White House Admits That It Still Supports Parts Of SOPA: Wants To Make Streaming A Felony

from the because-of-course dept

Last week, we wrote that Senator (and still for the next few weeks, Majority Leader) Harry Reid was looking for ways to push for a piece of SOPA, making streaming a felony, into law. The story we'd heard from multiple sources was that he was looking to attach it to the USA Freedom Act. His office came out and denied that claim vehemently. Still, multiple sources insisted not only that it was true, but that Reid was still looking for other vehicles to push that through. And... just days later, the White House responded to some (somewhat pointless) White House "We The People" petitions by... announcing that it, too, wanted to turn unauthorized streaming into a felony. This was in response to two separate petitions, Stop SOPA 2013 and Stop SOPA 2014. Neither petition made much sense, as SOPA has been long dead since early 2012. There was never any specific bill in either 2013 or 2014. And yet, Alex Niejelow, the chief of staff to the IP Czar (a position that is in limbo, as the new czar has been nominated, but not yet approved), used those petitions as an opportunity to reiterate that the White House, like Reid, supports making unauthorized streaming a felony.

Niejelow carefully tries to frame the plan as not going after individuals for uploading videos, but the language choices are deliberate here:

To be clear: We are not advocating for, and do not support, Congress enacting criminal sanctions against people who upload their own, non-commercial performances of other artists' works on Tumblr, against the content creators making your favorite mashup on YouTube, or against the users of these services -- like many of you who signed this petition -- who watch and listen to this digital content.

Rather, we think the law should deter the large-scale willful reproduction, distribution, and streaming of illegal, infringing content for profit. We think it is important to combat this type of activity because of the negative impact it has in diminishing the drive and economic incentive to produce the great movies, sporting events, and music that we love and that account for millions of American jobs and billions of dollars contributed to our economy annually.

Almost everything in those two paragraphs is misleading -- sometimes extremely so. As Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain helpfully explained back in 2011, the move to make unauthorized streaming a felony, changed the law in subtle, but dangerous ways. It's true, of course, that merely uploading a file would not be considered an offense under that part of the law (it may violate other aspects of the law), but it could still be problematic. Here was Zittrain's discussion, specifically in response to the question of whether or not Justin Bieber could have gotten in trouble for uploading videos of himself covering songs:

No one is saying that the public performance is occasioned by the mere act of uploading or downloading a file -- so a huge part of that analysis is going after straw men. The question is whether placing a file onto YouTube and configuring the placement so that it can be streamed -- indeed, intending that as the only reason for the file being there -- results in a performance as it's streamed to lots of people. Sadly that answer could be yes. Here's the definition of a public performance under 17 USC 101:

To perform or display a work "publicly" means (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

So, the argument would go that Bieber falls under clause (2) -- he's transmitting a performance to a place open to the public ("YouTube") or perhaps simply to the public directly, "by means of any device or process."

The fact that YouTube might also be liable for performing the work (or may or may not have a license if the license is just for it) is irrelevant; you can have more than one party deemed responsible for an infringement. Indeed, think about embedding the video on your own page -- would it matter if the page were served from your own server in your home (the easiest case for liability) or from a third party hosting service with whom you'd contracted, or who let you put it there? Surely putting the stuff on a rental server wouldn't be enough to "launder" liability for the person who put it there. (Again, ignoring whether the third party server could itself be liable, too; this starts to implicate the DMCA safe harbors.) YouTube contributors have their own little home pages on the service, in which their videos are embedded. So, yes, those videos are likely public performances.

Of course, they try to get around this by claiming they don't want this to impact "non-commercial performances." But, the definition of "non-commercial" is pretty fluid. Did you put ads on your upload? Uh oh. Did the video go viral and allow you to do something that made money? Uh oh.

Or how about the "large-scale" aspect. Well, we embed plenty of YouTube videos on this site. Would that make us "large-scale"?

And then there's the "negative impact" argument. Really? What is the actual negative impact from people streaming these works? As we've shown, the actual output of basically all of these industries is rapidly increasing. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a negative impact at all. It's especially bullshit to slip in "sporting events" in there (but, again shows how sporting organizations, including UFC and MLB, have been key to lobbying for this change), when the sporting events industry is thriving at unprecedented levels, and many of the major sports leagues (especially MLB) have shown that when you make a really good premium product, people will pay.

In fact, literally the day after the White House appeared to be arguing that streaming has created a "negative impact [that is] diminishing the drive and economic incentive to produce great... sporting events," PwC came out with its latest analysis of the sports market in North America, showing that it's nothing but up, up and up for sporting events in the US. If people streaming these events online has diminished the economic incentives, someone forgot to tell, well, everyone. If your job is to be in charge of understanding "intellectual property" in the US, shouldn't facts like this have a role? Here's PwC's data (2014 is estimated, as of October), and it shows a pretty steady upward trend, especially on "media rights," the only part really likely impacted by any streaming: Furthermore, if you look at the full report [pdf] PwC predicts continued massive growth, especially in media rights, but we won't show that because it's speculation.

But, basically, the argument that sports events are somehow facing negative incentives to put on great events because some people are streaming unauthorized versions just doesn't make any sense at all. It makes the claim that such a law is needed incredibly suspect, and hints strongly at the simple fact that this is nothing more than an attempted government favor to certain lobbyists.

Even where sports streaming does occur, it tends to be in situations where the leagues themselves have made it nearly impossible to legitimately pay for access in the first place, with idiotic concepts like blackout rules. Want to massively decrease unauthorized streaming of sporting events? Make better services and drop blackout rules. No need to turn hosting a webpage with some embeds into a felony.

Either way, it seems clear that the White House (and some in the Senate) still don't realize that all of SOPA was a bad idea, including the ridiculous plan to make unauthorized streaming a felony.

Filed Under: alex niejelow, copyright, felony, harry reid, ip czar, justin bieber, petitions, sopa, sporting events, sports, streaming, we the people

Lawsuit Filed Against European Commission In EU's Highest Court For Refusing To Allow Official TAFTA/TTIP Petition

from the almost-worthless dept

A couple of months ago, we reported on an extraordinary refusal by the European Commission to allow an official EU-wide petition, called a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI), to proceed. It was to have been on the topic of TAFTA/TTIP, and the Commission claimed it couldn't go ahead for the following reasons:

The negotiating mandate for TTIP is an internal preparatory act, and not a legal act affecting EU citizens. The act affects institutions only; not EU law directly. An ECI can only be directed at a concluded act, and not already at its preparatory stage.

An ECI proposing not to enforce a legal act is not possible. An ECI may be formulated only positively, i.e. work towards the enactment of a legal act.

That summary comes from a background document from 300 European civil society groups that have just filed a lawsuit against the European Commission in the EU's highest court, seeking to overturn this refusal. The document goes on to explain why the European Commission's reasoning is flawed (pdf):

Through its legal interpretation, the Commission is attempting to completely exclude its citizens from the development of international contracts: they should have no influence on their preparation. However, if international contracts are already in force, it is then almost impossible to challenge them -- it is practically impossible to terminate them.

The Commission wants to push through that an ECI can be used by citizens only to applaud decisions and schemes of EU bodies. Criticism or rejection should not be permitted, at least through official channels.

And what is more: From the justification of the rejection, it follows that an ECI on international contracts should not be possible, even if it were formulated positively ( "...the preparatory Council decisions authorising the opening of international negotiations or repealing such authorisation do not fall within the scope of the Regulation"). The citizens want to initiate a Europe-wide agreement on the determination of occupational safety standards? Impossible -- says the Commission.

If citizens are to be active through an ECI only if the EU institutions have already made all the important advance decisions, then the instrument of the European Citizens' Initiative is almost worthless.

Challenging the refusal therefore has another, more general, aim:

"We are not only appealing for the sake of the Stop TTIP ECI, but also for future European Citizens’ Initiatives. When it comes to the negotiation of international treaties, the European Commission wants to exclude citizens. While they are being negotiated, people are told not to interfere and when final contracts are put on the table, it’s too late. The Commission’s legal position effectively prevents any future ECIs on international agreements."

This really goes to the heart of the problem not just with TAFTA/TTIP, but also with TPP and the new TISA. The public is told that it cannot comment while the negotiations are being conducted, but that it should wait to see the final document. At that point, it is then told that there is no point in commenting, since nothing can be changed, and so the agreement must simply be accepted.

Fortunately, the groups behind the original ECI petition that was turned down have gone ahead and organized a petition quite separate from the ECI system. At the time of writing, it has attracted nearly 900,000 signatories from within the EU (the petition is limited to EU citizens, as the ECI would have been.) That makes it anti-democratic in the extreme for the European Commission to stymie an ECI on TAFTA/TTIP. The hope is that the legal action at the European Union's Court of Justice will compel the Commission to accept that fact and act on it.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: eu, european commission, petitions, public, tafta, transparency, ttip

FCC Comments Aren't 'Votes' And They Shouldn't Be, But That Doesn't Mean Public Opinion Isn't Useful And Important

from the public-comment dept

When the first analysis came out of the early batch of public comments on net neutrality, we pointed out the rather noteworthy fact that there were very few independent anti-net neutrality comments. Following the second round, we're likely to see similar results, though there was some ballot-box stuffing (which we'll get to in a minute). Still, Vox recently published a piece entitled: Why the FCC will probably ignore the public on network neutrality. The crux of the argument is that the comment effort is not the equivalent of a democratic vote, and that's exactly right:

In the interviews I conducted for my dissertation, FCC commissioners and a handful of staffers (e.g., civil servants, as opposed to political appointees) explained that the rulemaking process does not function like a popular democracy. In other words, you can't expect that the comment you submit opposing a particular regulation will function like a vote. Rulemaking is more akin to a court proceeding. Changes require systematic, reliable evidence, not emotional expressions. And with the exception of Democrat Commissioners Copps and Adelstein, the people I spoke with at the FCC considered citizen input during the media ownership proceeding as emotional and superficial content.

One staffer explained why some comments in the record matter more than others, saying a lot of comments submitted by ordinary citizens are not "usually very deep or analytical or, you know, substantiated by evidence, documentary or otherwise. They're usually expressions of opinion." That means these kinds of comments are "not usually reviewed at a very high level, because they didn't need to be."

Or as another staffer said, "I find the whole rulemaking context almost hilarious in many instances, because you know you're reading something, and you know it's not true. And you're guessing, you know, the person is hallucinating." Ordinary comments were, in other words, prone to error and lacked truthfulness, in the eyes of many of the Commission's staff. They also represented one person's opinion or experience, whereas according to staff, comments submitted by legal or economic experts collated information in a more systematic way, and from a much broader population of consumers.

Indeed, this actually makes a lot of sense. The rulemaking process isn't supposed to be a democratic setup, nor could it work properly in that manner. And, yes, many of the comments being submitted are nonsensical and effectively useless. The staffers are exactly right to focus on the comments that are analytical and are supported by evidence and details (and an understanding of the law). And while some people get up in arms about this, let's just take the ballot-box stuffing by some anti-net neutrality folks to show how pointless thinking of this as a "vote" is.

Soon after the whole "Internet Slowdown Day" effort to get people to contact the FCC and Congress in favor of real net neutrality rules, a somewhat nutty extremist group called "American Commitment," run by a guy named Phil Kerpen, declared "victory," saying that despite all those sites (including ours) taking part in the effort, their own "Stop Internet Regulation" petition got more signatures. Except, their actual petition was nutty misleading alarmist bullshit, pretending to be about stopping "the full federal takeover... of the internet." Of course the open internet rules have nothing to do with any sort of "federal takeover of the internet" at all. It's just about which rules certain parts of internet infrastructure will be regulated under to keep the internet free and open to competition (the kinds of things you'd think the supposedly "free market" American Commitment operation would appreciate.

Even more telling, the only way that American Commitment actually got about 800,000 "signatures" on its petition was to flat out lie and buy. Beyond the misleading rhetoric above, it appears that American Commitment bought a bunch of email lists of other conspiracy-minded folks and then peppered them with claims like the following about what the government was trying to do in passing net neutrality rules:

"Erase your internet freedoms, upend your right to privacy, censor the content you view on Internet, seize control of e-commerce, keep records of the sites you visit and when, track what you read and for how long and so much more!"

Except, um, no. Nothing in any of the rules would enable any of that even remotely. Indeed, as Jason Koebler at Vice notes in that link above, despite Kerpin's triumphant claims of "beating" the Internet Slowdown people, the press almost entirely ignored him (even the "right wing" press), because everyone knows his effort was a joke.

Kerpen's grassroots coalition of 808,363 petition signers came almost entirely through paid email advertisements sent out through popular conservative websites such as Town Hall, The Washington Times, Human Events, and Red State. Email blasts were sent to hundreds of thousands of people with subject lines that had nothing to do with net neutrality, such as "Only Days to Stop Obama's Takeover."

Kerpen played on the far right's fear of government and dislike of Obama to get hundreds of thousands of people to sign a series of petitions that have no information about the issue at hand and has no links to places to learn more about the issue. A Senatorial press office told me it hasn't received the petitions, which Kerpen said he had "hand delivered" before admitting that they could have been misplaced.

On top of that, Kerpen massively exaggerated his numbers, counting each "signature" as three "letters" since the petition was sent to every person's two Senators and then their House representative.

Koebler presents further evidence of what a joke the campaign was, noting that a report on the "most influential tweet" in favor of Kerpen's petition was this one, which got all of... one retweet. Given all of that, it's quite likely that the FCC will treat those "signatures" with the amount of weight and respect they deserve: which is close to nothing at all. And, this isn't to single out one side in this debate. There are numerous comments that have been filed with the FCC (often in response to the John Oliver segment) which simply curse out Tom Wheeler. And those shouldn't be given much weight either.

However, all that said, this doesn't mean that more general comments aren't helpful. What this whole process has shown is that the American public does care about the internet, and wants it to be kept as open and free as possible for innovation to occur on the internet. The public's interest in the topic does matter in making it clear that this is an issue that people care about and that they won't be happy if anyone mucks that up. From that, the FCC should recognize that people are watching what they do and are concerned about the eventual outcomes, even if the vast majority of them may not understand the nuances behind things like Title II, Section 706, "commercially reasonable" and paid prioritization.

There are multiple issues at play here. Having 3.7 million comments filed with the FCC (the vast majority of them in favor of protecting openness on the internet) is an important statement about what the public really wants (an open internet). However, the FCC has a job to do in deciding (1) what the right solution is and (2) what's in its power and mandate to do (the problem with the past rule was it went outside of the FCC's powers under the statute). To actually get to that answer, the FCC is likely to rely mostly on its own experts, and use the very small number of comments that dug into the more detailed and nuanced analyses of the issues at play. And that's the way it should be.

None of this means the FCC will eventually come to the right solution -- in fact, there's a good chance it will mess things up, because the FCC is pretty good at that sort of thing. But it's wrong to argue that if that happens, it's because the FCC "ignored" everyone. The real situation is more complex.

Filed Under: comments, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, petitions, phil kerpen, push poll, votes
Companies: american commitment

Petition Asks For White House To Declare Copblock And Others 'Domestic Terrorists'

from the get-the-DHS-on-it! dept

In what I'm sure is a huge coincidence, a petition at We the People was submitted Sept. 19th asking for the government to label "Copblock.org" (and any variation) members as "domestic terrorists." [h/t Police State USA] This seems to follow news of Austin police officer Justin Berry's designation of these organizations as "domestic extremists" far too closely to be just some sort of random happening -- more or less within five days of the information first being exposed.

Here's the stupidity in full:

CopBlock.Org and its affiliates on social media are often applauding and encouraging violence towards law enforcement officers and their families. At times, they are even directly causing said violence in their communities, and then supporting each other online or in person for their illegal activities. I believe that many people who are active in this organization are committing terroristic acts by inspiring, inciting, or taking parts in acts that are designed to take human lives in cold blood for political gain. The statements made by this organization and its affiliates should be taken very seriously by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and proper action should be taken to combat this. I believe the US DHS and FBI should monitor and investigate this Organization.

Last things first, the DHS/FBI probably already monitor groups like this to a certain extent. Both work closely with local law enforcement and if local officers are complaining about being filmed or otherwise "harassed" by civilians, chances are certain reports have been kicked up the ladder to agencies with bigger budgets, more manpower and (especially in the case of the DHS) plenty of spare time to collect and collate information on Constitutionally-protected activities.

Next, there's the unfounded accusations that these organizations are "directly causing violence." As I've noted earlier, police accountability organizations draw more than their share of people who can't articulate their objections to law enforcement tactics beyond vague threats and misspelled swear words, but those running these organizations (along with a majority of their members) do not encourage violence towards law enforcement members. Holding someone accountable for their actions does not mean acting as judge, jury and executioner.

"...take human lives in cold blood for political gain." I can't even. Pushing for accountability through activism isn't a political sport. Law enforcement agencies aren't partisan entities. They don't check voter registrations before ordering people to stop filming or restraining someone into a coma/morgue. That's not how this works. At all.

The petition stills needs ~95,000 signatures before it can be officially ignored, but at the rate it's going, it will never get there, despite pushes from law enforcement advocacy groups. About all that can be done with this information is a bit of data mining to determine which state harbors the most resentment towards police accountability.

What this does definitely show is that there's a subset of law enforcement (and their supporters) that find the activities of these groups threatening, and are looking for any route at all to shut them down. The percentage of those seeking this is probably no larger than the subset of Copblock members who actively wish injury and death on law enforcement members. Just as Copblock shouldn't be judged by a vocal minority, neither should law enforcement advocates. To most, these groups are just another part of the job. Some handle the extra attention better than others but there's no concerted effort being made to shut them down.

Filed Under: copblock, petitions, police, white house

Administration Proudly Announces That If Your 'We The People' Petition Aligns With Its Priorities, Something Might Actually Happen

from the go-team-Government! dept

Let's get this right out in the open. I don't have any particular animosity towards this administration. I just don't find it to be an improvement over the last one (which I found to be pretty much terrible from all angles). This wouldn't be notable except for the fact that this administration definitely considers itself to be a vast improvement over the last one and has made several proclamations advancing that theory. ("Most transparent administration," anyone?)

We fully expect politicians to be self-serving and those sitting atop the heap to be the most self-serving of all. The White House blog has taken the passage of the cell phone-unlocking bill as an opportunity to toot lean on its own horn.

On Friday, August 1, President Obama signed a bill into law that again made it legal for consumers to unlock their cell phones in order to take them to a carrier that best suits their needs. It marked the very first time a We the People petition led to a legislative fix.

This last fact -- the first time a petition resulted in a legislative fix -- should be an admission of failure. Instead, it's used to depict the administration as a champion of the people.

The petition, which arose in the aftermath of the Library of Congress' horrible decision to not renew this DMCA exemption, attained the number of signatures needed to obtain a White House response. While many others with the minimum number of signatures have been steadily ignored, the White House responded to this one. Beyond the response posted at the We the People site, more was apparently going on behind the scenes.

Folks here at the White House leapt into action. The White House policy team convened more than a half-dozen agencies and offices' senior officials to ask a simple question: How can we move this issue forward? After careful deliberation, it was clear to us: The Administration couldn’t agree more with petitioners, and we came out in strong support of again making it legal for consumers to unlock their devices.

According to the narrative at the White House blog, the administration did all the heavy lifting and motivated Congress to pass a bill -- though it still took a year and a half for a very narrowly tailored solution that only temporarily addresses the immediate problem, but totally ignores the underlying problem (the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA). But whatever the details behind the scenes, what's out front is more of the same.

The message here is that if your petition happens to align with the administration's priorities/viewpoints, you'll receive a swift response and maybe even some legislative activity. If your petition happens to run contrary to the administration, the best you can expect is some long-delayed talking points in response… if you receive anything at all.

The We the People site is a good idea -- an easy way for citizens to exercise their First Amendment right to petition their government. But that idea has been largely destroyed by the administration's refusal to treat it as anything more than a place to cherry pick requests for PR purposes. If this site's ever going to serve the higher purpose it's supposed to, it needs to be given more than rote recitals of position papers. The administration needs to start responding seriously to petitions that challenge its positions or run contrary to its aims. And it needs to stop ignoring anything that's passed the signature threshold. The way it handles this has little if anything to do with respecting the public's First Amendment rights.

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, copyright, petitions, phone unlocking, unlocking, we the people, white house

Administration Finally Responds To A Petition... About Something A Child Said On The Jimmy Kimmel Show

from the wow-such-power-to-the-people dept

As we just noted, the administration has put a wide variety of We the People petitions on the back burner with the average wait for a response currently sitting at 298 days. This includes one of the petitions to first hit the signature threshold back in 2011. While we're still waiting for the government to address the labeling of GMO foods, the dismissal of charges against Ed Snowden and allowing Tesla to sell vehicles in all 50 states, the administration has stepped up to declare it won't be removing Jimmy Kimmel from the airwaves.

Confused? Here's the petition in all of its clumsily-worded glory.

Investigate Jimmy Kimmel Kid's Table Government Shutdown Show on ABC Network

I was very disturbed by Jimmy Kimmel’s ‘Kids Table’ show. It was aired on ABC recently and talked about killing all the Chinese so that the states do not need to pay back their debts to China. The kids might not know anything better. However, Jimmy Kimmel and ABC’s management are adults. They had a choice not to air this racist program, which promotes racial hatred. The program is totally unacceptable and it must be cut. A sincere apology must be issued. It is extremely distasteful and this is the same rhetoric used in Nazi Germany against Jewish people. Please immediately cut the show and issue a formal apology.

A single quote from a single child was construed by this petitioner as being indicative of Jimmy Kimmel and ABC's inherent racist attitudes and the petition itself achieved full Godwin in less than seven sentences. It also instructed to government to trample the First Amendment by removing Kimmel's show from the air and apologize on its behalf. Lost in the shuffle is the title's request for an investigation, but apparently just killing the show without checking anything out would also be acceptable.

The administration has responded, pointing out that both parties have already apologized and that instructing ABC to remove the show would be a gross misuse of government power. It then invites the 100,000+ troubled petitioners to contact the FCC, presumably because their use of the We the People site shows they don't mind being ignored by government agencies.

This particular petition isn't even that old. It was created on October 19 and its deadline for a response would have been a month later. Less than 90 days from creation to response. That's some sort of land speed record for the Administration of the People, whose approach to open government is long on talk and short on action. And of the limited actions, it's most famous creation is the We the People site, which serves to remind users just how ineffective it is to petition the government directly. If nothing else, lobbyists can point to the ~300-day wait time (and the often-ineffectual, long-delayed responses) as an indication of the worth of their services. Not exactly the sort of message the administration should be sending.

Filed Under: jimmy kimmel, petitions, responsive, transparency, we the people

Average Wait Time For A Response At Administration's 'We The People' Petition Site At 298 Days

from the government-crushes-idealists,-film-at-11 dept

The We the People site set up by the Obama administration gave American citizens a more direct way to petition their government. The ideal propelling it was noble, but it has failed spectacularly in execution. As we've noted before, various petitions have gone unanswered for months after hitting the signature threshold.

The threshold itself has been raised a handful of times as well (from 5,000 to 25,000 to 100,000 as the site increased in popularity), ostensibly to weed out petitions that weren't truly representative of the population. This should have made the administration's job easier. A higher threshold means fewer petitions requiring an answer, and those that surpass the threshold should (although it's not always the case) be of higher quality.

Counterintuitively, as the threshold has increased, so has the response time. (h/t to Techdirt reader Neppe)

Of the 30 unanswered petitions currently posted to We the People, 11 were posted after the threshold was raised to 100,000 signatures and 19 were posted before the threshold was raised to that level.

Unanswered petitions posted after the threshold hike have been waiting 103 days for a response on average.

Unanswered petitions posted before and after the threshold hike have been waiting 298 days, on average, for a response.

What the site was supposed to be (responsive) and what it's turned out to be (a mostly empty gesture) tracks with the administration's continual failure to uphold its own stated ideals. The "most transparent administration in history" has advanced and expanded Bush-era policies that added layers of opacity to the government's inner workings in order to further subvert the notion that a government should be accountable to its constituents. The administration has also prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined, further widening the gap between those who govern and those that are governed.

It appears that any petition not deemed a "softball" or that can't be handled by a canned policy statement is backburnered. One of the first petitions to gather enough signatures (requiring labeling of genetically modified foods) has been waiting since September 2011 for an answer. More recent petitions appear to headed down that same road.

The unanswered petitions include one asking the president to fire the U.S. Attorney who led the prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz and one to pardon the National Security Agency documents leaker Edward Snowden.

The Swartz petition will hit a year of being ignored within a month. The Snowden petition is headed into its seventh month without an answer.

It's not as though it's impossible for the administration to answer these in a timely fashion. While the answers given to each of these petitions would probably be unpopular, the point of the site is not for the administration to "look good" but rather to increase its direct communication with the public. The administration also needs to keep in mind that canned policy statements that ignore or only very indirectly address the petitions' subject matter is not "communication."

When petitioners are waiting nearly a year to have their issues addressed, the "offer" of a direct line to the government is effectively empty.

Filed Under: delays, obama administration, petitions, politics, responses, we the people

Tell The Government That It Needs To Get A Warrant If It Wants To Read Your Email

from the they're-not-getting-the-message dept

While there's been so much attention lately on the NSA's surveillance tactics and its legality, for years there's been a separate issue that we've been covering: the outdated ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) rules (written in the '80s) that cover law enforcement's ability to get access to your data, such as emails. The laws make almost no sense today, as they were written in a time when the internet was much more limited. The idea of everyone storing pretty much all of their information and communications online wasn't even a concept at the time -- and that creates bizarre and nonsensical rules, like arguing that emails that have been on a server for more than 180 days are considered "abandoned" and no warrant is needed to view them.

There's a simple way to fix all this: reform ECPA to protect private data and say that law enforcement needs to get a warrant to view that information. This is not a difficult requirement, and yet law enforcement has been fighting hard against it for quite some time. Back in September, we noted that if Congress really wants to protect online privacy, beyond just the NSA stuff a good first start would be comprehensive ECPA reform.

To that end, someone recently created a "We The People" petition on the White House website asking for ECPA reform, with a key message: the government should get a warrant.

Americans are deeply concerned about NSA surveillance.

But the NSA’s not the only problem. An outdated law says the IRS and hundreds of other agencies can read our communications without a warrant.

That law, known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), was written over 25 years ago, before the services we use today even existed.

Right now, several bills in Congress would fix this by updating ECPA to require a warrant, but regulatory bodies are blocking reform in order to gain new powers of warrantless access.

We call on the Obama Administration to support ECPA reform and to reject any special rules that would force online service providers to disclose our email without a warrant.

While many are (perhaps reasonably) skeptical about the "We the People" petitions, they have been shown to be effective tools in getting the White House to take a position on important issues. And, while the DOJ is against this kind of ECPA reform, that's not to say that others in the White House couldn't be convinced to go the other way if they really believe there are enough people in support of such a program. So, check out the petition and let the White House know that it should fix the law so that if law enforcement wants your data, it needs to get a warrant.

Filed Under: ecpa, ecpa reform, email, petitions, warrants, we the people, white house

New 'We The People' Petition Demands UK-Style Porn Filtering

from the aspiring-to-be-the-nation's-conscience dept

M.G. in Greenbrae, CA must have been inspired by UK Prime Minister David Cameron's quest for a porn-free Britain. The Prime Minister's idealism has resulted in an insistence that all internet providers make access to porn "opt-in." Anti-porn filters are on by default. For the children.

As the Daily Dot points out, M.G.'s petition for online porn blockage is likely to be severely short on support. For one, the US government has been generally opposed to regulating the internet in this fashion. Not that there aren't plenty of little instances where legislators have imposed their will on internet communications, but by and large, a nationwide censoring of certain content is highly unlikely. For another, it's highly unlikely a majority of Americans would be supportive of a plan that makes them ask, in writing, for their internet porn tap to be turned back on.

That being said, it's a large nation with 300 million people, a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their morality on others. 100,000 signatures isn't completely out of the question. (Not that this will guarantee an administration response…)

But what is M.G. asking for, specifically? Here's the entire petition, which is mercifully brief.

Require Porn to be an "Opt In" feature with Internet Service Providers rather than a standard feature.

Hang on. Let's deal with the title first. I don't believe any ISP offers porn as a "standard feature." Yes, your internet access will provide you with a gateway to porn, but it's not on the feature list right after the breakdown of your underachieving (but overpriced!) connection speed. So, "porn" isn't a standard feature -- it's just something that's available on the internet. And it's far from the only thing.

OK. here's the entire petition.

In its current state, Internet porn seeks out users by email solicitations and massive amounts of free content throughout Internet browser searches. The average person, even children, can type in the word "cat" or "home" or "soup" and instantly be inundated with offensive and disturbing pornographic images. Parents and individuals have to go to great lengths to install Internet filters that often don't weed out all porn. We are asking for greater protection and responsibility from Internet Service providers and our country. We are asking that people who are interested in porn should have to seek it and choose it. They should have to "Opt In" for it by making arrangements to receive it with their Internet Service Provider. Everyone else should be free from it and assumed "Opt Out".

It would appear that M.G. has clicked through on some very questionable ads and linkbait and, worse, provided some sketchy forms with his or her email address. I have yet to receive a porn email solicitation -- or at least, I haven't received one in years. Anyone using a halfway competent email service will find these sorts of solicitations routed directly into their spam folder without ever being made aware of porn's apparent ubiquity. Perhaps what's sketchy here is M.G.'s email provider.

Following up this dubious assertion that "average people" (including children, which is what this is all about, innit?) can stumble across porn using words like "soup." And "home." You can, if so inclined, perform some iterations of everyday words that will allow you to "inadvertently" conjure up pornographic images, but for most people, using common words will return common search results, especially considering most search engines provide a "safe" search by default. Sure, you may find some edge leakage, but for the most part, searching for "soup" will net you soup-related images and links, not porn.

And then M.G. tanks the whole thing by complaining that parents have to make an effort to protect their average children from accidentally accessing soupporn, and notes that even these so-hard-to-use filters don't even filter out all of the bad stuff. But then, M.G. ignores this gaping (soup) hole in his/her plan and arrives at a pair of bad conclusions.

1. ISPs are supposed to "protect" users. What?
2. The government can make a perfect porn-proof filter, even if private companies cannot. Wat.

This sounds like someone who wants to look at porn, but believes he (or she) shouldn't and feels this "responsibility" should be entrusted to higher powers in order to protect he/she from his/her vices. Anyone can be almost completely free of porn (edge leaks excluded) with a minimum of effort. What M.G. wants is something that prevents users from accessing porn, even if they want to. Signees want the government to force ISPs to be their conscience, so to speak.

Don't believe that? Check out the list of signatures. One state is hugely over-represented.

Utah.

Now, I won't paint everyone in Utah with the same brush, but the state does have, shall we say, a prevailing religion. Now, like most religions, Mormons believe porn is "wrong." Thus, it would follow that they'd like to see it blocked. But why would they feel the government should get involved, what with church and state and all that?

Because Utah can't help itself.

A study by a Harvard Business School professor shows that Utah outpaces the more conservative states -- which all tend to purchase more Internet porn than other states…

Utah has the nation's highest online porn subscription rate per thousand home broadband users, at 5.47, while the nearby states of Idaho and Montana showed the lowest rates of 1.98 and 1.92, respectively, according to the study.

All speculation, of course, but this looks a whole lot like a bunch of people want assistance curbing their vices. This puts the onus (a word that only sounds dirty) on someone else to put them on the path to righteousness. More "evidence?" The next two states listed most frequently are Idaho (Utah Lite) and Texas (a state that elected Rick Perry, someone who still makes political hay complaining about the disappearance of prayer from public schools).

Now, the petition is gaining new signatures at a slow but pretty steady pace, making it a long shot to make 100,000. But not impossible. So, there's a slim chance the administration may have another petition to ignore (or talk around) by the end of November.

Conversely, if you're one of those people completely unaffected by this sort of moral panic, you may be finding your internet is woefully inefficient when it comes to delivering the porn-y goodness. Good news! Someone out there, also inspired by David Cameron's porn blocking, has compiled a bit of scripting to help you properly filter the internet [possibly NSFW - "denial" page contains hand-drawn penises] by swiftly separating the porn wheat from the overly-inhibited chaff (via Egg Miliband) by using a porn filter against itself.

The filter is a dns server which checks all queries against the OpenDNS FamilyShield DNS server. Any request that is denied by OpenDNS is then allowed by our DNS server, and any request allowed by OpenDNS is blocked by us.

The server itself is built using the python Twisted framework which handles both the DNS requests and acts as a simple web-server to host the denial page.

Here's a brief video explaining the HOW. [Again, NSFW - penis drawings]



Happy surfing!

Filed Under: petitions, porn filters, us