility-whatsoever dept

Mike has already highlighted FCC boss Ajit Pai's rank hypocrisy in his support of Trump's brain fart of an executive order targeting social media. This is, after all, a guy that crowed for literally the better part of the last decade about how some modest net neutrality rules (read: some basic consumer protections aimed at policing widely disliked telecom monopolies) was "government run amok" and a "government takeover of the internet." Now, as Trump attempts to bully the FCC into policing social media giants it has no authority over, a decade worth of purported principles are somehow, mysteriously absent.

Of course this grotesque, comical hypocrisy isn't reserved to Ajit Pai.

Back in 2014, before the former FCC passed net neutrality rules, the Obama White House expressed some basic support for net neutrality (and reclassifying ISPs as common carriers under the Communications Act to ensure the FCC could enforce the rules). This wasn't anything nefarious or even unordinary. President George W. Bush urged FCC Chairman Michael Powell to vote on deregulating media ownership. Bill Clinton wrote a public letter to Chairman Reed Hundt to ban hard liquor advertising on television. Ronald Reagan urged Chairman Mark Fowler to drop his proposal to rescind the Financial Interest and Syndication Rules governing TV networks.

We've had plenty of criticisms of Obama era policy. But Obama's support of net neutrality was legal, ordinary, and had the broad support of countless experts and the majority of U.S. consumers. That didn't matter to the modern GOP. In its now well-established bad faith style, the party (with AT&T and Comcast's covert help) immediately began circulating the talking point that Obama's support of net neutrality had broken some nonexistent law, and was, as countless news outlets parroted at the time, an effort to illegally "bully" the FCC into passing what were, despite a lot of pearl clutching, some fairly basic consumer protections:

"Just as Obama used executive actions in an unprecedented fashion on immigration, so too has he now set a precedent by bullying an independent regulatory body into following political orders."

This idea that Obama had broken the law or was "bullying" the FCC by expressing support for a very popular policy position would soon be utterly everywhere. An endless sea of GOP pundits could be found writing op-eds about how the Obama White House had broken the law by simply wanting the FCC to protect consumers from telecom monopolies. That Obama was strong-arming the FCC would soon become a gospel narrative. And the rhetoric was even supported by a certain former reality TV star and failed steak salesman of note:

That was, of course, all bullshit pushed by telecom monopolies that simply didn't want to face anything even resembling accountability for decades of anti-competitive behavior. But the narrative that Obama had somehow broken the law was also a favored talking of Ajit Pai, who also, repeatedly, tried to insist that Obama's totally legal support of a policy widely supported by the vast majority of experts and real fucking human beings was somehow a nefarious, illegal government power grab:

"On November 10, President Obama asked the FCC to implement his plan for regulating the Internet, one that favors government regulation over marketplace competition. As has been widely reported in the press, the FCC has been scrambling ever since to figure out a way to do just that. The courts will ultimately decide this Order’s fate. And I doubt they will countenance this unlawful power grab. Litigants are already lawyering up to seek judicial review of these new rules. Given the Order’s many glaring legal flaws, they will have plenty of fodder."

Fast forward to 2020. Net neutrality (and FCC authority over telecom in general) is largely dead thanks to AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon lobbyists and an FCC willing to ignore both objective data and sleazy efforts to manipulate the public record. And the same GOP folks who threw a monumental hissy fit about Obama's "illegal takeover of the internet" are dead silent as a corrupt, criminal buffoon tries to bully the FCC into shoehorning an incoherent brain fart into genuine, real-world policy that ignores the Constitution, common sense, and widespread concern from an absolute chorus of policy experts.

The same folks who repeatedly claimed that natural telecom monopolies shouldn't be treated as a common carrier, have pivoted 180 to claim that non-dominant social media platforms like Twitter should be. The same folks who spent years insisting the FCC had no right or authority over the parts of the internet it actually had authority over now insist the FCC must regulate the parts it has no authority over. The same folks who whined incessantly about the perils of the Fairness Doctrine now mindlessly support something arguably worse.

All to keep social media giants from policing toxic political disinformation to protect GOP power, now highly reliant on online disinformation to gloss over what are usually, much like the net neutrality repeal, largely unpopular policies.

Net neutrality was, we were told, government utterly run amok. It was, we were told, the very worst example of government out of control. Yet here we have a corrupt and unqualified president genuinely bullying the FCC to support the most idiotic power play imaginable, and the lion's share of the GOP sits nodding in bobble-headed support. Worse, when Commissioner Mike O'Rielly made some incredibly tame statements pointing out Trump's EO might not be enforceable, he was fired, soon to be replaced by someone more willing to kiss Trump's ass. Largely to crickets by the GOP.

There's Luddite politicians engaged in inconsistent policy, and then there's what the modern GOP has become: a bad faith dog and pony show, heavily reliant on disinformation, lodged somewhere in the telecom sector, Rupert Murdoch, and Oracle's lower colon, using a stunning array of disinformation, bogus data, ever-shifting talking points, and complete bullshit to justify corruption and feckless fealty to an idiot king. When the bill comes due for the GOP's blistering hypocrisy and bad faith bullshit (and sooner or later it will come due), it's going to be incredibly well earned.

Filed Under: ajit pai, barack obama, donald trump, fcc, hypocrisy, independence, interference, net neutrality, regulations, section 230, tom wheeler

UK Hosts Theatrical Facebook Hearings On 'Fake News'... Undermined By Creating Fake News Itself

from the good-for-show,-not-good-for-truth dept

As you may have heard, the UK Parliament put on quite a show on Tuesday in what it claimed was an attempt to go after Facebook for its "fake news" problem. Of course, in the process, the hearings themselves created some fake news that undermined the entire point. To be clear, upfront, Facebook does have many issues that should be taken seriously. But this hearing did not get at those, and actually showed how, when political grandstanding is the focus, it's quite easy to create "fake news" in the process. Still, boy, was that hearing theatrical. It was apparently the first time since 1933 that the UK Parliament had representatives from other countries participate in a hearing, and so there were nine other countries present, including Canada, France, Belgium, Brazil, Ireland, Latvia, Argentina and Singapore. On top of that, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made the bad decision of refusing to participate in the hearings, giving the Committee the opportunity for this classic photo op:

Facebook's VP of policy, Richard Allan appeared instead, and despite even him admitting that it didn't look great that Zuckerberg wasn't in attendance, he is actually someone who would probably be better positioned to answer actual substantive questions about Facebook's policies in these areas.

But that would only matter if the inquisitors were interested in discussing substantive policy matters. And it did not appear they did. They were there for the grandstanding, repeatedly blaming Facebook for reflecting back human nature and all its foibles. There were questions about what Facebook was doing to protect democracy -- which I don't think is actually Facebook's job (indeed, seems like that's the government's job, no?). But, of course, the main highlight of the show was the organizer of the hearing, MP Damian Collins, who you'll recall seized a bunch of documents, under questionable circumstances, from a US business exec who was visiting the UK.

The "documents" were supposed to be the star of the show, and Collins dropped the apparent big bombshell during the hearing: Facebook had, he claimed, actually been alerted to an attempt by Russian's to mess with the site all the way back in October of 2014. As summarized by Wired:

Collins cut right to the heart of the documents during the hearing. In October of 2014, he said, a Facebook engineer notified the company that entities with Russian IP addresses had been using a Pinterest API to pull out three billion data points a day from the Facebook friends API. Collins wanted to know what happened after that information was brought forward.

"Was that reported or was it kept, as so often seems to be the case, kept within the family?" he asked.

Ooooh. Intrigue.

Except... it was bullshit. Facebook revealed the redacted emails in question and it showed that while an engineer had initially raised concerns that it appeared that Russian IP addresses were using the Pinterest API access to get lots of data, further investigation showed that he was wrong. The initial email says that the person is seeing calls from "Russian IPs" and is having the Site Integrity team investigate, though it's quickly followed up with a note that "those might not have been Russian IPs after all, we are digging."

Then, on the very same day -- indeed, just a little over two hours after the initial alarm of Russian IPs -- the person emails that it was a false alarm.

If you can't see that, it says:

Ok, thinks are not as bad as they seemed, apologies for the trash. There was a series of unfortunate coincidences that made me think the worse.

1/ We verified that the endpoint has not been "leaked" and calls seem to be coming all from Pinterest servers.
2/ We verified that the volume of calls per day is actually around 6M successful and 40M failed due to invalid access.

In short, it wasn't 3 billion data points and it wasn't Russia. Also, it wasn't abuse of the system. And yet, the way Collins raised the issue, he suggested that Facebook was aware that Russians had abused the API to access 3 billion data points and then kept it secret. In other words, Collins' explanation of what happened was 100% incorrect and misleading. It was misinformation. Or, as some like to call it: fake news.

And while it will not be, this should be the lesson that the folks who held this hearing should learn: there are all sorts of ways to make incorrect claims. Some of them on purpose. Some of them by accident. Some of them because of confirmation bias of what you want to be true. And expecting Facebook to magically understand what is what... is insanity.

So, not that MP Damian Collins will respond to me (perhaps I should set up a dramatic photoshoot of an empty chair with his nameplate), but I'm wondering. Does he think Facebook should block all the stories reporting on his false claim about them supposedly "hiding" news of Russians abusing the API to extract 3 billion data points? Or would that, you know, be crazy?

Filed Under: api, damian collins, disinformation, fake news, grandstanding, interference, mark zuckerberg, richard allan, russia, uk
Companies: facebook

Ron Wyden Wants The DOJ To Provide Answers On Stingray Devices' Disruption Of Emergency Call Service

from the gotta-risk-lives-to-save-lives-or-whatever dept

The FBI has admitted -- albeit not that publicly -- that Stingray devices disrupt phone service. Spoofing a cell tower has negative effects on innocent phone users as the device plays man-in-the-middle while trying to locate the targeted device. An unsealed document from a criminal prosecution and assertions made in warrant affidavits alleging "minimal" disruption are all we have to go on, at least in terms of official statements.

Supposedly, Stingrays are supposed to allow 911 service to continue uninterrupted. But it's hard to square that with the fact every phone in the device's range is forced to connect to the Stingray first before being allowed to connect with a real cell tower. In some cases, the device might force every phone in range to drop to a 2G connection. This may still allow 911 calls to take place, but almost any other form of communication will be impossible as long as the Stingray is in use.

Ron Wyden's staff technologist, Chris Soghoian (formerly of the ACLU), will be fielding answers from the DOJ and FBI about 911 service disruptions, if those answers ever arrive. Wyden's office has sent a letter [PDF] demanding to know the extent of cell service disruption when Stingrays are deployed. And he'd also like to know if these agencies are being honest about the negative side effects when agents seek warrants.

1. The Communications Act of 1934 prohibits willful or malicious interference with licensed radio communications. How is a federal law enforcement agency's use of a cell-site simulator not authorized by a court order consistent with the prohibition on interference with radio communications in 47 U.S.C. 333?

2. Is it the position of DOJ that a search warrant authorizing a federal law enforcement agency to use a cell-site simulator overrides the statutory prohibition on interference in 47 U.S.C. 333? If yes, please explain Why.

3. Does DOJ believe that it has an obligation under the duty of candor to notify federal courts considering an application for the use of a cell-site simulator that federal law prohibits interference with cellular communications? If not, please explain why.

4. Is it the position of DOJ that it is lawful, with or without a court order, for a federal law enforcement agency to interfere with licensed radio communications such that it disrupts a surveillance target's emergency cellular communications with 9-1-1? If yes, please explain why.

We'll see if Wyden gets his answers. The DOJ still has yet to answer similar questions Wyden asked last year, and there's little reason to believe its response time to questions it doesn't want to answer has improved since 2017.

There is evidence cell site simulators do interfere with 911 service, even if the US government has yet to admit it. A document obtained by the ACLU from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police clearly states cell site simulators have negative effects on emergency calls.

The MDI [Mobile Device Identifier] will shut itself off if a mobile within its range dials 911. However, recent testing at HQ revealed that more than 50% of the GSM mobile telephones tested had not automatically completed their 911 calls after the MDI had shut itself off.

This memo says the RCMP should inform judges of this possible side effect when seeking warrants and use a 3-minutes-on, 2-minutes-off cycle to minimize cell service disruption and overcollection of cell data from non-targets. If the DOJ has directed the FBI to engage in practices like these, it has yet to make that information public. From what little has been gleaned from public statements and begrudging answers to legislators and Congressional committees, the FBI's use of Stingrays appears to only be constrained by a warrant requirement that is merely the DOJ's internal policy, rather than codified by law.

Filed Under: doj, emergency calls, imsi catcher, interference, ron wyden, stingray, surveillance

Ex-DOJ Officials Raise Trump, AT&T Merger Interference Concerns

from the do-the-ends-justify-the-means? dept

Last fall, the Department of Justice announced it would be suing to block AT&T's $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner. According to the DOJ, it sued to block the lawsuit to protect consumers, arguing that the deal would likely make it harder for streaming competitors to license the content they need to compete with AT&T (especially HBO programming). Consumer advocates have long argued that AT&T (with its decade of well-documented and often comedic anti-consumer behavior in tow) would simply use its greater leverage and power to hamstring competition and jack up rates for consumers (especially with net neutrality dying).

While some have argued that the DOJ is simply following antitrust protocol, others (including AT&T lawyers) think the lawsuit is driven by other motivations.

That's not a hard case to make given the Trump administration's anti-consumer, anti-innovation, and anti-competition tendencies on other fronts (like net neutrality). Trump's pick to head the DOJ's antitrust division, Makan Delrahim, was also on record, before joining the DOJ, stating he saw no real problems with the deal. Meanwhile Trump's disdain for Time Warner-owned CNN is also well established, and reports have indicated that Trump pal Rupert Murdoch spent much of last year trying to scuttle the deal for competitive reasons (Muroch has also approached AT&T twice about buying CNN).

Adding fuel to this fire was a bipartisan group of ex-DOJ officials (from US Attorney Preet Bharara and Nixon White House counsel John Dean) that, last week, filed an amicus brief with the court urging an inquiry into whether any potential laws were broken. The brief doesn't even mention Murdoch, and instead focuses on the obvious, inherent problems in scuttling a merger just because the President doesn't like one of the media outlets involved:

"While any improper use of government authority to punish critics or reward supporters would pose a grave threat to our constitutional system, that threat is particularly acute in a situation in which the government uses or appears to use its regulatory authority to punish media entities or others who are critical of the government. Such behavior could chill criticism, endangering the kind of free and open speech and debate that our Founders adopted the First Amendment to protect precisely because it is necessary for self-government."

While that's true, Bharara's specific objections here are somewhat rich for him personally, given that during his tenure he seized domain names and refused to return them -- only giving them back once it was abudantly clear he wasn't going to win in court. Bahara's office also issued a gag order over a subpoena to Reason just because a few folks said some mean things about a Judge.

Regardless, hoping to use these concerns to defeat the DOJ lawsuit, AT&T lawyers have been busy trying to get a hold of evidence proving that the Trump administration pressured the DOJ to try and derail the lawsuit. But late last month Judge Richard J. Leon rejected AT&T's request for detailed email and phone logs between the White House and the Justice Department related to the deal, forcing AT&T to scuttle that angle of their legal defense. Needless to say, whichever way this ruling goes could have a profound impact on the media, broadband, and advertising markets for years:

"If the judge sides with AT&T and Time Warner, he would usher in the creation of a new kind of corporate behemoth — one with nationwide reach via wireless and satellite television service that would also have control over a movie studio and channels like HBO, CNN and TNT, which has valuable basketball sports rights. The company would have a leading position to negotiate licensing deals with rival telecom and media firms. It would also be in a stronger position against fast-growing streaming video services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video."

Questions over the DOJ's actual motivation here have created an interesting conversation over whether the ends justify the means, even if the motivation is cronyism and not consumer welfare. Whether the deal should be blocked has become increasingly relevant in the wake of the Trump FCC's attack on net neutrality, a move that could open the door to all manner of "creative" efforts by a bigger, more powerful AT&T to hamstring competition in the media space, should the deal be allowed to proceed.

All told, we've ironically got the Trump DOJ breathlessly claiming it's trying to protect consumers from a bigger, badder AT&T, while the Trump FCC empowers AT&T to engage in more anti-competitive shenanigans than ever before -- with no sign that anybody in government realizing they're operating at cross purposes if "consumers" really are the driving motivator. The Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit against AT&T and Time Warner, filed back in November, is scheduled to go to trial on March 19.

Filed Under: doj, donald trump, interference, john dean, merger, preet bharara
Companies: at&t, time warner

Shocker: FOIA Request Shows Yet Another Core Justification For Repealing Net Neutrality Was Bullshit

from the post-truth-apocalypse dept

We've pretty well established by now that the FCC's repeal of net neutrality is being justified by a lot of fluff and nonsense with no factual basis in reality. Like claims that net neutrality killed sector investment, which are easily debunked by SEC filings, earnings reports, and numerous public CEO comments to investors (who, unlike you, they're legally not allowed to lie to). From Ajit Pai's claims that net neutrality emboldens fascists in North Korea and Iran, to his most recent claim that net neutrality fears were overhyped because Twitter still somehow works, blatant bullshit is the foundation of this entire repeal effort.

For years now, one constant bit of bullshit spread by ISPs was the claim that the Obama-era White House somehow "illegally pressured" Tom Wheeler's FCC into passing tougher net neutrality rules. As we noted at the time that claim was nonsensical, since there's no law stopping the White House from expressing its opinion on what policy should be. From Bill Clinton urging then FCC boss Reed Hundt to ban alcohol ads on TV, to George W Bush telling then FCC boss Michael Powell to deregulate media ownership, such behavior is historically perfectly normal.

Again, this fact didn't stop ISPs and their water carriers in Congress and key media outlets from repeatedly trying to claim that Obama engaged in all manner of shifty behavior to force the FCC to create the rules. The Wall Street Journal in 2014, for example, professed that "unusual, secretive efforts inside the White House" caused FCC boss Tom Wheeler to shift his position from weaker, Title I based rules, to tougher Title II based rules. The idea that Obama's White House had undertaken a covert "federal takeover of the internet" quickly became gospel across countless partisan echoverses.

The criticism was enough to drive investigations in both the Senate and by the FCC’s Inspector General. And while nobody from either government body could be bothered to tell the public the outcome of these investigations, Motherboard recently filed several FOIA requests that now show the outcome of these investigations wound up being a giant bupkis:

"After reviewing more than 600,000 emails, the independent office found that there was no collusion between the White House and the FCC: “We found no evidence of secret deals, promises, or threats from anyone outside the Commission, nor any evidence of any other improper use of power to influence the FCC decision-making process."

Which again, was what we suggested back in early 2015. None of the claims that heralded Obama's "illegal takeover of the internet" had the slightest bit of evidence in support of them, noted the FCC Inspector General's report:

"Nothing we found refuted the factual findings in the Senate Staff Report,” the IG wrote (bolding by agency). “More importantly, nothing we found in the complete, unredacted record evidenced any undue influence that would have militated in favor of a more comprehensive investigation."

What the Inspector General found, then, were career public servants doing their job: “Nothing in these, or in any other emails appeared to indicate there was pressure to delay the Order from the December meeting from any source other than concerned FCC staffers,” the report found, adding that there was “no indication” that a draft of the net neutrality regulations had been circulated improperly.

Obama's first FCC boss Julius Genachowski was arguably a wishy washy fence sitter. But his replacement Tom Wheeler wound up actually being the rare type of person capable of changing his mind based on the available evidence. And when the available evidence (and the courts) made it clear that you can't have effective net neutrality rules without classifying ISPs as common carriers until Title II of the Communications Act, that's exactly what Wheeler did. He didn't make an evidence-based decision because of some secret White House cabal, he did it because that was his fucking job. And he's subsequently been punished for it.

Of course the very idea that net neutrality (aka wanting a healthy, competitive internet) is somehow partisan was already bullshit in and of itself. It's a construct built by the telecom industry's lobbying and policy apparatus, perpetuated by numerous ISP-funded groups. The express goal is to divide the public, sow dissent, and stall meaningful reform of a broken, uncompetitive market. If you hadn't noticed, this tactic has proven immeasurably successful.

Filed Under: ajit pai, barack obama, fcc, inspector general, interference, lies, tom wheeler, white house

Intelligence Committee Senators Call On Obama To Declassify Evidence Of Russian Election Interference

from the that-would-be-interesting dept

We've been a lot more skeptical than most about all the claims of "Russian interference" with the US Presidential election this year. While I don't doubt there was some effort to do something, Russia is such an easy scapegoat. Still, plenty of people insist that it's true, including those who at least should have a fair bit of insight into what actually happened. To me, the bigger issue is that attribution in many of these things is a lot more difficult than most people make it out to be.

Either way, it's quite noteworthy that seven Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee have asked President Obama to declassify the evidence pointing to Russia and detailing what Russia actually did to attempt to interfere with the election. The Senators sent a very simple letter, which was released publicly, noting that a classified letter with a lot more details was also sent. Here's the entire text of the publicly released letter:

Dear Mr. President:

We believe there is additional information concerning the Russian Government and the U.S. election that should be declassified and released to the public. We are conveying specifics through classified channels.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Of course, it needs to be noted that this will clearly be seen as a partisan effort. Of the seven Senators who signed on to the letter, six are Democrats, and the other, Senator Angus King, is an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Basically it's all of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee except for Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid. So, it's easy for some to spin this as a case of sour grapes about the Democrats not winning the election, and that they're now clinging to stories of Russian interference to explain what happened.

But... that spin holds somewhat less weight when you look at the details. First off, the letter itself was put together by Senator Ron Wyden. And, yes, his name comes up a lot around here, but that's because he has a pretty long history of being right on lots and lots of stuff. And that's been especially true when Wyden says that there's some secret info that the public deserves to know about. He's been right on that every single time he's said it. So the track record is there. When Wyden says the public deserves to know something, pay attention.

The second thing that provides more confidence here is that this isn't just random conspiracy theories about "rigged" voting or whatever that some have been spewing. This is a specific request for more transparency by asking for specific information to be released to the public -- specific information that the Senate Intelligence Committee members have seen.

Given that, it seems worth paying attention to -- and at least asking why the President won't declassify such information? If there really is such strong evidence, why not reveal it? So far, all of the evidence pointing to Russia has been fairly weak, and it feels a bit like groupthink that everyone just insists it's true. But it's entirely possible (and perhaps now, probable) that the intelligence community has some more serious evidence. And, if that's the case, it seems worth sharing with the public even if you were happy with the outcome of the election. If Russia really did "interfere" somehow in the election, the public deserves to know the details of it.

Filed Under: declassify, election, hacking, interference, ron wyden, russia

DA Claims He'll Charge Drone Operators Near Wildfires For Murder

from the really-now? dept

Should someone who flies a drone near a wildfire be charged with murder if someone dies in that fire? At least one California District Attorney is insisting he's going to bring such charges should that situation occur.

It's wildfire season out here in California, and the story of the summer seems to be about drones and wildfires. There have been a whole bunch of stories about private drones somehow interfering with firefighting aircraft. The stories are almost always extremely vague with very few details. It's entirely possible that these stories are completely accurate -- and I certainly don't deny that it's possible that a drone could interfere with firefighting aircraft in some manner. However, something about these stories really has the feel of your typical local news exaggeration/moral panic. The coverage is always by local TV news reporters. The details are slim, but the moral panic aspect is ratcheted up quite high.

And... soon after, politicians and grandstanding law enforcement get involved. I have no problem with something like an education campaign about the potential dangers of flying drones near wildfires and how they could hinder firefighting efforts. That seems perfectly reasonable. But politicians are not just looking to educate, they're offering a $75,000 bounty for identifying such drone operators and proposing a new law that would make flying a drone over a forest fire a federal offense with fines and up to five years in prison.

And... that's not all. In the press release from San Bernadino County that offers up that $75,000 bounty, the local District Attorney Mike Ramos says that he'll go after drone operators with murder charges if people die in a fire "due to" the drone operations:

District Attorney Mike Ramos warned drone operators that they could and would be prosecuted for murder if their drones led to the death of a fire-fighting flight crew or anyone on the ground.

Of course, determining that a drone "led to the death" of anyone seems like a pretty big stretch -- and as far as I can tell, in all of the hysteria of drones and wildfires in the last month or so, there have been no deaths at all. But it seems like a huge stretch to argue that flying a drone over a fire can lead to murder charges. In the past, murder charges related to fires have been focused on things like arsonists who deliberately set the fire, rather than those who were just looking to observe or film the fire, and through their own ignorance got in the way of firefighting efforts.

Again, this isn't to diminish the possibility of real risks and potential damages from drones interfering with firefighters, but so much of this reads like a typical local news moral panic, and tossing in the threat of murder charges for flying a personal drone to observe a wild fire seems to go beyond any sense of reason. It feels like law enforcement issuing a bogus threat to try to sound serious.

Filed Under: california, drones, interference, mike ramos, moral panic, murder, san bernadino, wildfires