Wall Street Journal Explains Why SESTA Is A Terrible Idea And Is Unnecessary

from the didn't-see-that-coming dept

Here's a bit of a surprise. The Wall Street Journal's Editorial board has come out vehemently against SESTA. The reason this is surprising is that much of the push for SESTA has been a fairly obvious attack on internet companies, especially Google, by trying to undermine CDA 230. And the Wall Street Journal has spent years attacking Google at every opportunity.

But, this time, the editorial gets the story right -- highlighting that the effort is clearly being driven by anti-Google animus, even though it will create all sorts of other problems (problems that Google can mostly survive easily). However, the most important part of the editorial details why SESTA is not actually needed. Throughout the process, the backers of the bill always point to Backpage.com as the reason the bill is necessary. As we pointed out, when the bill was first released, nearly every quote from Senators backing it mentioned how it was necessary to take down Backpage.

But what none of them want to talk about is that we don't need this law to take down Backpage. As the WSJ report notes, Backpage is currently in court in Massachusetts where it seems likely that a judge will say that it's not protected by CDA 230, because of recent evidence showing that it was a more active participant in creating advertisements involving trafficking. Earlier ruling saying that Backpage was protected by CDA 230 did not have the evidence revealed later that Backpage actually was an active participant:

Yet neither the California nor federal judge was presented with the evidence in the Senate report that Backpage had edited ads to elude law enforcement. And in light of new evidence, a federal judge in Boston is considering allowing another case against Backpage to proceed.

At the very least, you have to wonder why Congress can't wait to see what happens in Boston.

Separately, it's widely been reported that the DOJ has begun a grand jury investigation into Backpage. And, despite what people will tell you, nothing in Section 230 prevents the Justice Department from going after federal crimes (including sex trafficking). The WSJ points this out as well:

Justice last year initiated a grand jury investigation into Backpage’s sex-trafficking, and courts may correctly decide the case in due course.

And that leaves out two other points that show that SESTA is not needed to take down Backpage. First, two years ago, Congress passed another law, the SAVE Act, which was also clearly targeted at Backpage, making it illegal to advertise sex trafficking. And, for reasons no one has explained, that law has never actually been used. Throughout the entire SESTA process, politicians have acted as if the SAVE Act never even happened. No one has discussed why we need another law on top of that one, or why the SAVE Act has not been used, even though it targets the same issue in a more targeted fashion.

And the biggest reason of all that we don't need SESTA to take on Backpage: Backpage has already shut down its adult ads section, due to the mounting pressure from politicians, lawsuits and law enforcement. The only thing SESTA adds to Backpage is even more ways to pile on after the fact. It's hard to see how that is necessary at all.

Either way, as the WSJ Editorial points out, SESTA seems totally unnecessary to deal with the problem that everyone is claiming it's meant to help... but it would cause lots and lots of other problems:

Most website operators are aware that people use their platforms for nefarious purposes, but ferreting out criminal activity isn’t always easy. While algorithms can help, human judgment is often necessary. Google plans to hire 10,000 employees to review YouTube videos for inappropriate content.

Revising Section 230 for sex-trafficking could open up a Pandora’s box. Small websites might create overly restrictive screens that filter out non-objectionable content such as ads to help sex-trafficking victims. This could also make it harder to ask other countries to provide internet companies legal immunity for user content.

The WSJ editorial actually underplays the so-called "moderator's dilemma" created by SESTA. As Eric Goldman has explained multiple times, under the wording of SESTA, most websites are encouraged to take one of two extreme positions, neither of which are helpful. One is that if they moderate, they will become overly cautious, quick to take down anything that might put them at risk, or for which they received a notice. So that could include (as the editorial notes) content designed to help sex-trafficking victims, or it might just be anything that mentions certain keywords. Or maybe it'll be anything that someone flags as "sex-trafficking content" just because they want it gone (as we see with tons and tons of DMCA notices).

The other option in the moderator's dilemma is not moderate at all. Since SESTA has a "knowledge" standard, the best way to avoid liability is not to have any knowledge of what people are doing -- and the best way to do that is not to moderate at all. What's quite incredible to me is that the backers and supporters of SESTA refuse to acknowledge that as CDA 230 is currently written it encourages moderation, and SESTA removes that encouragement. In other words, in an effort to get websites to stop allowing sex trafficking, they're actually encouraging more sites to look the other way deliberately.

One more point that the WSJ editorial board gets right: this is going to lead to a ton of lawsuits. And almost all of those will be misdirected: suing the company operating a website for actions of its users, rather than suing the users. Given that even the anti-internet Wall Street Journal understands the many problems of the bill, why is it that so many in Congress refuse to deal with it?

Filed Under: cda 230, fosta, sesta, sex trafficking, unintended consequences, wsj, wsj editorial board

Surprise: Pro-Surveillance WSJ Editorial Board Sides With Apple Over FBI

from the good-for-them dept

Well here's a surprise. The Wall Street Journal Editorial board, which is notoriously pro-surveillance, has come out with an editorial that argues that Apple is right on encryption and should resist the FBI's demands. I was not expecting that. This is the same WSJ that fought hard against amending the PATRIOT Act, which it insisted was necessary for surveillance. This is the same WSJ that published an editorial calling Ed Snowden a sociopath and arguing for less oversight of the NSA. Hell, it's the same WSJ that a little over a year ago published a piece by former publisher L. Gordon Crovitz, arguing that Apple is crazy for not installing backdoors in its iPhones.

But, for whatever reason, in this case, the WSJ editorial board has Apple's back. Not only that, but unlike many news reports, this piece actually seems to get the facts right and "debunks" many of the myths floating around -- many that are being pushed by the FBI and its supporters:

One confusion promoted by the FBI is that its order is merely a run-of-the-mill search warrant. This is false. The FBI is invoking the 1789 All Writs Act, an otherwise unremarkable law that grants judges the authority to enforce their orders as “necessary or appropriate.” The problem is that the All Writs Act is not a catch-all license for anything judges want to do. They can only exercise powers that Congress has granted them.

[....]

The other myth is that Apple is merely being asked to crack “one phone in the entire world,” as Marco Rubio puts it. This is also false. The Justice Department is beseeching Apple to provide software retrofits in at least a dozen public cases, and state and local prosecutors have stacks of backlogged iPhones they want unlocked too. In the New York case Apple won this week, prosecutors want Apple to unlock an iPhone even though the owner has pleaded guilty.

The opinion piece also recognizes just how crazy it would be if the DOJ wins and how far the precedent reaches:

Congress could instruct tech makers from now on to build “back doors” into their devices for law-enforcement use, for better or more likely worse. But this back-door debate has raged for two years. In the absence of congressional action, the courts can’t now appoint themselves as a super legislature to commandeer innocent third parties ex post facto.

What makes the FBI’s request so extraordinary is that the iPhone encryption and security methods were legal when they were created and still are. Apple has no more connection to the data on Farook’s phone than Ford does to a bank robber who uses an F-150 as a getaway vehicle.

This is all pretty accurate, which is a surprise, given how vehement the WSJ's editorial pages have been in the past in support of greater surveillance powers. On its own the WSJ piece is a nice summary of the issue. However, given the source, it's absolutely amazing. It suggests that, even among its usual allies, the DOJ's arguments in favor of backdooring encryption are not working very well.

Filed Under: doj, encryption, fbi, surveillance, wsj
Companies: apple

Wall Street Journal Scores Very Limited Win In Fight With DOJ Over Sealed Surveillance Documents

from the here's-a-modicum-of-government-accountability,-will-that-do? dept

The Wall Street Journal has obtained a nominal "win" in a Stingray-related legal action aimed at unsealing electronic surveillance orders, but the decision reads more like a loss. Jennifer Valentino-Devries reports:

In the order, made after a series of legal motions brought by the Journal’s publisher, Dow Jones & Co., U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the Southern District of Texas found that Dow Jones has a legal right to see government applications for surveillance, an idea the U.S. Justice Department had fought. But she agreed with the Justice Department that the requested documents shouldn't be disclosed yet because the 14 applications, dating from 2010 to 2013, all relate to continuing cases.

Yes, the WSJ has a right to see these files… but not until the DOJ decides these investigations are really and truly over -- a determination that has yet to be reached for files zooming past the half-decade mark.

The oral arguments delivered in June provide a little more insight into the DOJ's thought processes -- mainly that it should be the sole arbiter of document releases. The DOJ went past the constraints of its earlier argument -- that "open" investigations are not subject to "common law access" -- by claiming that documents used in the course of investigations, even closed ones, are not public records.

I think our position is that "ongoing" is perhaps the wrong word choice in order to determine where the common law right of access and the First Amendment right of access applies. What we would say is that there is significant authority for the government's argument that pre-indictment investigations and the warrants and the applications and the orders that are contained in the context of pre-indictment investigations are not subject to the common law right of access.

Dow Jones had asked the government to provide periodic status updates on these supposedly "open" investigations. The DOJ ignored these requests until prompted by the court, at which point it declared the files to be beyond the reach of the public. Here's the judge's recap of the events:

Dow Jones then filed earlier this year the motion for an updated status report requesting various things: the government to update the report regarding the status of the investigations, and then making public certain versions of the status report, and the sealed appendix. I believe then the government responded as I said, basically saying no updating is necessary here because there is no common presumption of access or First Amendment right.

The court didn't necessarily agree with this assertion but it did find the "balancing test" favored the government's interests. Dow Jones' legal counsel has asked for some additional transparency in docket filings, which would both provide the public with more information as well as assist the WSJ in determining the accuracy of the DOJ's assertions. (It could potentially aid in sussing out the form of surveillance being used as well.)

I would just make the one small addition that, you know, a lot of these applications have a bunch of different requests kind of all pulled together. We've got pen register, trap and trace, we've got D orders, we've got subpoenas, we've got statutory search warrants. And so I would think that an entry ought to reflect that, particularly as it relates to ongoing access issues.

You know, one -- some of these cases in which we've sought access are called In Re Sealed Application, some are called In Re Pen Register. The last one -- the most recent one is In Re Search Warrant. Well, if it's In Re Search Warrant, then the government's argument that these aren't search warrants looks a lot different. And so I think that the more specificity with regard to the basis of the application would help guide the Court as well as anyone who is seeking access to these to try and determine exactly what types of access might apply.

The DOJ, unsurprisingly, isn't a fan of this idea. The surprising part is that -- in arguing against Dow Jones' proposal -- it basically admitted it deploys multiple investigative tools and techniques using a single, apparently non-specific judicial authorization.

[F]or efficiency purposes, we've tended to bring a lot of these actions under one single document so that we don't have to keep coming back to the judge to get separate authorizations for different types of investigatory techniques in the same investigation, so we've just found it expedient to do that at one time.

There are your parallel construction and your Stingrays d/b/a pen registers, etc. And this slips by the court unquestioned.

As it stands now, the DOJ owes the Wall Street Journal a status update in two weeks… and that's about it. The paper may have won the right to unseal these documents, but apparently any future transparency will be left to the discretion of the government.

Filed Under: doj, foia, secrecy, stingray, surveillance, transparency, wall street journal, wsj
Companies: wall street journal

Smoking Gun: MPAA Emails Reveal Plan To Run Anti-Google Smear Campaign Via Today Show And WSJ

from the editorial-independence? dept

If you talk to the reporters who work for various big media companies, they insist that they have true editorial independence from the business side of their companies. They insist that the news coverage isn't designed to reflect the business interests of their owners. Of course, most people have always suspected this was bullshit -- and you could see evidence of this in things like the fact that the big TV networks refused to cover the SOPA protests. But -- until now -- there's never necessarily been a smoking gun with evidence of how such business interests influences the editorial side.

Earlier this month, we noted that the Hollywood studios were all resisting subpoenas from Google concerning their super cozy relationship with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, whose highly questionable "investigation" of Google appeared to actually be run by the MPAA and the studios themselves. The entire "investigation" seemed to clearly be an attempt to mislead the public into believing that it was somehow illegal for Google's search engine to find stuff that people didn't like online. A court has already ruled that Hood pretty clearly acted in bad faith to deprive Google of its First Amendment rights. As the case has continued, Google has sought much more detail on just how much of the investigation was run by the MPAA and the studios -- and Hollywood has vigorously resisted, claiming that they really had nothing to do with all of this, which was a laughable assertion.

However, in a filing on Thursday, Google revealed one of the few emails that they have been able to get access to so far, and it's stunning. It's an email between the MPAA and two of Jim Hood's top lawyers in the Mississippi AG's office, discussing the big plan to "hurt" Google. Beyond influencing other Attorneys General (using misleading fake "setups" of searches for "bad" material) and paying for fake anti-Google research, the lawyers from Hood's office flat out admit that they're expecting the MPAA and the major studios to have its media arms run a coordinated propaganda campaign of bogus anti-Google stories:

Media: We want to make sure that the media is at the NAAG meeting. We propose working with MPAA (Vans), Comcast, and NewsCorp (Bill Guidera) to see about working with a PR firm to create an attack on Google (and others who are resisting AG efforts to address online piracy). This PR firm can be funded through a nonprofit dedicated to IP issues. The "live buys" should be available for the media to see, followed by a segment the next day on the Today Show (David green can help with this). After the Today Show segment, you want to have a large investor of Google (George can help us determine that) come forward and say that Google needs to change its behavior/demand reform. Next, you want NewsCorp to develop and place an editorial in the WSJ emphasizing that Google's stock will lose value in the face of a sustained attack by AGs and noting some of the possible causes of action we have developed.

In other words, Jim Hood and the MPAA were out and out planning a coordinated media attack on Google using the editorial properties that supposedly claim to have editorial independence from the business side. Notice that with the WSJ piece, they flat out admit that the editorial will be based on the ideas that "we" have developed. If you work for the WSJ, your editorial independence just got shot down. Remember when CBS stepped in and interfered editorially with CNET for giving an award to Dish at the same time that CBS was in a legal fight over that same device? That resulted in reporters quitting.

This is worse.

This is an out and out case where the MPAA is admitting to a plan whereby it will use mainstream media properties to run bogus and misleading stories to "attack" Google, to further the MPAA's (believed, but misleadingly so) business interests. Is this really how the Today Show and the WSJ pick their editorial topics?

The "plan" goes even further after that, getting the MPAA to find (and almost certainly pay for) a lawyer to work with the "shareholder" previously identified to file legal filings against Google.

Following the media blitz, you want Bill Guidera and Rick Smotkin to work with the PR firm to identify a lawyer specializing in SEC matters to work with a stockholder. This lawyer should be able to the [sic] identify the appropriate regulatory filing to be made against Google.

As Google notes in its legal filing about this email, the "plan" states that if this effort fails, then the next step will be to file the subpoena (technically a CID or "civil investigatory demand") on Google, written by the MPAA but signed by Hood. As Google points out, this makes it pretty clear (1) that the MPAA, studios and Hood were working hand in hand in all of this and (2) that the subpoena had no legitimate purpose behind it, but rather was the final step in a coordinated media campaign to pressure Google to change the way its search engine works. It's pretty damning:

The document thus shows that the CID was not the foundation of a legitimate investigation—rather, it was a “final step” that would be issued only “if necessary” to further pressure Google to capitulate to the demands of AG Hood and his supporters.

The court has yet to rule on what else Hollywood needs to turn over, but just from what's coming out already, serious questions are being raised (1) about Jim Hood and his office and what they were up to as well as (2) the editorial independence of the media arms of the MPAA studios, including both NBCUniversal ("the Today Show") and NewsCorp. (the Wall Street Journal).

Filed Under: editorial independence, jim hood, media, mississippi, news, smear campaign, today show, wsj
Companies: comcast, google, mpaa, nbc universal, newscorp

WSJ Editorial Board So Clueless It Thinks That We're Now 'Rushing' Through A Surveillance Debate That's Been Going On For Two Years

from the a-rush? dept

As the Senate does its little song and dance today over surveillance reform, kudos to the Wall Street Journal's editorial board for producing what has to be one of the most ridiculous opinion pieces on this debate to date. It's called The Anti-Surveillance Rush, and its main argument is that the Senate shouldn't be "rushing" through this debate, and that it should instead simply do a clean extension of section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to allow for further debate. This is wrong and it's clueless. The WSJ editorial board can be nutty at times, but the level of cluelenssness displayed here really takes it to another level. Let's dig in.

The Senate is supposed to be the cooling saucer for political passions, but surveillance opponents want it to be a slip ’n slide instead: They want the Senate to accept wholesale revisions to counterterrorism programs with little if any debate before Congress skips town for vacation at the end of the week. We hope Senators show more respect for their institutional dignity.

Little if any debate? Are they serious? This round of debate started almost exactly two years ago when Ed Snowden revealed the extent of the phone metadata collection program under Section 215. There have been numerous hearings, tons of public debate, articles, books, movies and more discussing this very topic. To pretend that this is a last minute debate is simply ridiculous. As for the claim that these are "wholesale revisions," most everyone admits that the changes are really not that major, but rather a small step towards actually respecting the 4th Amendment, but without any real changes to overall capabilities.

The House jammed the Senate last week with a bill that passed 338-88 and remakes intelligence collection of metadata phone records. House leaders of both parties know that floor time is limited and that the legal authorities for metadata, roving wiretaps for people who move across the U.S. border, and several other programs lapse in June. So their ultimatum is either to wave through their bill or undermine national security.

Almost none of that is true. After all, there was a similar debate last year on a nearly identical bill, and there has been widespread discussion about this for months. The fact that Section 215 sunsets next week has been known since the last renewal, and all of Congress has had years to work on a new solution.

In fact, let's compare this to another piece from the WSJ editorial board two years ago, in which it celebrated Congress's decision to renew the FISA Amendments Act (which houses a similar surveillance program) with little to no debate at all. There, the WSJ was excited:

With scarcely any notice, much less controversy, they did at least preserve one of the country's most important post-9/11 antiterror tools.

[....]

In September the House passed the "clean" five-year extension that the White House desired, 301 to 118. The Senate reserved all of a single day of debate on the floor to coincide with the post-Christmas fiscal cliff chaos, and a broad bipartisan majority defeated multiple amendments from the civil liberties absolutists on the left and right such as Kentucky's Rand Paul.

The bill was then whistled through 73-23 and Mr. Obama signed it Sunday night with no public comment other than a one-sentence statement from the White House press secretary indicating that the bill had been signed. Meanwhile, the press corps was wigging out about Facebook's privacy settings.

So, as long as it's granting more power to spy on us, the WSJ is against public debate. When it's about limiting such spying, the WSJ whines about how there's not enough debate. Fascinating.

Back in 2012, the editorial board was so positive that the spying was overblown that it mocked those who had worried about these programs (this was just months before the Snowden revelations:

That would be wiretapping, which you may recall liberals portrayed during the George W. Bush era as an illegal and unconstitutional license for co-President Dick Cheney and his spymasters to bug the bedrooms of all U.S. citizens. But now Washington has renewed the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that were due to expire at the end of 2012, with no substantive changes and none of the pseudo-apoplexy that prevailed during the Bush Presidency.

Funny how it's tough to have "apoplexy" when all the details are kept secret. Of course, now we know how much spying was being done, Congress actually wants to fix it, and the WSJ can't have that.

Back to the present article. The House did not "jam" this to the Senate. This issue has been known about and discussed for months. And, basically no one -- not even within the intelligence community -- is arguing that this "undermines national security."

The better outcome would be a clean, temporary extension that allows the Senate sufficient time to consider the details and understand what it is doing.

Bullshit. This has been debated for two years. Everyone -- especially the Senate -- has known about the June 1st sunset since it was put in place during the last renewal. And they still waited until the last minute to do this song and dance. A temporary extension will mean that they'll wait until the last minute of that extension for a similar song and dance and the WSJ can publish another clueless editorial saying we need more time for debate again.

Who do they think they're fooling?

The USA Freedom Act, which the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees negotiated with the White House, is a panicky political response to the Edward Snowden-inspired frenzy over surveillance

The Snowden leak on this program happened almost exactly two years ago. The USA Freedom Act has been discussed and debated for well over a year in various formats. How is this a "panicky political response"?

Supposedly government spooks are bugging your bedroom and reading your emails—though they aren’t—and politicians want to be able to say they did something about it.

Strawman alert. No one is actually claiming that. They're claiming -- truthfully -- that the NSA is engaged in bulk collection of phone records, a program that two separate review boards by the President found illegal and unconstitutional and the important Second Circuit appeals court found illegal last week as well. Does the WSJ editorial board believe its readers are too stupid to know this?

Yet bulk call log searches are an important analytic tool that aid terror investigations and prevent attacks.

This is simply not true. As has been pointed out multiple times, the intelligence community could not provide a single example where that was the case. The only example presented was how it was used to track down a cab driver in American who sent some money to a questionable group in Somalia. That's it. There is no evidence that it was important in any terror investigations or in preventing a single attack.

From there, the WSJ whines that since the USA Freedom Act leaves data collection to the telcos, all hell is going to break loose:

In the best scenario, this untested leap to replace a framework that has been useful in the 14 years since 9/11 will make intelligence more time-consuming and less efficient. Speed and agility matter in uncovering plots or safe houses. And how multiple databases that are likely to be less secure than the NSA’s will protect privacy is anyone’s guess.

The "less secure" line is a bullshit red herring -- because the telcos already keep this data, so nothing changes there. It's just that the data is not also being held by the NSA. Second, the idea that this new process is somehow more time-consuming and less efficient doesn't have any actual support. Telcos have already shown to be all too willing to work closely with intelligence agencies to give them near real-time access when necessary. That's not suddenly going to go away.

But the House bill also declines to define how long telecoms must retain metadata. A year, a month? Who knows? If Washington’s relationship with Silicon Valley grows more adversarial, service providers may conclude it is in their commercial interests to erase these records more or less in real time. In that case the NSA won’t be able to look for a needle because there won’t be a haystack.

First, this seems to confuse "telcos" with "Silicon Valley" when they're very different things. Second, this conflates a bunch of different issues and suggests near total ignorance on the part of whoever wrote this editorial. Many of the records that the NSA wants are the kinds of business records that these companies need to hold onto for some period of time, so the fear of "no logs" is kind of meaningless. But, even if it was true that companies started to flush their logs, so what? There is no requirement that all of our activities be tracked. Law enforcement made due in the past when not everyone was automatically tracked all the time. They can do so again.

Among the GOP presidential field, Marco Rubio has come out in favor of metadata, while Chris Christie gave a thoughtful speech Monday on intelligence and foreign affairs in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Thoughtful? The one where he says all civil liberties fears were "baloney" coming from "extremists"? Yeah, that wasn't thoughtful. That was bombastic bullshit from a surveillance state apologist. Remember, this program was just declared illegal (with a strong hint of not being Constitutional) by the 2nd Circuit appeals court. And the WSJ is defending it.

A rush to the exits is no way to conduct U.S. intelligence, or the affairs of Congress. If a majority of Senators really do want to disarm in the terror war, then they should defend their positions, listen to the other side, and be accountable for the results. Cramming such a major policy into law before a holiday weekend is a failure to treat national security with the seriousness it deserves.

No one is disarming anyone. They're just making sure that the NSA can't unconstitutionally scoop up every bit of metadata under what is an illegal general warrant. And there is no rush. Again, this debate has been two years in the making (or longer if people had actually listened to Senator Wyden). And if this debate deserves seriousness, it should at least start with the WSJ not totally misrepresenting the whole thing.

Filed Under: editorial, patriot act, section 215, senate, surveillance, usa freedom act, wsj
Companies: wall street journal

NSA Tries Hand At Irony, Accuses WSJ Of Misleading Public

from the well,-look-at-that dept

Oh, that wacky NSA. Late on Tuesday, the WSJ revealed some new info about the NSA. A lot of it had actually been covered elsewhere before, but they got some confirmations, and some new tidbits of information, such as spying on all emails in Salt Lake City during the Olympics, and the fact that the massive violations which led to the FISC ruling about how the NSA violated the 4th Amendment went on for far longer than most people had expected.

Of course, some more details of that FISC ruling were revealed late on Wednesday. Right before the documents were released, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, apparently held an "on background" (i.e., not for quotations) press call, which, according to various reports, involved a refusal to answer any questions about the WSJ article, and an insistence that all questions had to be about the documents ODNI was declassifying, even though none of them had yet been released.

However, while everyone was focusing on those documents (which were released moments later), the NSA did push out a laughable "response" to the WSJ article, in which they don't deny any of the major claims -- such as the spying on every email during the Olympics -- but rather take issue with the opening ("the lede," as they say) of the WSJ article, which talked about how the NSA "has the capacity to reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet traffic." Admittedly, that 75% number was in the headline of the WSJ piece, and was what many focused on. We didn't put as much emphasis on it, because having the capability to see that much is different than actually doing so and the full article did make clear that the NSA doesn't actually sift through that much (except, you know, during the Olympics).

So, the NSA's response mostly focuses on how unfair that 75% number is:

The reports leave readers with the impression that NSA is sifting through as much as 75% of the United States' online communications, which is simply not true.

Well... there's truth and then there's "truth." And the article does make it pretty clear that the NSA isn't sifting through all of that, but rather the telcos who were "compelled" to assist the NSA, who then pass along chunks of content that trigger certain interest.

But, really, this is the NSA we're talking about. The very same NSA who has basically made sure that at nearly every public appearance it utters claims that are either outright false -- sorry, "least untruthful," -- or, more accurately uses exceptionally carefully worded phrases to say something that might technically be true, while giving the public the impression of something entirely different. Sometimes this involves redefining words like "relevant" and "target." Sometimes this means using weasel phrases like "under this program" (leaving out the obligatory "but not under others.") The NSA spends an awful lot of time deliberately saying things designed to "leave the public with the impression" of something that is untrue.

So I don't see how it gets to complain if the WSJ may have done the same thing with its headline and opening. At least with the WSJ, if you read the article, you get much more of the full picture. When the NSA offers its misleading bullshit, the full story is often kept shrouded in secrecy.

Filed Under: james clapper, misleading the public, nsa, nsa surveillance, wsj

WSJ The Latest Mainstream Press To Run Anti-SOPA/PIPA Opinion Piece

from the this-isn't-what-hollywood-expected dept

Add the Wall Street Journal to the list of mainstream publications writing about just how damaging SOPA and PIPA would be. Former WSJ publisher, and now columnist, L. Gordon Crovitz, has written an opinion piece trashing the bills as being nothing more than Hollywood trying to "strangle" the internet.

These bills would go so far to protect copyright that they would strangle the Internet with regulation. The Web would be transformed from a permissive technology where innovation is welcome to one where websites are shut down first, questions asked later.

Crovitz summarizes the situation by highlighting how frequently the entertainment industry has cried wolf in the past:

Hollywood is playing to stereotype, hoping to suppress technology as it did in 1982, when the late industry lobbyist Jack Valenti said the invention of the VCR was to the "American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler was to the woman home alone." Hollywood has since also fought DVD players, DVRs and MP3 players.

Technology makes many things possible, good and bad. One thing that seems a mission impossible is having laws keep up with the pace of change on the Internet. Hollywood's effort to create a different story line for the future of the Web is a horror show. Lawmakers should walk out.

While not the official position of the WSJ, it's good to see more mainstream pieces calling out the problems with SOPA and PIPA. It's really kind of amazing. The supporters of these bills really seemed to think they'd be approved without any real pushback. They're still trying to make such claims in our comments. The reality is that there's a growing public realization that a few big businesses who don't want to adapt are trying to saddle the innovation industry with regulations to slow down the pace of innovation. That goes against what most people want. Sooner or later, Congress is going to realize that you can't just vote for the bills that get the most lobbying dollars... if you won't be able to get the votes of your constituents when election season rolls around.

Filed Under: l. gordon crovitz, pipa, protect ip, sopa, wsj

WSJ Launches Wikileaks Competitor... But Says It Can Reveal Your Info To Law Enforcement

from the that's-not-good dept

With all the focus on Wikileaks recently, and the question of whether it is or is not "press" (not that it actually matters), one point that I've heard more than a few people raise is: why didn't any of the big news organizations create Wikileaks? It seems like a no-brainer, but they didn't. Of course, with the attacks on Wikileaks itself (and it is an organization with flaws, clearly), we've seen a number of alternative platforms for leaking information spring up, and now The Wall Street Journal has entered the game with a platform it's calling SafeHouse.

Now, it's great that the Wall Street Journal has decided to get into the game, and one would hope that other newspapers will set up similar secure and protected dropboxes for information. But... there are some serious problems with the WSJ's implementation. First of all, the terms of service basically say that you shouldn't expect them to protect your anonymity at all:

"Except when we have a separately negotiated confidentiality agreement� we reserve the right to disclose any information about you to law enforcement authorities or to a requesting third party, without notice, in order to comply with any applicable laws and/or requests under legal process, to operate our systems properly, to protect the property or rights of Dow Jones or any affiliated companies, and to safeguard the interests of others."

In other words, if you leak to the WSJ and the government wants to know who you are, the WSJ is going to tell the government. Apparently, the WSJ doesn't think too highly of the concept of journalistic shields for sources.

Separately, researchers, including Jacob Appelbaum are pointing to numerous security flaws in Safehouse's implementation that could also reveal someone's identity, despite promises of anonymity.

Hopefully, the WSJ is willing to admit that it hadn't necessarily thought through all the implications, and will fix these problems quickly.

Filed Under: competitor, safehouse, wikileaks, wsj

Will Murdoch Kill The One Smart Part Of The WSJ's Paywall?

from the sounds-like-it dept

With Rupert Murdoch's recent talk about removing his sites from Google, some said that if you understood his comments in context, he was really talking more about copying the WSJ's "leaky" paywall strategy -- which lets users see full articles if they visit via Google. Of course, in that very interview, he appeared to not know how that leaky paywall works, claiming that it took people to a landing page with a couple of paragraphs rather than the full story. That's not true. It does that if you're linked from most other sites. But people who come via Google (or, I believe, Digg) get the full story automatically. The idea, from SEO experts, was to actually help Google drive more traffic.

Of course, that was before Murdoch suddenly decided that all this free promotion was "parasiting" his works (despite the fact that many of his own properties do the same thing. However, it looks like News Corp. may actually be considering ending the "leaky" part of its paywall, with the company's COO, Chase Carey, saying that the idea makes no sense:

"I don't think it makes sense... We don't want people going though a backdoor, or other channels..."

And now we learn how little the folks at News Corp. seem to understand the internet and the fundamental way that people want to interact with news these days. It's not just about sitting and receiving the end product. It's about being a part of the process -- and that includes sharing and spreading the news -- for free -- to others. Mark Cuban thinks (incorrectly, in my opinion) that Murdoch understands the value of people passing around links, which is why he says he wants to opt-out of Google (because search traffic isn't as valuable as traffic from Twitter or Facebook). But locking up all that content actually harms that viral-link value. People aren't going to share or spread a link if they know others can't use it. For years, for example, we've used those "backdoors" (i.e., Google News) which Carey bemoans to read stories in the WSJ that we post here. If they stop allowing that, then I won't read the WSJ any more, and the community of readers and commenters here will never hear from the WSJ again. It's difficult to see how that's a better option.

Amusingly, the first time that we ever wrote about this growing concept that people today want to "spread the news" and "share the news" more than they just want to receive the news was about five years ago -- before the WSJ had put up its leaky paywall. The point of that post was to note just how far the WSJ had fallen out of the conversation on news media -- since no one could send around a link to discuss things. Putting those "backdoors" into the paywall, at the very least, brought the WSJ somewhat back into the conversation. Blocking it now would make the Journal irrelevant again. It's difficult to see how that's a smart strategy at all.

Filed Under: backdoors, chase carey, paywalls, rupert murdoch, share the news, spread the news, wsj
Companies: news corp.

But Do We Still Need Gov't Intervention To Open Mobile Networks?

from the or-does-competition-work? dept

A month and a half ago, Walt Mossberg wrote up an article saying that government intervention was needed to get US mobile phone operators to open up their networks. I took issue with that notion, noting that it wasn't as simple as Mossberg made out, and there wasn't enough evidence that government intervention was needed or that it would help. In fact, we pointed out that competitive pressures were already pushing mobile operators, with the exception of Verizon Wireless, away from the walled garden model -- and while they hadn't adopted truly open models, it was likely to come with time and increased competition. And, in fact, as we noted last week, Verizon Wireless has responded to these competitive pressures by promising to open up (the reality of that promise remains to be seen).

With that in mind, I was a little disappointed to read Mossberg's take on Verizon Wireless' move. Mossberg cautiously commends Verizon Wireless, withholding full judgment until all the details are out -- which makes complete sense, and is a position I agree with. However, Mossberg fails to note that this (and other such moves) have all happened due to competitive pressures, rather than government fiat, and doesn't retract his call for government intervention. While it absolutely is true that the mobile operators remain too closed these days (even once Verizon Wireless details its plans), what we're seeing is how market pressures tend to drive markets toward openness in much more natural ways than by involving government intervention. The second the government got involved, lobbyists from the mobile operators would make sure that huge loopholes were slipped in that would likely make things worse for consumers, not better. Like Mossberg and many others, I'm frustrated and annoyed by the limitations put on mobile phone systems by operators, but I'm confident that pressure from within the industry and from outside of it (see the recent work of Apple and Google for a start) will eventually force the operators to open up -- and it won't take long for them to realize that the end result is better for everyone, including the operators themselves.

Filed Under: mobile phones, net neutrality, walt mossberg, wsj
Companies: verizon wireless