attacks – Techdirt (original) (raw)

How The DMCA Is Being Weaponized Against E-Commerce Sites

from the dmca-is-a-censorship-tool dept

The copyright system is flawed at many levels, as hundreds of posts on this blog make clear. One particular class of problems concern takedowns. The best known of the ‘notice and takedown’ systems, that of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), allows the copyright industry to send takedown notices when they discover infringements on a site to the relevant Internet companies, asking for removal of that material. The person who uploaded the relevant files can send a counter-notice. Such a response may trigger a lawsuit from the company claiming copyright. If it does not, the site owner may restore the material that was taken down.

That might look like a fair and balanced system, but appearances are deceptive here, for reasons Walled Culture the book (free digital versions available) explores in detail. Takedown notices are generally sent by lawyers or specialists who carry out this operation all the time, often thousands of times a day, using automated systems (Google has received billions of such automated requests). These experts know the details of the law and are only required to provide a statement that they have a ‘good faith belief’ that the use of the copyright material is unauthorized.

By contrast, recipients of takedown notices are often small businesses, or ordinary members of the public. They are unlikely to have any legal training yet must respond to a formal legal notification if they wish to send a counter-notice. The latter must include a statement ‘under penalty of perjury’ that the material was taken down by mistake. Many will quail at the thought that they risk being convicted of perjury, and this stands in stark contrast to the mere ‘good faith belief’ required from the sender of a takedown request. Consequently, most people will simply accept that their material is removed, even if it was legal, for instance under fair use.

Takedown notices can be abused for purposes that have nothing to do with copyright. For example, they are a handy way to censor perfectly legitimate online material. The practice has become so common that an entire industry sector – reputation management – has evolved to take advantage of this trick. Online reputation management companies often use takedown notices as a way of intimidating sites in order to persuade them to remove material that is inconvenient for their clients.

Takedowns can also be mis-used in a business context, as a story on TorrentFreak indicates. It concerns the Canadian e-commerce platform Shopify, some of whose users had been targeted with takedown notices:

Starting on October 5, an unknown person created the account “Sacha Go” which was subsequently used to file dozens of DMCA takedown requests. The notices targeted listings on a variety of shops selling perfume products, claiming that they infringe copyright.

After being alerted by one of the targeted merchants Shopify looked into the matter, concluding that all takedowns were false. Instead of containing legitimate claims the DMCA notices were being used to harass Shopify and its merchants.

Shopify explains in a complaint it has filed alleging DMCA violations that those false takedowns can have serious financial consequences for Shopify’s merchants:

Under certain circumstances, a takedown notice can even result in the complete termination of a merchant’s online store. Like all DMCA service providers, Shopify is required to implement a policy under which those who are “Repeat Infringers” lose access to the platform. Under Shopify’s policy, a takedown notice results in a “strike,” and an accumulation of strikes over time results in termination. A merchant that receives a takedown notice may submit a counter notice and lift the strike. But for unsuspecting merchants who may be unfamiliar with the DMCA, a sudden onslaught of takedown notices can result in the termination of their entire store under Shopify’s repeat infringer policy.

Shopify’s complaint warns that “unscrupulous individuals are increasingly seeking to exploit the DMCA takedown process for anti-competitive purposes or reasons of animus.” In other words, these takedown notices have nothing to do with copyright or protecting the rights of creators.

The experience of Shopify and its merchants demonstrate well how extreme copyright laws can be abused in far-reaching ways. Those future issues clearly never occurred to the politicians who were too focused on giving the copyright industry yet more one-sided legal powers when they drew up the DMCA.

_Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon. Originally published to Walled Culture.

Filed Under: attacks, dmca, legal censorship, notice and takedown, repeat infringer policy
Companies: shopify

Appeals Court Says No Sovereign Immunity For Turkish Security Forces Who Attacked DC Protesters

from the stick-to-thugging-on-your-own-turf dept

In 2016, Turkish president Recep Erdogan visited the United States, bringing with him his security team, as most foreign dignitaries do. That much of the visit was normal. What wasn’t so normal was his team’s decision to attack protesters, critics, and journalists on US soil — something that really wasn’t necessary considering Washington DC’s Metro police were already on the scene, keeping protesters away from Erdogan and the Turkish ambassador’s residence.

After a face-off between pro- and anti-Erdogan protesters, peace was restored with the assistance of the Metro PD. Then violence broke out. And recordings of the incident indicate Erdogan’s security personnel were the aggressors. Here’s how the DC Appeals Court describes it in its review [PDF] of the Turkish government’s attempt to have a lawsuit against it dismissed.

At approximately 4:10 p.m., President Erdogan’s vehicle arrived at the residence. What happened next is disputed. The plaintiffs claim that President Erdogan spoke with his head of security and ordered an attack on the protesters. Defendant Turkey denies this. What neither side disputes, however, is that the pro-Erdogan group—including the Turkish security detail—moved decisively against the protesters. The attack commenced at approximately 4:13 p.m., while President Erdogan remained sitting in his vehicle near the entrance to the residence.

The district court described it this way while ruling the lawsuit brought by the attacked protesters could proceed:

[T]he protesters remained standing on the designated sidewalk. Turkish security forces and other proErdogan individuals then crossed a police line to attack the protesters. The protesters did not rush to meet the attack. Instead, the protesters either fell to the ground, where Turkish security forces continued to kick and hit them, or ran away, where Turkish security forces continued to chase and otherwise attack them. The Turkish security forces violently physically attacked the protesters.

Erdogan’s team attempted to justify its actions by claiming the protesters were close enough to harm the Turkish president if they had chosen to attack him. The lower court said that, even if it bought this explanation, by the time Erdogan’s security team decided to attack the protesters, they were standing peacefully on a sidewalk across the street from Erdogan’s vehicle and the residence he was visiting.

The Turkish government attempted to dodge this lawsuit by claiming foreign sovereign immunity. The district court rejected this defense, prompting this appeal. The Appeals Court doesn’t find this argument any more persuasive than the lower court did. It agrees that foreign security forces have an obligation to protect officials and diplomats, but that doesn’t mean these forces are free to do whatever they want to achieve those ends. The local laws apply, so it’s usually a better idea to turn security over to the locals.

_A sending state’s right to use force in defense of its officials, however, does not necessarily follow from the right of those officials to carry out their business unmolested. As the United States notes, “[t]here is good reason to assign receiving states the primary responsibility for protecting visiting foreign government officials.” We made a similar point when faced with a First Amendment challenge brought by individuals who sought to demonstrate outside the Nicaraguan embassy: “Peace and dignity would be destroyed outright” if “the task of repulsing invasions of the embassy and its grounds would be left largely to the foreign nation’s security forces.” In sum, the inviolability of diplomats suggests, but does not affirmatively establish, that a sending state has the right to use force in the defense of diplomat_s.

The court says it appears Erdogan’s security guards broke the law.

Turkey allegedly violated several District of Columbia laws, including assault with a dangerous weapon and aggravated assault, see D.C. Code §§ 22-402, 404.01. After reviewing the entire record, including video footage of the confrontations, we think it clear that the plaintiffs’ allegations are plausible. We also note that fifteen members of the Turkish security detail were subsequently indicted by the United States on criminal assault charges.

Even that’s not enough on its own to strip sovereign immunity. Security forces have leeway to exercise their discretion when performing their duties. But in this case, there was no perceivable justification for Erdogan’s security team to engage in an unprovoked attack on protesters standing several feet away from the visiting president.

The nature of the challenged conduct was not plausibly related to protecting President Erdogan, which is the only authority Turkey had to use force against United States citizens and residents.

And even if Turkey can come up with a justification for these actions, it likely won’t be able to find one that clears its personnel of wrongdoing in this case. Stripping it of immunity in this case won’t harm Turkey foreign policy. It will only punch it lightly in the back pocket.

As explained, the immunity inquiry turns not on whether Turkey’s use of force was reasonable but whether it was the result of political, social or economic policy analysis. We can accept that Turkey has its own justification for responding vigorously to crowds that may endanger its President but nonetheless conclude that the specific attacks on the plaintiffs were “sufficiently separable from protected discretionary decisions.”

Notwithstanding Turkey’s attempted resort to its own foreign relations and antiterrorism policies as a basis for us to find a non-justiciable political question, this case is not about Turkey’s foreign relations. Instead, it is about its liability vel non for the actions of its own security officers. And that liability, if any, will not impinge on anything but Turkey’s fisc.

The lawsuit can continue. The defendants may still find some way to escape accountability for their actions, but they won’t be able to exit the lawsuit early. The US court has jurisdiction to hear this case and the allegations — now more than a half-decade old — will move forward.

Filed Under: attacks, recep erdogan, security, sovereign immunity

Conspiratorial Attacks On Telecom Infrastructure Keep Getting Dumber And More Dangerous

from the head-full-of-pudding dept

Fri, Mar 19th 2021 01:35pm - Karl Bode

On one side, you’ve got wireless carriers implying that 5G is some type of cancer curing miracle (it’s not). On the other hand, we have oodles of conspiracy theorists, celebrities, malicious governments, and various grifters trying to claim 5G is some kind of rampant health menace (it’s not). In reality, 5G’s not actually interesting enough to warrant either position, but that’s clearly not stopping anybody in the post-truth era.

But it’s all fun and games until somebody gets hurt.

Over the last year or two, conspiracy theory-driven attacks in both the UK and US have ramped up not just on telecom infrastructure, but on telecom workers themselves. From burning down cellular towers to putting razor blades and needles under utility pole posters to injure workers, it’s getting exceptionally dumb and dangerous. To the point where gangs of people have threatened telecom workers who don’t even work in wireless.

As the Intercept notes, the rise in attacks has finally gotten the attention of law enforcement. In New York, law enforcement has finally keyed into the fact that the conspiracy theories have fused white supremacists and Q Anon dipshittery into one problematic mess that’s resulting in concrete harm. White supremacists (here and abroad) have apparently figured out they can amplify and contribute to the conspiracy theories to generate more chaos for the American institutions they’re eager to demolish. All stuff that’s being amplified in turn by governments like Iran and Russia eager for the same outcome.

While superficially a lot of these folks have the coherence of mud, in many cases the attacks are very elaborate, and specifically targeted:

“In one case, it says, on December 14, 2020, an individual or individuals broke into a cellphone tower ground station in Fairview, West Virginia, severing the tower?s main power cable and removing the primary and back-up generator batteries. The tower had provided wireless coverage throughout West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, and the damages totaled over $28,000.

In another instance, an unknown individual is said to have sneaked into a cell tower site in Tennessee on December 19, 2020, by cutting open its perimeter fence. The individual then severed the site?s fiber-optic cables and damaged several other telecommunications components, resulting in a ?significant disruption of service for approximately 12 hours.”

Many of these attacks are orchestrated by folks who know exactly what they’re targeting. Often it’s the loopy pudding-brained aspect of these stories that gets the most attention. Less talked about historically is how this bullshit enables white supremacist accelerationist fantasies, something law enforcement chatter is starting to more accurately discuss after decades (centuries?) of apathy:

“In recent months, white supremacist extremists, neo-Nazis, far-right Telegram groups, and online conspiracy theorists have all emphasized attacking valuable critical infrastructure targets.? Many far-right groups adhere to the ?accelerationist? principle, which maintains that hastening the collapse of society will bring about political change. Targeting critical infrastructure, which impedes the state?s ability to function, is a common insurgency tactic used by militant groups worldwide.”

Conspiracy theories work so well in America thanks to decades of greed slowly nibbling away at cornerstones of a functioning democracy, whether that’s a lack of cohesive, affordable mental health care, a government gridlocked by corruption, or a press that still can’t pay journalists a living wage while Instagram influencers nab million dollar contracts. Less informed, intentionally agitated, and increasingly faithless in the ability of institutions to protect them, the public clings to anything they can to feel in control, and that increasingly winds up being… complete and total bullshit. A systemic failure that’s then exploited and amplified by no limit of bad actors, both foreign and domestic.

Filed Under: 5g, attacks, conspiracies, infrastructure, wireless

Portland Journalists Ask For Sanctions As Federal Agents Continue To Assault Reporters And Legal Observers

from the aaaaaand-I'm-proud-to-be-an-Americaaaan-where-at-least-I-[pepper-spray] dept

Protests related to the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin have passed the two-month mark in Portland, Oregon. In response to unfettered liberalism, the Trump administration has sent in the troops. Officers from ICE, CBP, US Marshals Service, and other federal agencies flooded into Portland with the ostensible aim of protecting federal property, like the courthouse targeted by protesters.

Instead of a measured response to defuse tensions, federal officers engaged in Gestapo tactics. Unidentified officers in unmarked vehicles began removing protesters from the streets, hauling them away to unknown locations for questioning. Those released after being detained were given no paperwork commemorating their interaction with America’s secret police, nor were they told why they had been detained.

This wasn’t the only broadside against Constitutional rights. Federal officers also attacked journalists and legal observers. This didn’t just violate social contracts. It violated the First Amendment. Local journalists and observers sued. And they obtained a restraining order from a federal court blocking federal agents from attacking clearly identified journalists and observers. The court noted that local law enforcement — which had been hit with an earlier restraining order — was able to abide by the court-ordered rules of engagement. The court said the federal government offered no plausible argument why it would be impossible to abide by the same restrictions.

The [federal] police are rioting.

The plaintiffs are back in court asking for sanctions to be brought against the federal government for refusing to abide by the restraining order. (h/t Mike Scarcella)

The opening of the motion [PDF] contains some invective, but it appears to be justified.

On July 23, 2020, the Court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting federal agents from assaulting and dispersing journalists and legal observers. Within hours, federal agents began violating the Court’s TRO and have continued to do so every night since. These violations are not inadvertent. They are intentional acts by a lawless president, who has sent his paramilitary forces to shoot up the streets of Portland, choke downtown in a haze of toxic chemical fumes, and generate reelection soundbites—in blatant disdain of public safety, the rule of law, and the most fundamental principles of our Constitution.

The plaintiffs aren’t wrong. Trump has made it clear he’s only sending federal agents into “liberal” cities. This may score points with his voter base but it’s doing nothing for the rest of America, which has expressed its disdain for the tactics deployed in Portland.

These tactics are forbidden — not just by the Constitution, but by a court order directly addressing the targeting of journalists and protesters. And yet, the government persists.

On July 23, a federal agent shot reporter Jonathan Levinson while he was trying to take a photo. No protesters were near him. A federal agent also shot journalist Brian Conley, when he was trying to video an arrest. Later that night, federal agents tear-gassed Mr. Conley. The same night, federal agents shot reporter Rebecca Ellis and separately prevented her from documenting their dispersal of protesters.

On July 24, federal agents shot legal observer Haley Nicholson in her chest, just above her heart, from four feet away. Impact munitions should not be used at distances of less than 15 feet or above the waist.

On July 25, federal agents deliberately sprayed toxic chemicals into the faces of multiple legal observers, including Bruce Knivlia and Kat Mahoney, at point blank range. They were all clearly identified in blue ACLU vests and green NLG hats. They also shot photojournalist Kathryn Elsesser, who was also clearly marked with “PRESS” on her helmet.

On July 26, a federal agent temporarily left an advancing line of agents to kick a flaming tear-gas canister directly at a group of clearly marked journalists.

On July 27, Plaintiffs contacted government counsel to raise these blatant violations. (Declaration of Matthew Borden (“Borden Decl.”), Ex. 1.) Instead of investigating and providing information as promised, the federal defendants claimed that they were unaware of what agents and commanders were involved and offered nothing to extenuate their violations of the TRO. That night, the federal agents heaped on more acts of contempt.

Here are a couple of sworn declarations [PDF] by journalists and observers [PDF] who have been attacked by federal officers. More declarations can be found here.

If sworn declarations aren’t enough, there’s also video:

Here’s a copy [PDF] of the depressing communication the law firm representing the journalists had with DHS counsel Joshua Gardner. When asked for information about the agencies he represents, Gardner had almost nothing useful to say.

First, Gardner said he had no idea what policies or directives were guiding agents’ actions. He promised to “check” on those. The DHS’s lawyer also claimed agents had seen protesters “masquerading” as journalists. When asked for proof of these claims, Gardner was unable to cite any such instance being observed by a federal officer. Finally, the government’s lawyer claimed he had no information about any officers observed violating the restraining order or any details about supervisors tasked with communicating the specifics of the order to federal agents.

Chances are, very few agents have been formally made aware of the order’s specifics. Ignorance is, at least for the moment, bliss. Those who don’t know can’t be blamed for their actions. Or, at least, not as easily. Plausible deniability in all things, including the continued violations of rights in contempt of a court order. But this ignorance may be less blissful than usual. The restraining order made it clear officers were to be made aware as soon as possible because the usual lawsuit escape hatch was being removed by the court issuing the order.

Because the Court considers any willful violation of this Order, or any express direction by a supervisor or commander to disregard or violate this Order, to be a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and thus not subject to qualified immunity in any action brought against any individual employee, officer, or agent of the Federal Defendants under Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), notice of this Order must be widely disseminated.

If you’re paying close attention, you can see the loophole being exploited. “Willful violations” are tough to prove when no one has received updated instructions. And if no one orders anyone to violate the court order, supervisors can’t be held accountable either. It’s a perfect storm of non-accountability. And that’s what appears to be going on in Portland.

The plaintiffs are asking for justice and respect for their rights. They’re asking for the federal government to play by the rules. Federal agents are responding with “Fuck you. Make me.” The federal government is priming the powder keg while pretending to care about buildings and statues. If a federal court can’t make federal agents play by the Constitutional rules, who can?

Filed Under: 1st amendment, arrests, attacks, dhs, journalists, legal observers, portland, protests, restraining order, tro

Idiots Begin Attacking US 5G Cell Towers Because, Idiots

from the ill-communication dept

Tue, May 19th 2020 06:26am - Karl Bode

On one end, you’ve got wireless carriers claiming that 5G is some type of cancer-curing miracle (it’s not). On the other hand, we have oodles of conspiracy theorists, celebrities, and various grifters trying to claim 5G is some kind of rampant health menace (it’s not). In reality, 5G’s not actually interesting enough to warrant either position, but that’s clearly not stopping anybody in the post-truth era.

Baseless conspiracy theories about the health impact of 5G have gone next level during the pandemic. To the point where facts-optional nitwits are not only burning down cell towers in the UK, but putting razor blades and needles underneath protest posters on telephone poles (apparently you solve public health risks by… putting peoples’ health at risk?). Now the Department of Homeland Security has had to issue warnings here in the States after several similar attacks were launched against US telecom infrastructure over the last few months:

“Since December 2019, unidentified actors conducted at least five arson incidents targeting cell towers in Memphis, Tenn., that resulted in more than $100,000 in damages,? the DHS reports say. ?Additionally, 14 cell towers in western Tennessee, between February and April, were purposely turned off by way of disabling their electrical breakers,” according to separate DHS field intelligence reporting. In April, arsonists set fire to a major cell tower in Portland, Ore., damaging electrical components at the base of the structure.”

The overwhelming scientific evidence currently available indicates that not only is 5G not a serious risk to human health, but some aspects of 5G (especially millimeter wave deployments) are, in many instances, less powerful that existing 4G signals. 95% of the time when you see somebody insisting 5G hurts your health, they’re badly misinterpreting debunked studies or this decades old chart. Assuming they’re even pantomiming any respect for properly peer-reviewed science in the first place.

The DHS intelligence report states that it’s very likely that these attacks will be increasing throughout the year, as a growing crop of nitwits “learn” about the technology online. Sometimes from ordinary domestic crackpots and grifters, but also via foreign governments (Iran, China, Russia) hoping to accelerate the US’ descent down the conspiracy idiot rabbit hole:

“Violent extremists have drawn from misinformation campaigns online that claim wireless infrastructure is deleterious to human health and helps spread COVID-19, resulting in a global effort by like-minded individuals to share operational guidance and justification for conducting attacks against 5G infrastructure, some of which have already prompted arson and physical attacks against cell towers in several US states.”

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it.

Filed Under: 5g, attacks, conspiracy theories

Is There A Conspiracy Among Legacy Media Companies To Push A False Narrative About Big Tech?

from the well,-there's-some-smoke... dept

Over the last few months we’ve witnessed a veritable flood of misleading to simply false articles about internet companies showing up in mainstream sources. There were misleading articles in Vox and the Washington Post. And then, just recently, we saw not one but two NY Times pieces that went out of their way to misrepresent the law. And, then of course, there’s the Wall Street Journal that has been misrepresenting Section 230 for ages. To date, the only one of these publications to run a serious correction (and to continue to help debunking misrepresentations) is the smallest of those listed above: Vox, who did some research and published a big mea culpa.

This has gotten many in the tech industry to begin to wonder. It’s one thing for (cross aisle) grandstanding politicians like Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Nancy Pelosi, and Richard Blumenthal to totally misrepresent the law. But when the mainstream media is doing so on a regular basis — it’s causing a lot of talk behind the scenes about whether this is a coordinated hit. Some, like the excellent reporter Anna Wiener, recently more or less dismissed this theory as being “mostly… a facile argument,” though I think she mixes up two separate issues. First, it is absolutely true that many startup founders don’t know how to deal with the press well, and get personally offended by bad press coverage. And, for those entrepreneurs: fuck ’em. They should grow up and learn what the press actually does, when done right — which includes researching and debunking nonsense (and there’s a ton of nonsense in Silicon Valley).

But, that’s a separate issue from whether or not there’s a coordinated campaign to undermine the foundations of the internet by a few larger, legacy industries who have failed to adapt to a changing time. Indeed, we saw significant evidence of Hollywood’s top lobbyists working behind the scenes (though, it occasionally slipped out publicly) to push for FOSTA, the first bill that significantly undermined Section 230.

And there’s plenty more evidence of legacy industries — mainly legacy media and entertainment companies — plotting to take down internet companies by making use of the news. Remember, during the Sony Pictures hack, that MPAA emails were leaked, revealing “Project Goliath,” which was specifically a plan to damage Google through any means necessary — and that included using a smear campaign placed in the Wall Street Journal and on the Today Show. In an email sent to an official in Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s office by then MPAA “director of external state government affairs” official (and former ICE official) Brian Cohen, Cohen admits the “proposed plan” is to place an anti-Google smear campaign:

If that image is not showing up, the text comes from a larger strategic plan between the MPAA and various state Attorneys’ General, and includes this:

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.

So, sure, while it may seem “facile” for some to argue that legacy media firms are out to get big internet companies with trumped up claims in their own media properties, there’s very real evidence of a conspiracy to do literally that. Not so facile.

And there’s more where that comes from. In Wired’s giant profile last year of the “troubles” inside Facebook, it is made clear that Rupert Murdoch used his ability to damage the company via the editorial pages of the WSJ as part of a negotiating strategy:

Zuckerberg traveled to Sun Valley, Idaho, for an annual conference hosted by billionaire Herb Allen, where moguls in short sleeves and sunglasses cavort and make plans to buy each other?s companies. But Rupert Murdoch broke the mood in a meeting that took place inside his villa. According to numerous accounts of the conversation, Murdoch and Robert Thomson, the CEO of News Corp, explained to Zuckerberg that they had long been unhappy with Facebook and Google. The two tech giants had taken nearly the entire digital ad market and become an existential threat to serious journalism. According to people familiar with the conversation, the two News Corp leaders accused Facebook of making dramatic changes to its core algorithm without adequately consulting its media partners, wreaking havoc according to Zuckerberg?s whims. If Facebook didn?t start offering a better deal to the publishing industry, Thomson and Murdoch conveyed in stark terms, Zuckerberg could expect News Corp executives to become much more public in their denunciations and much more open in their lobbying. They had helped to make things very hard for Google in Europe. And they could do the same for Facebook in the US.

…. Inside Facebook, executives believed Murdoch might use his papers and TV stations to amplify critiques of the company. News Corp says that was not at all the case; the company threatened to deploy executives, but not its journalists.

Zuckerberg had reason to take the meeting especially seriously, according to a former Facebook executive, because he had firsthand knowledge of Murdoch?s skill in the dark arts. Back in 2007, Facebook had come under criticism from 49 state attorneys general for failing to protect young Facebook users from sexual predators and inappropriate content. Concerned parents had written to Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal, who opened an investigation, and to The New York Times, which published a story. But according to a former Facebook executive in a position to know, the company believed that many of the Facebook accounts and the predatory behavior the letters referenced were fakes, traceable to News Corp lawyers or others working for Murdoch, who owned Facebook?s biggest competitor, MySpace. ?We traced the creation of the Facebook accounts to IP addresses at the Apple store a block away from the MySpace offices in Santa Monica,? the executive says. ?Facebook then traced interactions with those accounts to News Corp lawyers. When it comes to Facebook, Murdoch has been playing every angle he can for a long time.? (Both News Corp and its spinoff 21st Century Fox declined to comment.)

Got that? Facebook actually traced fake accounts, that were handed to long-grandstanding anti-internet crusader Richard Blumenthal (then a state AG, now a Senator) back to News Corp. And Murdoch strongly implied to Facebook execs that he needed to get a better deal from them or his publications, such as the WSJ, would put out hit pieces.

So, yes, there are legitimate points of concern to raise about big internet companies. I’m not one to normally believe in cynical conspiracy theories, but it’s not at all crazy to think that the recent onslaught in major media properties may not be coming from the most ethically sound place. After all, if Hollywood has plotted in the past to do exactly that, why would anyone expect them to have given up those underhanded games?

Filed Under: attacks, behind the scenes, conspiracy, hit pieces, journalism, lobbying, media, misrepresentations, section 230
Companies: comcast, mpaa, news corp

Turkish Gov't: Erdogan's Bodyguards Needed To Attack DC Protesters Because They Were Too Close When They Said Mean Things

from the welcome-to-the-insult-free-zone dept

A few years back, thin-skinned thug/President of Turkey Recep Erdogan paid the US a visit. He brought his security detail with him, which isn’t unusual. World leaders always travel with security. What was more surprising were the actions of his security team. When faced with protesters hurling dangerous words in the direction of Erdogan, his security personnel decided “when in Rome” wasn’t applicable. Acting as though they were on their home turf, Erdogan’s bodyguards began physically assaulting protesters and journalists covering the protests.

This put Washington DC police in the awkward and novel position of protecting protesters and journalists from beatings. It also put Erdogan and his security officers under the heading of “Defendants” in a federal lawsuit. Erdogan’s off-the-cuff defense of his bodyguards’ actions — that they were right to retaliate against insults targeting the president — appears to be the defense the Republic of Turkey is using in its attempt to get this lawsuit dismissed. (h/t Adam Steinbaugh)

The motion to dismiss [PDF] alleges a lot of things. It claims protesters were dangerous. It claims the DC Metro Police did not keep protesters as far away from Erdogan as Erdogan felt they should be. It claims anti-Turkey protesters injured pro-Turkey supporters. But mostly it claims the use of force was justified.

Local law enforcement did nothing to enforce U.S. federal law making it a crime for two or more persons to harass or attempt to harass a foreign dignitary within 100 feet. See 18 U.S.C. § 112. MPD either ignored or was unaware that under U.S. law, and international treaty obligations, dignitaries are different, and that the United States promises a higher level of security to “internationally protected persons” than ordinary persons, as part of the fabric of diplomacy and international comity.

What kind of “harassment?” Well, it looks like people were saying mean things about Erdogan within hearing distance.

When President Erdogan arrived at the Residence, the angry Anti-Turkey Group, of which several members had already acted violently, continued to tout symbols of PKK/YPG support while yelling aspersions about President Erdogan within an unsafe distance of the Turkish president and the Residence he was attempting to enter.

After some barely-related narrative about how tough and dangerous it is to be the Turkish president in the age of ISIS, the motion continues with its claims of harmful free speech.

Section 112(a) broadly prohibits assaults against foreign officials, official guests, and IPPs, and attacks upon the official premises, private accommodations, and means of transport of such persons. 18 U.S.C. § 112(a). The provision also criminalizes attempts to commit such offenses. Id. Notably, neither intent to injure an IPP nor proof of injury is required to be found guilty of a crime under Section 112(a). See United States v. Gan, 636 F.2d 28, 29-30 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1020 (1981).

Which includes “harassment,” a term the Turkish government’s motion decides to define with an outdated version of the law it’s citing:

Section 112(b) prohibits, among other things, (1) harassment or (2) attempts to harass a foreign official and (3) the congregation of two or more persons within 100 feet of a foreign official with the intent to harass. 18 U.S.C. § 112(b).28 The term “harass” has been interpreted to apply to “such activities as may seriously alarm or persecute foreign officials.” CISPES (Comm. in Solidarity with People of El Salvador) v. F.B.I., 770 F.2d 468, 476 (5th Cir. 1985). The legislative history of the statute (in its pre-amended form) includes the following example of individual misconduct criminalized by Section 112(b)(1) and (2):

Engaging in a course of conduct, including the use of abusive language, or repeatedly committing acts which alarm, intimidate or persecute him which serve no legitimate purpose

The law no longer references the “use of abusive language.”

There’s a lot to the motion, but the crux of it is that Erdogan’s security team was justified in using physical force on protesters, most of whom were using nothing more than words. The Republic of Turkey will very likely escape being held liable for the actions of Erdogan’s security team, but their actions at least gave more of the world a glimpse at what the country’s favorite response to critical speech is: vindictive violence.

Filed Under: assault, attacks, bodyguards, free speech, protests, recep tayyip erdogan, turkey

As A New Wave Of Cyberattacks Rolls Out, Rep. Ted Lieu Asks What The NSA's Going To Do About It

from the ETERNALPWNAGE dept

Leaked NSA exploits have now been the basis for two massive cyberattacks. The first — Wannacry — caught hospitals and other critical infrastructure across several nations in the crossfire, using a tool built on the NSA’s ETERNALBLUE exploit backbone. The second seems to be targeting Ukraine, causing the same sort of havoc but with a couple of particularly nasty twists.

This one, called Petya, demanded ransom from victims. Things went from bad to worse when email provider Posteo shut down the attacker’s account. Doing so prevented affected users from receiving decryption keys, even if they paid the ransom.

It soon became apparent it didn’t matter what Posteo did, no matter how clueless or ill-advised. There was no retrieving files even if ransoms were paid. Two separate sets of security researchers examined the so-called ransomware and discovered Petya is actually a wiper. Once infected, victims’ files are as good as gone. No amount of bitcoin is going to reverse the inevitable. The ransomware notices were only there to draw attention to the infection and away from the malware’s true purpose.

Both cases are considered to be attacks by nation states. Inconsistently-applied patches — most of them released with zero information by Microsoft — have led to an insane amount of damage.

Through it all, the NSA — whose tools were leaked — has remained consistently silent. There’s been no indication if the agency is working to mitigate the ongoing threat or whether it’s far more concerned with discovering who left behind the malware toolkit first exposed by the ShadowBrokers.

It’s unlikely we’ll hear much being said publicly by the agency, but Rep. Ted Lieu has sent a letter to NSA chief Mike Rogers demanding answers. The letter [PDF] points out both attacks have been based on NSA exploits (ETERNALBLUE and ETERNALROMANCE). Lieu also states he fears the attacks seen in the past few weeks are only the “tip of the iceberg.” The agency’s refusal to discuss the attacks apparently isn’t going to fly anymore.

Lieu makes two requests: the first is for the agency to see if it has some sort of magic “OFF” switch just laying around.

My first and urgent request is that if the NSA knows how to stop this global malware attack, or has information that can help step the attack, NSA should immediately disclose it. If the NSA has a kill switch for this new malware attack, the NSA should deploy it now.

It’s far more likely the NSA has information it would rather not share than it is the agency has a way to shut down this attack, much less prevent future variations on its ETERNAL theme. But that’s directly related to the second part of Lieu’s request: work with companies whose software is being exploited to prevent further attacks. If the NSA still has security holes it’s hoping won’t be patched anytime soon, the current situation would seem to call for a rethink of its exploit-hoarding M.O.

What may be in order is the NSA stepping up and playing defense. It has stated a desire to be a larger cog in the US cyberwar machinery, but often seems more interested in playing offense than pitching in to help on the defensive end. That may need to change quickly if the NSA isn’t going to be seen as more of a problem than a solution.

Filed Under: attacks, cyberattacks, exploits, leaks, nsa, ransomware, russia, ted lieu, ukraine, vulnerabilities, warfare

Strong Crypto Is Not The Problem: Manchester And London Attackers Were Known To The Authorities

from the adding-hay-to-the-stack-makes-it-harder-to-find-the-needles dept

Soon after the attack in Manchester, the UK government went back to its “encrypted communications are the problem” script, which it has rolled out repeatedly in the past. But it has now emerged that the suicide bomber was not only known to the authorities, but that members of the public had repeatedly warned about his terrorist sympathies, as the Telegraph reports:

Counter Terrorism agencies were facing questions after it emerged Salman Abedi told friends that “being a suicide bomber was okay”, prompting them to call the Government’s anti-terrorism hotline.

Sources suggest that authorities were informed of the danger posed by Abedi on at least five separate occasions in the five years prior to the attack on Monday night.

Following the more recent attacks on London Bridge, the UK prime minister, Theresa May, has gone full banana republic dictator, declaring herself ready to rip up human rights “because terrorism”. But once more, we learn that the attackers were well known to the authorities:

London attack ringleader Khuram Butt was identified as a major potential threat, leading to an investigation that started in 2015, UK counterterrorism sources tell CNN.

?

Butt was seen as a heavyweight figure in al-Muhajiroun, whose hardline views made him potentially one of the most dangerous extremists in the UK, the sources said Tuesday. The investigation into Butt involved a “full package” of investigatory measures, the sources told CNN.

Butt was filmed in a 2016 documentary with the self-explanatory title “The Jihadis Next Door”, in which a black flag associated with ISIS was publicly unfurled in London’s Regent?s Park. Even though police were present during the filming, they did not follow up that incident, according to the Guardian:

Police did not make a formal request for footage or information from the makers of a Channel 4 documentary that featured Khuram Butt, one of the London Bridge attackers.

The broadcaster of The Jihadis Next Door said no police requests were made for film or programme maker’s notes to be handed over under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or Terrorism Act.

The UK authorities were warned last year about another of the London Bridge attackers,Youssef Zaghba, by Italian counter-terrorism officials:

An Italian prosecutor who led an investigation into the London Bridge attacker Youssef Zaghba has insisted that Italian officials did send their UK counterparts a written warning about the risk he posed last year and monitored him constantly while he was in Italy.

Giuseppe Amato, the chief prosecutor in Bologna, who investigated Zaghba when he tried to travel from Italy to join Islamic State in Syria in March 2016, told the Guardian that information about the risk he posed was shared with officials in the UK.

Amato added that he personally saw a report that had been sent to London by the chief counter-terrorism official in Bologna about the Moroccan-born Italian citizen.

Manchester and London are not the only cases where the authorities were informed in advance about individuals. A 2015 article in The Intercept looked at ten high-profile terrorist attacks around the world, and found that in every single case, at least some of the perpetrators were already known to the authorities. Strong encryption is not the problem: it is the inability of the authorities to act on the information they have that is the problem. That’s not to suggest that the intelligence services and police were incompetent, or that there were serious lapses. It’s more a reflection of the fact that far from lacking vital information because of end-to-end encryption, say, the authorities have so much information that they are forced to prioritize their scarce resources, and sometimes they pursue the wrong leads and miss threats.

We wrote about this problem back in 2014, when an FBI whistleblower confirmed what many have been trying to explain to governments keen to extend their surveillance powers: that when you are looking for a needle, adding more hay to the stack makes things worse, not better. What is needed is less mass surveillance, and a more targeted approach. Until Theresa May and leaders around the world understand and act on that, it is likely that more attacks will occur, carried out by individuals known to the authorities, and irrespective of whether they use strong crypto or not.

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

Filed Under: attacks, encryption, fud, human rights, london, manchester, theresa may, uk

Trump's Constant Whining About The NY Times Isn't Just Bad For The First Amendment

from the business-threats dept

We’ve already made it clear that we’re quite concerned about how freedom of expression will fare under President Trump. He has a long history of threatening and/or suing those who cover him factually, but in a manner he dislikes. And while he hasn’t (as far as I can tell) threatened to sue anyone since the election, he appears to have become somewhat obsessed with the NY Times. Since winning the election he’s tweeted at least six times about the NY Times, insisting (incorrectly) that it was losing subscribers and (incorrectly) that it had “apologized” to readers for its Trump coverage. He also claimed (incorrectly) that it had said he hadn’t spoken to foreign leaders — when the actual article just said that his conversations with foreign leaders happened without State Department briefings (which is fairly stunning). Here’s what the NY Times said:

One week after Mr. Trump scored an upset victory that took him by surprise, his team was improvising the most basic traditions of assuming power. That included working without official State Department briefing materials in his first conversations with foreign leaders.

But Trump claimed something entirely different:

And, yes, I know that there are some folks who just flat out hate the NY Times and think that it lies and such. And I’ve certainly complained my fair share about weak or misleading coverage by the NY Times over the years, but it’s still problematic when a President or President-elect is directly attacking any publication. It creates serious chilling effects on reporters. And, it can be even worse than that. As Yashar Ali noted in a Twitter thread, attacking a company as “failing” has real consequences, especially one that is traded on the public markets, potentially harming all sorts of everyday investors.

I’m guessing that many who just hate the NY Times won’t care about this, but it is serious. There’s a reason why Presidents don’t go around attacking companies or saying that they’re “failing” or that their business is in trouble. Because that has real consequences. I still don’t think that journalists should be suing Trump for defamation, as some have suggested, but it would be nice if our President-elect recognized that going around and attacking the press — even if he disagrees with its coverage — is entirely inappropriate.

Filed Under: attacks, business, corruption, donald trump, first amendment, free speech, threats
Companies: ny times