Chinese Government Fines Local Car Dealerships For Surveilling While Not Being The Government

from the look,-this-is-something-only-we-can-do dept

The Eleventh Commandment (paraphrased from the original Homer Simpson):

THOU SHALT NOT HORN IN ON THY [GOVERNMENT'S] RACKET

Lots of nations are surveillance states. Very few engage in the depth and breadth of surveillance China does. Whatever any other country does, China has already done, redone, and modded to abstraction. The government not only loves deploying facial recognition tech, but is working on adding things like racial recognition to keep an eye on pesky foreigners and unwanted minorities.

It's one thing if the government does it. It's apparently quite another if private companies try to get in on the Big Brothering.

Many Chinese provinces and cities have explicitly legislated against companies collecting facial recognition information from late last year to early this year, and it appears that a subsidiary of XPeng Motors has ignored those regulations.

An XPeng sales company in Shanghai was recently fined RMB 100,000 ($15,710) by local market regulators for illegally collecting facial recognition information, according to an administrative penalty decision included by data provider Tianyancha.

The irony of forbidding the use of private facial recognition tech is probably lost on the Chinese government. I mean, it doesn't seem to appreciate any form of humor, even grimdark irony like fining a private company for stepping on its surveillance turf.

It may be unfair to single out China for this sort of thing. It happens everywhere. Countries where facial recognition tech has been deployed by governments also have laws in place that forbid the same sort of collection by private companies. In some US states, government use is legal but private use violates local laws. In most of the US, though, it's still the tech Wild West, with both governments and private entities subject to few guidelines or regulation.

But you can't applaud the Chinese government for taking a tough stance on surveillance tech use by private entities. It clearly finds nothing wrong with its pervasive, ever-expanding surveillance state, which makes its regulation of private use extremely hypocritical. And the fact that it works closely with local companies to expand its surveillance opportunities makes its double-standard especially pronounced.

Xpeng, for its part, claims this was all a mistake. It claims a subsidiary purchased the cameras from a third party and deployed them without verifying they complied with local laws. But that doesn't explain how this oversight went unnoticed for nearly six months, resulting in the collection of nearly 450,000 facial images.

But this fact is undeniable: if these cameras had been operated by the government and trained on people doing nothing more than buying cars, it all would have been above-board. The Chinese government can't possibly justify all the surveillance it engages in. It does it because it can. But the far more innocuous collection of information to analyze customer demographics is apparently where the Chinese government draws the line.

Filed Under: china, facial recognition, government, private companies, surveillance

Fair Use At Risk When Private Companies Get To Make The Decision For Us

from the fair-use-in-the-age-of-the-cloud dept

We talk a lot about how fair use is under attack these days, and I've discussed in the past my concerns about freedom of expression when we always have a company (or a few companies) standing in the middle of our decisions on whether or not we can speak. NiemanLabs has a great example of where this becomes problematic in a story about how SoundCloud will not even consider fair use in making decisions about whether or not to take down content, and how that's harming journalism:

Here’s a wakeup call to audio creators everywhere: SoundCloud does not recognize your fair use rights under U.S. copyright law. If your content contains any copyrighted material to which you haven’t secured the rights — even if you have a valid fair use claim — SoundCloud may take it down at any time.

That’s exactly what happened to a former student of mine, and his experience should serve as a warning to the growing number of news organizations (including several that I work with) that use SoundCloud to host podcasts and other audio content.

Journalism as we know it could not exist without fair use, so it’s possible SoundCloud may not be a viable tool for the field. Imagine trying to do a story about the “Blurred Lines” lawsuit without playing copyrighted clips from the songs involved.

The article goes on to discuss an interesting journalism project that used a very brief clip of copyrighted music in a way that almost certainly was fair use. SoundCloud took it down. When pressed on this, the company eventually admitted that it refuses to take fair use into account, in part because fair use is only in the US:

We understand that US copyright law includes a doctrine of fair use. However, these rules are limited, difficult to apply outside of a court of law, and in any event do not necessarily apply outside of the United States. As SoundCloud is a global platform, we expect all of our creators to respect copyright law, and the rights of copyright owners, on a global basis.

As the writer of the article, Adam Ragusea, points out, this should be a major concern for any journalists using Soundcloud. And that includes us at Techdirt -- as we use SoundCloud to host our podcast. But the fact that the company might not even allow us to make use of our fair use rights -- the same rights that the Supreme Court has said are essential for protecting the First Amendment -- is a major concern, and one that has me thinking we should be looking for other platforms.

But, even then, we would most likely face the exact same situation. Any other platform will be under pressure from any sort of DMCA notice system as well. And while they could stand up for their users, many don't want to take on the liability risk. And thus, we run a serious risk of losing a key component of free expression.

And, honestly, the problem is only partially the companies like SoundCloud. The entire legal system is designed to make this sort of response the only real choice they have. With fair use being only truly available in a few countries, it's difficult to operate a global platform. This is why if we're going to put copyright into international trade agreements fair use needs to be included, otherwise we risk losing it back here in the US as well. But when you combine that situation with copyright law in which statutory damages are insane, and where the DMCA requires you to shoot first and ask questions later, it is way too easy for companies like SoundCloud to just throw up their hands and say this isn't worth dealing with.

Even companies that do try to take fair use into account -- like YouTube -- all too frequently fail to do a good job of considering fair use, leading to perfectly legitimate content disappearing, with no real recourse for the creators. This is why, beyond fair use, it seems like we need much stronger safe harbors for intermediaries like SoundCloud. It works with Section 230 of the CDA, in which the rule is pretty ironclad: the service provider should never be seen as legally liable for the content its users create. For fair use to thrive, copyright law requires a similarly ironclad safe harbor. This doesn't -- as some will inevitably claim -- mean that there is no recourse over infringement. There absolutely is. The copyright holder still has every right to target the actual end user, and that person can then stand up for their own fair use rights, which is only proper.

But under the current system, end users don't even have the chance to stand up for their own fair use/free speech rights, because third-party platforms like SoundCloud get to make the final decision for them -- and with all of the liability incentives stacked against them, free speech doesn't have a chance.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, freedom of expression, journalism, private companies, safe harbors, third parties
Companies: soundcloud, youtube

Why Are UK Police Allowing Entertainment Industry Employees To Arrest And Interrogate People With Their Help?

from the incredible dept

We've discussed in the past the oddity of how a UK anti-piracy group, FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft), which is a private organization set up and controlled by large entertainment industry players, being deeply involved in criminal investigations and cases against individuals. In the case against Surfthechannel, FACT was directly involved in seizing and keeping the computers involved and then in paying the police for the prosecution. Even if you can reasonably argue that they should be involved in helping with providing information for the investigation, you'd think most people would agree that that's where the industry's involvement should end. They shouldn't be present on raids. They shouldn't get to touch or keep the evidence. And they certainly shouldn't be financing and pressing the criminal case.

But, apparently, the industry's control over law enforcement in the UK continues. TorrentFreak reports on how FACT teamed up with local police to send five police cars to house to arrest a guy and seize his electronic equipment with FACT employees, because FACT claimed the guy had filmed a movie and uploaded it. Apparently, the person they were actually looking for no longer lived at the address, but it didn't stop police from taking the guy to the police station where he was interrogated mainly by FACT employees with the police just sitting back and taking notes.

“At the police station I was interviewed by the police together with FACT (Federation Against Copyright and Theft). During questioning they asked me about Fast and Furious 6, where I obtained a copy from and if I was the one who went and recorded it at the cinema.”

Despite police involvement, as in previous cases it appears they were only present in order to gain access to the victim’s property, sit on the sidelines taking notes, and for their powers when it comes to presenting crimes for prosecution.

“I was detained for 3 hrs 12 minutes, out of that I was questioned for approximately 40 minutes. One police officer and two FACT officers conducted the interview. The police officer sat back and let FACT do all the questioning, so FACT were running the show,” the man reports.

As for what charges were used to arrest the guy? The vaguely ridiculous: "Miscellaneous Offense." When the guy questioned the police, they said they "could not find the relevant charge." Wow.

In the meantime, the guy has been released on bail and told that he's not allowed to enter any movie theater in England or Wales "while the investigation is being carried out."

No matter which side of the debate you're on, I'd hope you can recognize how utterly insane it is to allow private parties to effectively run a criminal investigation like this.

Filed Under: entertainment industry, fact, law enforcement, private companies, uk
Companies: fact

New Bill Seeks To Let DHS Agents Coordinate More With Private Companies In Seizing Property (Like Domains)

from the this-again dept

The federal government seems to have a real blindness for the fact that companies given government-granted monopoly privileges in the form of trademarks, copyrights and patents might seek to abuse those rights beyond what is reasonably allowed. Instead, they seem to assume that private companies will always properly limit any efforts to use those laws against true violators. Of course, we know that's not true, and that such monopoly holders regularly abuse the laws to block or shut down competitive activity or activity that the IP holder just doesn't like. And yet, the government continues to ignore that this happens. Last year, the White House put forth a bunch of suggested changes to IP law, some of which showed up in SOPA.

One of the ones that didn't show up in SOPA has now made its way into a new legislative proposal, H.R. 4216: Foreign Counterfeit Prevention Act, introduced by Reps. Ted Poe and Steve Chabot. The text of the bill seems simple enough. It changes 18 USC 1905, which currently forbids federal officials from revealing to private parties' information that they come across during investigations. The new bill seeks to make an exception to that: allowing Homeland Security/Customs & Border Patrol agents to share pre-seizure info or products with trademark and copyright holders.

Now, on its face, this might make sense. It's a way for CBP officials to ask copyright and trademark holders if their rights are being abused by potentially infringing products. But, as we noted when the White House first asked for this law, this hasn't always worked out so well in the past, in part because copyright and trademark holders are often not particularly truthful when asked if they infringe -- and they rarely, if ever, give any thought to fair use or other legitimate uses of their copyrights and trademarks. In fact, one of the reasons why the federal government screwed up so badly in seizing Dajaz1 was because it relied on bad claims by the RIAA, who insisted that works that were not infringing were infringing. Organizations like the RIAA have little incentive to get these things right. And this bill encourages greater coordination with those private parties?

The simple fact is that infringement is determined not by the copyright or trademark holder, but through a court process and adversarial hearing. Having Homeland Security sharing more info with private companies seems like a situation that is ripe for abuse. We've already seen how Homeland Security sometimes appears to act as the the private police force of certain private companies. Are we sure that we really want to create a situation that encourages more such activities?

Filed Under: coordination, customs, dhs, private companies, seizures