The Death of Section 230 Has Been Greatly Exaggerated
Whether or not Section 230's protections will hold up remains to be seen. This case has been filed in the Ninth Circuit, which just recently handed down a decision opening up service providers to new levels of liability if they fail to warn users about other, possibly more dangerous users.
No, it didn't. Complaining that Section 230 was undermined is like complaining that your "Get Out of Jail Free Card" was undermined because you still had to pay rent for landing on Boardwalk. The card isn't "undermined"; you tried to use it for the wrong thing. Next time you land in jail, the card still will work fine.
To quote Mike: "As we've explained many times, Section 230 says that online services cannot be held liable for actions of their users (and also, importantly, that if those platforms do decide to moderate content in any way, that doesn't impact their protections from liability)." In the Ninth Circuit case to which Tim refers, the plaintiff didn't allege that the website should be liable for what was posted. Rather, the plaintiff alleged that the website should be liable under California law for failing to warn users that the website knew that non-users were impersonating legitimate users. The website's Section 230 card didn't work, not because it was "undermined", but because they didn't land on that space on the board.
Here, the plaintiff is seeking to hold the websites accountable for postings by users. My prediction: the defendants are in the Section 230 square on the board, they will play their Section 230 card, and they will win. Case dismissed.
P.S. As for the other case, I predict that it will get tossed on a new motion to dismiss because of the absence of the "special relationship" necessary to invoke the duty to warn. Analogy: yes, they landed on Boardwalk, but the plaintiff doesn't own Boardwalk. So, no liability. Case dismissed.
Hi there, Web Sheriff! In between money-laundering, abusing human rights, and generally breaking roughly all the laws over here at Techdirt, we had just enough time to notice you have a strange view on how copyright law works!
This is the first time I've seen a misplaced comma result in an admission of criminal activity. I believe Tim should have put the comma before "over here at TechDirt", not after.
More seriously, this type of thing won't eliminate the need for real-world racing experience to qualify for a license, but it likely will have a nice weeding-out effect for potential drivers.
NISTIR 7628 is a set of guidelines for implementing Smart Grid security. The information and requirements within NISTIR 7628 provide valuable direction for developing effective cyber security strategies.
Interesting that Landis+Gyr notes the value of NISTIR 7628, which includes the following in Section 5.3.5, "General Invasion of Privacy Concerns with Smart Grid Data":
The concern exists that the prevalence of granular energy data could lead to actions on the part of law enforcement —possibly unlawful in themselves—and lead to an invasion of privacy, such as remote surveillance or inference of individual behavior within dwellings, that could be potentially harmful to the dwelling’s residents. Law enforcement agencies have already used monthly electricity consumption data in criminal investigations. For example, in Kyllo v. United States, the government relied on monthly electrical utility records to develop its case against a suspected marijuana grower. Government agents issued a subpoena to the suspect’s utility to obtain energy usage records and then used a utility-prepared “guide for estimating appropriate power usage relative to square footage, type of heating and accessories, and the number of people who occupy the residence” to show that the suspect’s power usage was “excessive” and thus “consistent with” a marijuana-growing operation.
As Smart Grid technologies collect more detailed data about households, one concern identified by the privacy group as well as expressed by multiple published comments is that law enforcement officials may become more interested in accessing that data for investigations or to develop cases. For instance, agencies may want to establish or confirm presence at an address at a certain critical time or even establish certain activities within the home —information that may be readily gleaned from Smart Grid data.
However, the Supreme Court in Kyllo clearly reaffirmed the heightened Fourth Amendment privacy interest in the home and noted this interest is not outweighed by technology that allows government agents to “see” into the suspect’s home without actually entering the premises. The Court stated, “We think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area, constitutes a search” and is “presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.” Second, unlike the traditional energy grid, the Smart Grid may be viewed as carrying private and/or confidential electronic communications between utilities and end-users, possibly between utilities and third parties, and between end-users and third parties. Current law both protects private electronic communications and permits government access to real-time and stored communications, as well as communications transactional records, using a variety of legal processes. Moreover, under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), telecommunications carriers and equipment manufacturers are required to design their systems to enable lawful access to communications. The granular Smart Grid data may also have parallels to call detail records collected by telecommunications providers. It is unclear if laws that regulate government access to communications will also apply to the Smart Grid.
In short, the innovative technologies of the Smart Grid pose new legal issues for privacy of the home, as well as any type of property location that has traditionally received strong Fourth Amendment protection. As Justice Scalia wrote in Kyllo: “The question we confront today is what limits there are upon this power of technology to shrink the realm of guaranteed privacy.”
After all, there is a real cost to defending fair use. It takes time, money, lawyers, and thanks to the outrageous penalties associated with copyright infringement, comes with a substantial risk.
Isn't it ironic that to cover their own tails, they have to claim that nothing really was at risk? Kinda defeats the claim that he was putting anything at risk in the first place.
On the post: Twitter, Facebook & Google Sued For 'Material Support For Terrorism' Over Paris Attacks
The Death of Section 230 Has Been Greatly Exaggerated
To quote Mike: "As we've explained many times, Section 230 says that online services cannot be held liable for actions of their users (and also, importantly, that if those platforms do decide to moderate content in any way, that doesn't impact their protections from liability)." In the Ninth Circuit case to which Tim refers, the plaintiff didn't allege that the website should be liable for what was posted. Rather, the plaintiff alleged that the website should be liable under California law for failing to warn users that the website knew that non-users were impersonating legitimate users. The website's Section 230 card didn't work, not because it was "undermined", but because they didn't land on that space on the board.
Here, the plaintiff is seeking to hold the websites accountable for postings by users. My prediction: the defendants are in the Section 230 square on the board, they will play their Section 230 card, and they will win. Case dismissed.
P.S. As for the other case, I predict that it will get tossed on a new motion to dismiss because of the absence of the "special relationship" necessary to invoke the duty to warn. Analogy: yes, they landed on Boardwalk, but the plaintiff doesn't own Boardwalk. So, no liability. Case dismissed.
On the post: Axl Rose DMCAs Unflattering Photo For Which He Doesn't Hold The Copyright
Re: Watch Out for the Grammar Police
On the post: Axl Rose DMCAs Unflattering Photo For Which He Doesn't Hold The Copyright
Watch Out for the Grammar Police
On the post: Company Sues Customer For $1 Million, Claiming Yelp Review Was 'Defamatory,' Violated Non-Disparagement Clause
Re: Who does Precious Pets' owner think he/she is?
On the post: Author Sues Publisher For Portraying eBook Licenses As 'Sales' To Pay Out Fewer Royalties
Re: Re: Re: Having your cake and eating it too
On the post: Benchmark: Video Games Now Realistic Enough For Racing Games To Factor Into Racing Certs
Hey Now
On the post: Court Says MuckRock Must Take Down Smart Grid Company's Documents Because Judge Has 'No Time' To Review Case Properly
How big is the bag?
On the post: President Obama Threw A Cyberwar.... And No One Showed Up
U.S. ... E.?
On the post: YouTube Personality Files Bogus Copyright Infringement Lawsuit To Shut Up Two Critics
Say It Again, with Effect
On the post: 'Smart Grid' Company Demands MuckRock Turn Over Info On Anyone Who Might Have Seen Public Records Docs Involving It
Landis+Gyr and ... Scalia?
Interesting that Landis+Gyr notes the value of NISTIR 7628, which includes the following in Section 5.3.5, "General Invasion of Privacy Concerns with Smart Grid Data":(footnotes omitted).
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Questionable Copyright Claim Forces Indie Musician To Destroy All Physical Copies Of New Album
Re: Owned
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Questionable Copyright Claim Forces Indie Musician To Destroy All Physical Copies Of New Album
Just a Thought
Next time, maybe just listen to that policeman.
On the post: How Java's Inherent Verboseness May Mess Up Fair Use For APIs
A First Draft
public static void main(String[] args){
int circuit = 1;
boolean copyrightableAPI = true;
while ( circuit < 12 && copyrightableAPI ) {
if ( circuit == 9 ) { System.out.println( "Hello?" ) }
else { if ( copyrightableAPI )
{ copyrightableAPI = Courts.file.lawsuit( Courts.find.districtcourt( circuit ) );
if ( copyrightableAPI )
{ Courts.file.appeal( circuit );
circuit++; }
else { System.out.println( "Hello world!" ) }
}}}
On the post: Analyst Uses NYPD's Open Data To Uncover Millions Of Dollars Of Bogus Parking Tickets
Easy Fix
On the post: Stakes Are High In Oracle v. Google, But The Public Has Already Lost Big
Oh, I see
On the post: US Court System Just Another Extension Of The Government's Ongoing Opacity Project
// Sealed //
On the post: 'The Revolution Will Be Digitized': Panama Papers Leaker Speaks Out
All in a Name
On the post: Security Analyst Arrested For Disclosing Security Flaw In Florida County's Election Systems
Run for Cover
On the post: Petition Calls For James Comey To Hang Up His Anti-Encryption Hat And Resign As Head Of The FBI
Just Sign Right Here
On the post: Reddit's Technology Subreddit Ponders Banning Wired & Forbes For Blocking Adblock Users
About That Name
Next >>