criminal – Techdirt (original) (raw)

from the spoiler-alert dept

Here we go again. We’ve been discussing the iterative changes in Japanese copyright law for some time now. Those changes have been largely targeted rather than sweeping, though those targeted changes are arguably extreme in nature. First and foremost was moving copyright infringement largely out of the realm of civil law and into a criminal offense. While that is bad enough on its own, the Japanese government also demonstrated plainly that at least part of the impetus for these changes to copyright law were designed specifically to bend the knee to the country’s manga and anime industry. Those changes were especially worrisome, given they went beyond criminalizing direct infringement to also make it illegal to “infringe” in all kinds of indirect ways, such as sites that merely link to potentially infringing content, or individuals or sites that share “spoilers” for anime and manga content. That last bit is what led to one man being sentenced to 2 years in prison for engaging in “let’s play” and spoiler content in uploads to YouTube.

That wasn’t some kind of one-off, it appears. News out of Japan is that the individual behind 3 websites that served up spoiler content for animes and mangas has been arrested. Note the careful wording regarding the infringing content in the description.

As confirmed in the press release, the OVERLORD content uploaded included transcriptions of “detailed content of the entire story” and characters, dialogue, and scene developments while reaping the advertising revenue. Thanks to the cooperation of Miyagi Prefectural Police and Tome Police Station, these men were arrested after confirming they conspired, despite the violation of copyright law, to generate a profit. All in the interest of protecting the dissemination of culture, this signals how serious this offense is according to the Copyright Act and how effectively CODA coordinated these measures.

Elsewhere in the post are some nods to content that is more directly infringing of copyright. But it’s all vaguely worded for the most part. “The whole stories of these properties posted by the concerned website,” is an example. Does that mean it was a direct copy of the script that was posted? Or just a summary, as appeared elsewhere on the site? And then there’s this line:

While digitally edited to obscure the content, they showed heavily copyrighted material, with their posted example bearing the Godzilla Minus One title card.

If the only direct copying of content was the title card, and not the actual script or other content created directly by the producers of this anime and manga content, then that is a very different thing from posting actual creative content about the show or episodes to the site.

And this is exactly what you would expect from a vaguely worded copyright law designed to give broad and sweeping enforcement powers in order to act as government protection for a specific industry. You get vaguely worded reports about arrests made under that law, with a lack of specificity as to what the actual infringing content is or was.

The problem with sites that extract text from movies and other content is that they reduce people’s desire to pay a fair price for content, which can lead to people not seeing the official full-length movies, causing great damage to rights holders. In addition, the act of infringing on content that creators have spent time, effort, and money to create and unfairly obtaining advertising revenue is extremely malicious and should never be tolerated.

-CODA

Except we’ve seen the opposite to be true. We’ve seen directly, with books for instance, that spoiled endings don’t actually decrease the interest in the books that were “spoiled”. In fact, in most of the posts we’ve had discussing content-producers freaking out over spoilers, you will notice that they have tended to come from extremely successful franchises and content.

The spoiler thing is entirely overwrought, in other words. And while that’s certainly true globally, what Japan is doing in this space is the overreaction of the overreactions.

Filed Under: anime, copyright, criminal, japan, spoilers

South Dakota Journalist’s Extremely Ill-Advised Prank Call Being Treated As A Criminal Act

from the is-stupidity-a-crime? dept

First off, full disclosure: I live in this state. It’s one of those upper Midwestern states no one seems to live in and yet they do. I continue to endure the Trump-loving antics of our current governor, Kristi Noem, who somehow managed not to kill off a large percentage of the state’s population with her years of inaction during the COVID crisis.

While not encouraging/signing performative legislation, Governor Noem also finds time to get her personal phone hacked. Or, at least, that’s what she claimed earlier this year:

Following the leak of Governor Kristi Noem and her family’s personal Social Security numbers and other private information by the January 6th Committee, Governor Noem’s personal cell phone number has been hacked and used to make hoax calls. Governor Noem had no involvement in these calls.

It’s true the January 6th committee left Social Security numbers exposed when it published documents related to its investigation. How this led to Noem’s phone being hacked, however, is left to our imagination. The official press release suggests the two are related, but says something about “hacked” and says something about “making hoax calls” but never actually connects the two assertions.

What’s being treated as a criminal act by a local prosecutor in South Dakota doesn’t appear to have anything to do with Noem’s phone being hacked. In fact, it doesn’t appear to have anything to do with any recognizable criminal act.

A former Pierre-based reporter is facing charges for a January prank call.

Former KOTA and Dakota News Now reporter Austin Goss, 26, was arrested and charged with making threatening, harassing or misleading contacts, which is a class one misdemeanor. Goss appeared in court Thursday.

There’s no hacking here. That much is apparent from the arrest affidavit [PDF], which makes it clear the recipient of the call wasn’t being threatened or even credibly harassed. He may have been (initially) misled, but that’s about it.

The prank call was allegedly made to former South Dakota GOP chairman Dan Lederman. The alleged crime — “Making Threatening, Harassing, or Misleading Contacts” — doesn’t appear to cover what happened here. The law criminalizes spoofing phone numbers, but this “spoof” was made apparent by the end of the rambling, incoherent message delivered by this particularly stupid journalist to Lederman.

Here’s the phone call, as detailed in the charging affidavit:

“So now, you answer me this… Between the hours of midnight yesterday, and right now, where they disappear to?.. Did you check your basement? How many boxes of the Moderna where there?… Oh you think this is funny?… Yo! You’re making me say way too much on this line already… Marculo’s on the line here too. You best quit messing with me!… You know what? I’m going to tell you, I know what you said the other day…. You telling me, you didn’t tell Vito, that you were going to try to move the three boxes of that AstraZeneca outside this family?… You saying you ain’t said that?!… Oh, I’m getting so angry… You saying, you aint’ said that?!… You come here. Say it to my face…. Yeah, yeah I want you to say it to my face!… Hahahahahaha! You’ve just been pranked by PrankDial.com.”

It was definitely a dumb thing to do. But Lederman was informed by the end of the call that it was a spoof call. The “tone and tenor of the audio” (which Lederman claims “caused him concern for his safety”) is clearly ridiculous, what with its use of stereotypical Italian first names to infer some sort of mob involvement in moving around boxes of (presumably) COVID vaccines.

Dakota News Now and KOTA both terminated the reporter, which is definitely the proper response. But should this be a criminal act? It’s clear from context — not to mention that last lines delivered in the spoof call — that this was a prank. Yes, it probably annoyed Dan Lederman. But even if he was annoyed enough to contact law enforcement, there’s no reason cops and prosecutors should have decided this is a case worth prosecuting.

It’s a waste of limited resources in a state full of limited resources. Let the former journalist suffer through the future he’s created for himself, one that will surely be wanting for decent employment opportunities. But don’t give credence to Governor Noem’s “my phone has been hacked” speculations by pushing this case through the criminal justice system.

Filed Under: austin goss, criminal, dan lederman, kristi noem, prank calls, south dakota

DOJ Says Encryption Is Just For Criminals As It Goes After Another Secure Phone Purveyor

from the dark-mode-engaged dept

The DOJ has indicted another company for supposedly making it easier for criminals to elude law enforcement. The true target, though, isn’t the company whose principals have been indicted, but encryption itself.

A couple of years ago the DOJ decided to bring RICO charges against Phantom Secure, a cellphone provider that catered to the criminal element with “uncrackable” phones/messaging services built on existing Blackberry hardware/software.

The FBI approached Phantom Secure, asking for an encryption backdoor that would allow it to snoop on its customers. Phantom Secure declined the FBI’s advances. Its phones — originally marketed to professionals desirous of additional security — were soon marketed to criminals, a market sector that truly valued the security options offered by Phantom.

But rejecting the FBI and selling to criminals causes problems. The DOJ went after Phantom Secure, arresting the owner and charging him with a bunch of RICO and RICO-adjacent crimes.

It is happening again. The DOJ has decided encryption is a crime when companies offering encrypted communications choose to sell to people the DOJ considers to be criminals.

Here’s the DOJ’s portrayal of its crime-fighting efforts — one supported by people who rarely find a sandwich they don’t think can be criminally charged.

A federal grand jury today returned an indictment against the Chief Executive Officer and an associate of the Canada-based firm Sky Global on charges that they knowingly and intentionally participated in a criminal enterprise that facilitated the transnational importation and distribution of narcotics through the sale and service of encrypted communications devices.

Jean-Francois Eap, Sky Global’s Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas Herdman, a former high-level distributor of Sky Global devices, are charged with a conspiracy to violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Warrants were issued for their arrests today.

But here’s where it gets sketchy. The DOJ is basically trying to hold a phone provider responsible for the criminal acts of its customers. In order to do that, it needs to depict encryption as an unnecessary evil that serves mainly to allow criminals to escape justice.

According to the indictment, Sky Global’s devices are specifically designed to prevent law enforcement from actively monitoring the communications between members of transnational criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking and money laundering. As part of its services, Sky Global guarantees that messages stored on its devices can and will be remotely deleted by the company if the device is seized by law enforcement or otherwise compromised.

“Or otherwise compromised.” There are plenty of non-criminal reasons to want to remotely wipe a phone that has ended up in the hands of someone other than its owner. Some of those reasons are ones even the DOJ finds legitimate, like the protection of trade secrets. But in this case, the DOJ only sees an evil that must be stopped. And the fact that Sky Global’s market share is so small it amounts to a rounding error isn’t stopping the DOJ from attempting to make the company pay for the sins of some of its users.

There are at least 70,000 Sky Global devices in use worldwide, including in the United States. The indictment alleges that for more than a decade, Sky Global has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in profit by facilitating the criminal activity of transnational criminal organizations and protecting these organizations from law enforcement.

Allegations are just that: allegations. Sky Global may have had some legitimate customers who felt vanilla phone offerings by Google, Apple, and a host of Android-based manufacturers weren’t secure enough, but those people’s concerns don’t matter when criminals are also using the same phones to conduct criminal activity.

The real enemy is encryption, according to the DOJ. The DOJ says preventing law enforcement from “actively monitoring communications” is its own evil, even while multiple messaging services now offer end-to-end encryption that prevents law enforcement from listening in. This is the foot in the door. If the FBI and DOJ can make enough noise about a company that supposedly marketed its product to criminals, it can make further inroads towards demonizing encryption as a threat to the security of the nation, if not an aider and abettor of criminal activity.

This is the ongoing PR war being fought by our government against a feature that provides more security to phone users. And it’s being done by an agency that has yet to be completely honest about how much of a problem encryption actually poses to criminal investigations. For that reason alone, the DOJ’s accusations shouldn’t be granted credence. Its efforts to undermine the safety of millions of non-criminal phone users shouldn’t be ignored either, because it’s clear at this point the security concerns of the American public mean nothing to it.

Filed Under: backdoors, criminal, doj, encryption, fbi, jean-francois eap, rico, secure phones, thomas herdman
Companies: sky global

Ninth Circuit Appeals Court May Have Raised The Bar On Notifying Defendants About Secretive Surveillance Techniques

from the PARALLEL-CONSTRUCTION-INTENSIFIES dept

Recently — perhaps far too recently — the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court said the bulk phone records collection the NSA engaged in for years was most likely unconstitutional and definitely a violation of the laws authorizing it. The Appeals Court did not go so far as to declare it unconstitutional, finding that the records collected by the government had little bearing on the prosecution of a suspected terrorist. But it did declare it illegal.

Unfortunately, the ruling didn’t have much of an effect. The NSA had already abandoned the program, finding it mostly useless and almost impossible to comply with under the restrictions laid down by the USA Freedom Act. Rather than continually violate the new law, the NSA chose to shut it down, ending the bulk collection of phone metadata… at least under this authority.

But there’s something in the ruling that may have a much larger ripple effect. Orin Kerr noticed some language in the opinion that suggests the Ninth Circuit is establishing a new notification requirement for criminal prosecutions. For years, the government has all but ignored its duty to inform defendants of the use of FISA-derived evidence against them. The DOJ has considered FISA surveillance so secret and sensitive defendants can’t even be told about it. Defendants fight blind, going up against parallel construction and ex parte submissions that keep them in the dark about how the government obtained its evidence.

The language in the Ninth Circuit ruling changes that. It appears to suggest (but possibly not erect, unfortunately) an affirmative duty to inform defendants about surveillance techniques used by the government.

In Moalin, the question was whether defendants had to be notified about a warrantless national security program involving telephone metadata that had been collected about them as part of the investigation. I would have thought the answer is no. Most obviously, there was no search warrant about which to give notice. And beyond that, I would have thought the program under then-existing precedent not to be a search at all.

The Ninth Circuit imagines a different kind of notice requirement, though. Instead of a notice requirement that a warrant was executed, flowing from the warrant itself, this is a notice requirement that appears to be triggered only if and when criminal charges are filed providing notice that evidence about a person was collected using a surveillance practice that may or may not be a search. In effect, it’s a notice to criminal defendants to consider filing a motion to suppress to challenge the investigation and vindicate any Fourth Amendment rights that may or may not have been at stake.

Huge if true. This is the court giving defendants an opportunity to suppress evidence derived from surveillance efforts courts may not (at this point) consider searches under the Fourth Amendment. The Constitutionality may be unsettled, but that shouldn’t limit defendants’ ability to raise challenges. This is from the opinion:

The principal remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation is the exclusionary rule: a criminal defendant may seek suppression of evidence obtained from an unlawful search or seizure, as well as of the “fruits” of that evidence—additional evidence to which it led. See Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488. But criminal defendants who have no knowledge that a potentially unconstitutional search has played a part in the government’s case against them have no opportunity to vindicate any Fourth Amendment-protected rights through suppression.

Notice is therefore a critical component of the Fourth Amendment in the context of a criminal prosecution. And although the Fourth Amendment may apply differently to foreign intelligence surveillance than to searches undertaken in ordinary criminal investigations, notice of a search plays the same role in the criminal proceeding: it allows the defendant to assess whether the surveillance complied with the Fourth Amendment’s requirements, whatever the parameters of those requirements are. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that the notice provisions in FISA and the FAA serve precisely that function.

According to the Ninth Circuit, the Fourth Amendment standard of providing notice to defendants also applies to searches that the government (and some courts) have considered to be outside of the Fourth Amendment’s reach — like the acquisition of third-party records and foreigner-targeting surveillance efforts.

The government can still provide notice without giving up its secrecy, which should (hopefully) limit the number of times the government claims national security trumps all other rulings, regulations, precedential decisions, and Constitutional amendments. The government can have its secrecy and its notification, says the court.

Given the need for secrecy in the foreign intelligence context, the government is required only to inform the defendant that surveillance occurred and that the government intends to use information obtained or derived from it. Knowledge of surveillance will enable the defendant to file a motion with the district court challenging its legality. If the government avers that disclosure of information relating to the surveillance would harm national security, then the court can review the materials bearing on its legality in camera and ex parte.

This would be breaking new ground, especially in cases where the government is using FISA-derived evidence. As Kerr points out, this isn’t limited to settled Fourth Amendment precedent. This would allow defendants to challenge evidence derived from techniques and programs courts have yet to address. And this will (hopefully) force courts to confront unsettled Fourth Amendment issues, rather than dismiss them out of hand because no court has previously addressed novel (or secret) surveillance practices.

[N]ot only does it not require a warrant, it doesn’t even seem to require a search. The notice seems to be that evidence was obtained using a surveillance authority. It doesn’t appear to require that this authority is anything that has been understood to involve Fourth Amendment searches or seizures. Rather, the notice is provided so a person can bring a challenge and argue to a court that it’s a search or seizure, and an unreasonable search or seizure at that.

Put another way, this appears to be a Fourth Amendment notice requirement to alert criminal defendants that the government took steps that might constitute a search—but also might turn out not to be a search at all once a court reviews the matter closely. It has faint echoes to me of Miranda v. Arizona, in that it’s a judicially created notice about your rights potentially at stake so that you can take action to vindicate your rights.

If this is what the court is saying, the Ninth Circuit will be handling all sorts of interesting — and precedent-setting — cases in the near future. If the government has to be honest about its surveillance techniques, it will no longer be able to dodge Constitutional scrutiny by citing the Third Party Doctrine or claiming national security issues prevent it from informing defendants of the origin of evidence used against them.

This will have the most impact in cases where FISA evidence is in play and the government — perhaps secure that its national security mantra will encourage the court to aid and abet in obfuscation — hasn’t bothered to engage in parallel construction. On the flipside, government lawyers have probably already parsed this latent threat to unearned secrecy and will be encouraging everyone involved to perform their surveillance in triplicate to prevent the establishment of warrant requirements in cases where reasonable suspicion can’t even be met.

Filed Under: 9th circuit, criminal, due process, intelligence community, parallel construction, surveillance

Texas Attorney General's Office Says It Can Toss People In Jail For Suggesting Coronavirus Fears Are A Legit Reason To Vote From Home

from the do-you-want-the-virus-or-jail-time-(which-also-has-the-virus) dept

Just when we need our elected representatives to step up and get their collective shit together, they seem to be disintegrating as quickly as possible. I understand a pandemic isn’t on the list of “Things I Expected To Deal With During My Tenure,” but this is why we give them so much power and the trust that’s implicitly packaged with it.

Not every decision made or mandate handed down needs to be solid gold. But it needs to be much better than what we’re getting, which often seems to have been generated by a “COVID response” dartboard filled with ideas that shouldn’t have made it past a cursory room read.

Here’s the thing about voting: it’s important. And it needs to be secure. And, yes, we need to limit voter fraud but that shouldn’t be the overriding concern since there’s been so little of it observed during the numerous elections we’ve held in this nation.

Sending voters out to gather in groups at polling places may cut down on fraud and (depending on the vote-taking tech) make things a bit more secure than relying on mail-in votes, but you have to factor in the exposure to a deadly virus — both for voters and those forced to staff these disease vectors of attack.

The lawyers speaking for the Texas Attorney General’s office have issued one of the most tone deaf responses to worried state residents wondering if it might be OK to vote from home this year, given the spread of the virus. (h/t Sam Levine)

The letter [PDF] starts off officially and non-stupidly enough by explaining the letter of the law does not support treating attempts to avoid infection as equivalent to established definitions of disability.

We conclude that, based on the plain language of the relevant statutory text, fear of contracting COVID-19 unaccompanied by a qualifying sickness or physical condition does not constitute a disability under the Election Code for purposes of receiving a ballot by mail.

Fair enough, but given the extraordinary circumstances presented by COVID-19, perhaps the state could relax the definition to keep state residents safe during the upcoming election?

LOL no. That’s not what’s going to happen. According to the state’s counsel, it’s far more likely people are going to be treated as criminals for telling others to stay COVID-free by using a mail-in ballot.

Finally, to the extent third parties advise voters to apply for a mail-in ballot based solely on fear of contracting COVID-19, such activity could subject those third parties to criminal sanctions imposed by Election Code section 84.0041. TEX. ELEC. CODE § 84.0041 (providing that a person commits an offense if the person “intentionally causes false information to be provided on an application for ballot by mail”); see also id. § 276.013 (providing that a person commits election fraud if the person knowingly or intentionally causes a ballot to be obtained under false pretenses, or a misleading statement to be provided on an application for ballot by mail).

So, these are your options: tell people to vote in person and risk contracting the virus. Or advise them to dodge the virus by voting from home and go to jail… where you’ll risk contracting the virus.

An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

And a state jail felony can net someone anywhere from six months to two years in jail, along with a fine of up to $10,000.

The state’s top prosecutor then tries to blunt this threat with a half-assed promise to engage in some prosecutorial discretion.

However, whether specific activity constitutes an offense under these provisions will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case.

Roll the dice, I guess. The state’s counsel signs off by noting this is “not the official opinion” of the AG’s office, which further adds to the mess being made by this response to a legitimate question. All we know for sure is dodging the corona is not a legal reason to vote by mail, and it may or may not result in criminal charges and jail time if you’re telling people it’s something they can try. Hopefully, this will be clarified in the near future. And hopefully that clarification will recognize the health risks the state is asking voters to take by threatening to jail them for encouraging voting by mail.

Filed Under: absentee ballots, covid-19, criminal, elections, texas, vote-by-mail, voting

DC Court Says Terms Of Service Violations Can't Trigger Federal CFAA Prosecutions

from the forcing-discretion-on-DOJ-prosecutors dept

In a win for researchers and the ACLU, a federal court has ruled that violating a site’s terms of service is not a criminal violation of the CFAA.

The ACLU filed this lawsuit in 2016, representing researchers, scientists, and journalists who were looking into whether employment websites engaged in discriminatory behavior. To do so, the researchers needed to deliberately violate the terms of service of the websites they were studying by creating bogus accounts and providing other false information.

Since the CFAA has been the go-to law for companies seeking to silence security researchers and critics, the ACLU and its plaintiffs raised a pre-enforcement challenge, seeking a ruling declaring this work legal before the DOJ had a chance to abuse this terrible law to shut the research down.

The DC federal court doesn’t go so far as to extend First Amendment protection to these actions, but it does hold, importantly, that the CFAA does not criminalize terms-of-service violations. From the decision [PDF]:

The Court agrees with the clear weight of relevant authority and adopts a narrow interpretation of “exceeds authorized access.” Without weighing in on the circuit split over employers’ computer-use policies, the Court concludes that violating public websites’ terms of service, as Wilson and Mislove propose to do for their research, does not constitute a CFAA violation under the “exceeds authorized access” provision.

The DOJ tried to argue the plaintiffs had no case because it would never in a million years even think about bringing a CFAA prosecution over terms of service violations. The court says the government’s own words and actions contradict its assertions.

The government argues that plaintiffs fail to establish a credible threat of prosecution under the CFAA, contending that (1) plaintiffs’ testimony shows that they do not fear prosecution (and, indeed, already have engaged in such research); (2) past CFAA prosecutions do not establish a credible threat that plaintiffs’ proposed conduct will be prosecuted; and (3) the government’s charging policies and public statements undercut plaintiffs’ attempt to establish a credible threat of prosecution.

[…]

[E]ven assuming the absence of prior prosecutions, but see Sandvig, 314 F. Supp. 3d at 19–20 (discussing two previous prosecutions under the Access Provision), plaintiffs still are not precluded from bringing this pre-enforcement action. When constitutionally protected conduct falls within the scope of a criminal statute, and the government “has not disavowed any intention of invoking the criminal penalty provision,” plaintiffs are “not without some reason in fearing prosecution” and have standing to bring the suit.

It’s not enough for the government to declare it probably won’t pursue ToS-violation prosecutions, the court says.

[T]he government points to guidance from the Attorney General that “expressly cautions against prosecutions based on [terms-of-service] violations,” as well as statements to Congress by Department of Justice officials, as evidence that plaintiffs face no credible threat of prosecution. Gov’t’s Opp’n at 16–17. But the absence of a specific disavowal of prosecution by the Department undermines much of the government’s argument.

All we’re left with is the DOJ’s prosecutorial discretion, which is extremely suspect and not backed by any statements from officials that would assure the plaintiffs the government would not choose to take action against them in the future.

Discovery has not helped the government’s position. John T. Lynch, Jr., the Chief of the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, testified at his deposition that it was not “impossible for the Department to bring a CFAA prosecution based on [similar] facts and de minimis harm…” Although Lynch has also stated that he does not “expect” the Department to do so, Aff. of John T. Lynch, Jr. [ECF No. 21-1] ¶ 9, “[t]he Constitution ‘does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige…’”

This may keep the DOJ off researchers’ backs but it won’t shield them from lawsuits from the targeted sites.

The Court concludes that agreeing to such contractual restrictions, although that may have consequences for civil liability under other federal and state laws, is not sufficient to trigger criminal liability under the CFAA.

This at least will deter the DOJ from pursuing these prosecutions in its “home” court. Most CFAA action still takes place in the Ninth Circuit, where most tech companies are located. Opinions on civil CFAA cases have been hit and miss, but at least one major case (LinkedIn v. HiQ) saw the court come down on the side of the party doing the scraping, a violation of LinkedIn’s terms of service. This decision is being appealed, but for now, it still stands.

The research can move forward without the threat of government prosecution dangling over its head. That’s a start.

Filed Under: cfaa, criminal, doj, research, security research, terms of service
Companies: aclu

8chan Founder, Who Has Denounced The Site, Now Facing 'Criminal Cyberlibel' Charges From Current Owner

from the oh-come-on dept

Fredrick “Hotwheels” Brennan founded 8chan in 2013 after he and a group of other fairly naive souls felt that 4chan (yes, 4chan) had become too unfriendly to “free speech” because it had started to block some harassment and abuse on the site. It’s always amazing to me the people who insist that internet platforms should allow all speech, without recognizing that what they are asking for is inevitably a cesspool of garbage. Brennan eventually realized as much, relinquished control over the site to Jim Watkins, and even called for the site to be shut down and criticized Watkins. Back in November, Watkins responded by filing a criminal “cyberlibel complaint” in the Philippines. The latest news, from the Filipino site Rappler, is that warrant has been issued for Brennan’s arrest.

There are so many insane things about this, it’s difficult to know where to start. First of all, I’m always perplexed by people who position themselves as free speech absolutists then suing people for libel. It seems to kind of prove that they don’t actually believe what they claim to, and have no problem using the powers of the state to silence speech they dislike.

Second, the whole idea of criminal libel — let alone the “cyber” variety — seems positively insane, though we’ve seen it used before in the Philippines, including against Rappler founder, Maria Ressa. At the very least, it would seem to go against Section 4 of the Filipino Bill of Rights, which states:

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Even the comments that Brennan made, that Watkins has filed these claims over, seem pretty ridiculous. Brennan had tweeted “My theory that Jim Watkins himself is going senile and actually believes in Q is no longer a theory” after it was reported that Watkins was wearing a “Q” pin when testifying before Congress. Calling someone senile would not be libel in the US, and the idea that it would be criminal makes no sense at all.

Brennan happens to be in the US at this time and apparently has decided not to return to the Philippines (where both he and Watkins live) as long as the charges remain in place.

The surprise decision means that Brennan, who is confined to a wheelchair and suffers from a condition known as brittle bone disease, could face up to 12 years in prison.

?It?s basically a death sentence,? Brennan told VICE News from Los Angeles.

His lawyers have filed an appeal of the indictment, which is a fascinating read on its own. It opens with a Voltaire quote: “I may utterly detest what you write, but I shall fight to the death to make it possible for you to continue writing it.” And then states:

VOLTAIRE’S PONTIFICAL VERSE bestirs once again the basic liberties to free speech and free press — liberties that belong as well, if not more, to those who question, who do not conform, who differ. For the ultimate good which we all strive to achieve for ourselves and our posterity can better be reached by a free exchange of ideas, where the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the free market — not just the ideas we desire, but including those thoughts we despise.

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT FREDRICK ROBERT BRENNAN (“Respondent”), by counsel, most respectfully files this APPEAL/PETITION FOR REVIEW (“Appeal”) to the Honorable Secretary of Justice to REVERSE AND SET ASIDE the highly arbitrary, completely baseless, grossly unjustified and manifestly erroneous RESOLUTION of the investigating prosecutor Juliene Raymond A. Cabanacan, acting as Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasig City (“ACP Cabanacan”), dated January 02, 2020 (“Resolution), copy was received by the undersigned counsel on February 19, 2020, finding probable cause for the offense of cyber libel against respondent.

For lack of attention to detail, ACP Cabanacan erroneously cited an incorrect provision of cyberlibel under RA 10175. He cited Section 4 paragraph 4 as an offense that has been violated by respondent. This is defective and is not the correct provision on Cyberlibel in RA 10175.

It goes on from there, but the presentation here is quite fascinating — from the Voltaire quote to the “most respectfully” immediately followed by “highly arbitrary, completely baseless, grossly unjustified and manifestly erroneous” bit. One would hope that the DOJ would rethink this, but given what little we’ve seen of how this bizarre cyberlibel law is enforced in the Philippines, I wouldn’t hold out much hope.

Filed Under: criminal, cyberlibel, defamation, fredrick brennan, free speech, jim watkins, libel, phillippines
Companies: 8chan

New Zealand Censors Declare Christchurch Shooting Footage Illegal; Start Rounding Up Violators

from the this-will-end-badly dept

Following the recent mass shooting in New Zealand, the county’s government swiftly declared the live footage of the attack, along with the shooter’s manifesto, “objectionable.” This classification is more than a condemnation: it made both illegal to possess or distribute. Thanks to this response, New Zealand law enforcement is now rounding up and charging anyone who violates this post-tragedy decision to make newsworthy content the legal equivalent of child porn.

The first reported arrest occurred March 17th, two days after the shooter livestreamed his attack on local mosques.

A teenager has appeared in a New Zealand court charged with distributing the livestream video of a deadly mass shooting at Christchurch’s Al Noor mosque.

The 18-year-old, whose name was suppressed by the judge, was also charged with publishing a photograph of the mosque with the message “target acquired”, and for inciting violence.

He faces a maximum of 14 years in prison for each charge, prosecutors said.

On top of the stiff potential penalties, the judge also apparently believed the 18-year-old posed enough of a threat (for further violence or just simply disappearing) to deny him bail.

The arrests resulting from New Zealand’s media censorship office’s declaration continue.

A Christchurch businessman has appeared in court on charges of distributing footage of one of the mosque shootings.

Philip Neville Arps, 44, had his application for bail declined when he appeared in the Christchurch District Court today.

He was remanded in custody until his next appearance on April 15.

Another arrest for distributing “obscene” footage and another denial of bail.

In both cases, those arrested appear to be sympathetic (if that’s the right word — it seems so wrong) with the shooter’s hatred of Muslims and preference for a whiter tomorrow. The 18-year-old’s “target acquired” comment suggested, at minimum, they saw nothing wrong with targeting members of certain religions.

Philip Arps appears to be a long-time proponent of white nationalism — even going so far as to use a symbol appropriated by neo-Nazis as the logo for his business. Arps apparently spent the days after the shooting praising the shooter and refusing to apologize for his views. A review of Arps’ business by Stuff Magazine shows Arp hasn’t exactly kept his personal beliefs and his company’s public presence from intermingling.

Beneficial Insulation also charges $14.88 per metre for insulation – 14.88 is a hate symbol popular with white extremists.

The company’s website www.BIIG.co.nz, is an acronym for the company’s full name Beneficial Insulation Installs Guaranteed. BIIg was the name of a barracks at Auschwitz concentration camp, operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II and the Holocaust.

While it may seem like it’s a good idea to take these people out of circulation, the fact that they’re facing a possible 14 years for sharing content arbitrarily declared “obscene” is… well… obscene. These may appear to be clear-cut interpretations of the law, given the sympathies of the people arrested, but future arrests may not be so unambiguous. The footage declared illegal is still newsworthy and the media censorship board hasn’t exactly made it clear it won’t be sending cops after people who use the footage for journalism, research, or criticism.

The ban of the complete video does not automatically mean that any image or short extract from it is also banned. However any edited clips, screenshots or still images taken from the full video depicting scenes of violence, injury or death, or that promote terrorism, may also be illegal.

Violations will be in the eye of the government beholder. Some violators won’t even know they’ve violated the law until they’re being rung up on charges and denied bail. This is an overreaction to a pretty much unprecedented development: the livestreaming of a mass murder. The potential for misjudgment and abuse is huge, given the natural tendency of people to share and comment on newsworthy incidents.

Filed Under: attack, censorship, christchurch, criminal, free speech, massacre, new zealand, philip arps, sharing, video

from the delay-delay-delay dept

Call me surprised. We have been recently discussing a proposal in Japan to alter copyright law in the country to criminalize every single instance of copyright infringement, rather than saving any of that for the civil courts. The bonkers proposal would take the current law, in which all instances of copyright infringement on movies and music carry criminal penalties and expand that to essentially all copyright infringement everywhere. This would include screenshots, posting lyrics to songs, and the like. Shortly after all of this was announced, a large group of Japanese academics wrote an open statement to the government indicating their concern that allowing the new law to move forward would result in an extreme chilling effect on internet usage in the country. At the time, I said it was a litmus test for whether the government would take any objection to the law seriously, tame as it was. It was also likely clear that I wasn’t optimistic.

Well, surprise, the government has actually put the proposal on hold out of a concern for the very chilling effects those academics raised.

The planned copyright amendments were set to be submitted to the Diet on March 8, 2019 but according to local sources, Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP or Jimint?) put the brakes on the proposals the day before they were due to be submitted.

Reports suggest that the party had such serious concerns over the scope of the law that its implementation might mean that “use of the Internet would be atrophied.”

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reportedly held a telephone call with Keisya Furuya, the former National Public Safety Commissioner and chairman of the bipartisan MANGA (Manga-Animation-Game) parliamentary group on March 6, 2019. According to AnimeNewsNetwork, this led to the decision to remove the proposals from the agenda.

And so the law now goes back to the Ministry of Culture, Sports, Science and Technology for further discussion. The ultimate fate of the law is yet to be decided, of course, but this should be encouraging for the pessimists among us (Hi!) that tend to believe these restrictive laws in favor of content companies always get railroaded through no matter the people’s protest. In this case, at least, it seems that protest worked.

Part of that may be because, again, those objecting to the law did so on only the mildest grounds.

Scholars and other experts are suggesting that the best route is to only criminalize actions that cause real financial damage to content owners.

The general consensus among the academics is that making infringement criminally punishable may be acceptable, but only when full copyright works – such as movies, music, manga publications, and books – are exploited in their entirety.

Which, you know, okay. That’s probably still too onerous, but at least it’s a step back from the truly insane route Japan was on.

Filed Under: copyright, criminal, japan

How Microsoft Convinced Clueless Judges To Send A Man To Jail For Copying Software It Gives Out For Free

from the fucking-microsoft dept

This story should make you very, very angry. Last month we had the basic story of how Microsoft had helped to get a computer recycler sentenced to 15 months in jail for “counterfeiting” software that it gives away for free, and which is useless unless you have an official paid-for license from Microsoft. Let me repeat that: Microsoft helped put someone in jail for criminal infringement over software that anyone can get for free (here, go get it), and which won’t function unless you’ve paid Microsoft their due.

At issue are Windows recovery discs. Way back when, these were the discs that usually shipped with new computers in case you needed to reinstall Windows. You still needed your license to make them work, of course. Then people realized it was wasteful to ship all that — combined with enough broadband to make it easy enough to download and burn the files, and Microsoft then just made it easy to do that. But, that’s still complex enough, and Eric Lundgren had a solution. Lundgren is not some fly-by-night pirate. He’s spent years doing amazing things, recycling computers and helping them last longer. And he had an idea. It might be helpful to manufacture a bunch of these recovery discs and offer them to repair shops to help people who were unable to download the recovery discs themselves. He was being helpful.

But Microsoft insisted that he was not just infringing on their copyrights civilly, but criminally. When we left things last month, we were waiting for the 11th Circuit Appeals Court to consider Lundgren’s appeal — and astoundingly this week the judges, demonstrating near total ignorance of technology and the actual legal issues — rejected his appeal, which means Lundgren is going to jail for over a year for trying to do some good in the world, helping people get the exact same thing that Microsoft is offering for free, and which no one could use unless they’d already paid Microsoft its tax.

Lundgren was arrested as part of a government sting when the customs officials spotted the thousands of discs he’d manufactured and just assumed they were pirated. Here’s where Microsoft should have stepped in and said “this is all a mistake” and noted that Lundgren was actually doing a good thing and exactly what Microsoft should be encouraging. Instead, Microsoft sided with the US government and continues to do so to this day.

But beyond being pissed off at Microsoft, we should be pissed off at clueless judges: 11th Circuit Judges William Pryor, Beverly Martin and Lanier Anderson (average age: 66) rejected Lundgren’s appeal in 8 short pages of wrongness. It is depressing that vindictive, idiotic Microsoft combined with technically clueless judges can lead to a result that puts a good man in jail for doing nothing wrong. But that’s where we’re at.

The key issue in the appeal was over the actual “value” of the discs that Lundgren made. He argued, reasonably, that the value is zero. Again, Microsoft gives these away for free. Prosecutors, idiotically, initially argued they were worth the full price of Windows itself ($300). Eventually, the lower court went with a $25 fee after a government “expert” said each disc was worth that much:

To arrive at this amount, the PSR relied on evidence put forward by the government that “Microsoft had a certified computer refurbisher program that made genuine authorized reinstallation discs available to computer refurbishers for about $25,” and multiplying that amount by the 28,000 discs produced.

But that’s wrong. Microsoft sells discs with a license for $25 to repair shops. Again, the discs that Lundgren was offering had no license. You had to supply your own. But the judges (and the prosecutors) can’t seem to grasp this simple fact.

The district court did not err in concluding the “infringement amount” in this case was $700,000. First, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the discs Lundgren created were, or appeared to a reasonably informed purchaser to be, substantially equivalent to legitimate discs containing Microsoft OS software…. That conclusion was supported by the sentencing hearing testimony, in which the government’s expert witness testified that the software on the disks created by Lundgren performed in a manner largely indistinguishable from the genuine versions created by Microsoft. While experts on both sides may have identified differences in functionality in the discs, the district court did not clearly err in finding them substantially equivalent.

Second, the district court reasonably concluded that the proper value of the infringed item was 25perdisc.Thegovernment’sexperttestifiedthatthelowestamountMicrosoftchargesbuyersintherelevantmarket—thesmallregisteredcomputerrefurbishermarket—was25 per disc. The government’s expert testified that the lowest amount Microsoft charges buyers in the relevant market—the small registered computer refurbisher market—was 25perdisc.Thegovernment’sexperttestifiedthatthelowestamountMicrosoftchargesbuyersintherelevantmarket—thesmallregisteredcomputerrefurbishermarket—was25 per disc. Although the defense expert testified that discs containing the relevant Microsoft OS software had little or no value when unaccompanied by a product key or license, the district court explicitly stated that it did not find that testimony to be credible. We afford deference to a district court’s credibility determinations, and here, no evidence suggests that the district court erred in concluding that the defense expert’s valuation was not worthy of credence.

Got that? No one seems to care that an expert pointed out that Lundgren’s discs, sans license, are effectively worthless. They dismiss that as not credible. Again, here was a situation where Microsoft should have said something. And it didn’t. It helped the prosecutors. And this week it issued this completely bullshit statement to the Washington Post:

Microsoft actively supports efforts to address e-waste and has worked with responsible e-recyclers to recycle more than 11 million kilograms of e-waste since 2006. Unlike most e-recyclers, Mr. Lundgren sought out counterfeit software which he disguised as legitimate and sold to other refurbishers. This counterfeit software exposes people who purchase recycled PCs to malware and other forms of cybercrime, which puts their security at risk and ultimately hurts the market for recycled products.

Look, that statement is pure hogwash. The software is not counterfeit. It’s legit. It’s the same thing that anyone can download from Microsoft for free. It didn’t expose anyone to malware or cybercrime, and Microsoft knows that.

So much of this comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding, driven by copyright maximalists of all stripes, including Microsoft. And it’s the idea that all of the following are equivalent: a copyright, a piece of software, a license, and “intellectual property.” Many people like to use all of those things indistinguishably. But they are different. The issue here is the difference between the software and the license. And Microsoft, prosecutors and the judges either do not understand this or just don’t care.

The best explanation of all of this comes from Devin Coldewey over at TechCrunch who dives deep into just how fucked up this situation is. Read Coldewey’s whole piece because it breaks down just how insane this ruling is piece by piece, but here’s one key part:

The “infringing” item is a disc. The “infringed” item is a license. The ones confusing the two aren’t purchasers but the judges in this case, with Microsoft’s help.

“[Defendants] cannot claim that Microsoft suffered minimal pecuniary injury,” wrote the judges in the ruling affirming the previous court’s sentencing. “Microsoft lost the sale of its software as a direct consequence of the defendants’ actions.”

Microsoft does not sell discs. It sells licenses.

Lundgren did not sell licenses. He sold discs.

These are two different things with different values and different circumstances.

I don’t know how I can make this any more clear. Right now a man is going to prison for 15 months because these judges didn’t understand basic concepts of the modern software ecosystem. Fifteen months! In prison!

Coldewey also hits Microsoft hard over all of this:

Microsoft cannot claim that it was merely a victim or bystander here. It has worked with the FBI and prosecutors the whole time pursuing criminal charges for which the defendant could face years in prison. And as you can see, those charges are wildly overstated and produced a sentence far more serious than Lundgren’s actual crime warranted.

The company could at any point have changed its testimony to reflect the facts of the matter. It could have corrected the judges that the infringing and infringed items are strictly speaking completely different things, a fact it knows and understands, since it sells one for hundreds and gives the other away. It could have cautioned the prosecution that copyright law in this case produces a punishment completely out of proportion with the crime, or pursued a civil case on separate lines.

This case has been ongoing for years and Microsoft has supported it from start to finish

There are lots of reasons to hate on Microsoft, but this one is one of the most sickening examples I’ve seen. Anyone at Microsoft who had anything to do with this should be ashamed.

But, of course, this is the world that companies like Microsoft (and the various Hollywood entities) have pushed for for years. They blur the lines between “license” and “content” and “copyright” and then use it as far as they can push it. And who cares if someone who is actually doing good in the world has his life destroyed?

Filed Under: 11th circuit, copyright, criminal, e-waste, eric lundgren, licenses, recovery discs, recycling, software
Companies: microsoft