text – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Important California Privacy Bill Signed Into Law: Police Need A Warrant To Look At Your Data

from the now-for-federal-reform dept

For a long time now, we’ve been talking about the need for ECPA reform. ECPA — the Electronic Communications Privacy Act — is a truly outdated piece of law that law enforcement regularly abuse to conduct warrantless searches on your digital information. There are a number of problems with it, but the most cited one is the fact that it considers emails to be “abandoned” if they’ve been on a server for 180 days, and thus no warrant is needed to read those emails. That may have made sense in the mid-1980s when the law passed and the few people who used email downloaded their emails from a server to a local disk, but it makes no sense at all in the cloud era. However, actually getting ECPA reform through Congress has proven difficult, in large part because some in law enforcement really like this ability to snoop on your emails.

Thankfully, here in California, Governor Jerry Brown has just signed a new bill, for CalECPA, which protects users’ digital information here in California. Just like the federal ECPA should do, CalECPA requires a warrant for access to digital records, including emails and text messages — and the same goes for geographical location information.

This is a big win for EFF and the ACLU, who have been pushing for this law to make it through the California Assembly and then have Governor Brown sign it. Now, if only we could do something similar at the federal level…

Filed Under: calecpa, california, ecpa, ecpa reform, email, jerry brown, location info, privacy, text, warrant

DailyDirt: Technology Is Changing The Way We Talk Because Internetz, LOL

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Sometimes we can’t even agree on the definitions of words, so it’s not too hard to find examples of changes in communication technologies altering how we use words. Text messages on phones have made us lazy to spell words correctly or to spell out entire words or common phrases. Language is inherently flexible, and here are just a few ways some parts of our language have changed.

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: grammar, language, lol, meaning, messaging, prepositional-because, punctuation, text, words

Innovators, Public Interest Groups & Open Access Supporters Pull Out Of Talks On EU Copyright In Protest

from the squandered-opportunities dept

Back in February we reported on a worrying attempt by the European Commission to reframe the discussion about modernizing copyright in Europe purely in terms of licensing, reflected in the name of the initiative, “Licences for Europe“. Although originally a series of discussions were promised to “explore the potential and limits of innovative licensing and technological solutions in making EU copyright law and practice fit for the digital age,” in practice moderators shut down discussions of things like exceptions or even Creative Commons licensing. As far as the Commission was concerned, it seemed the answer to updating copyright for the modern age was just old-style licensing and nothing else.

Those events took place in one of the four “discussion” groups, covering user-generated content (although there weren’t many representatives of the users present — 75% of the participants turned out to be from the copyright industry.) However, it seems that things are equally dire in the group supposedly coming up with solutions for text and data mining (TDM), a technique whereby new information is gleaned by analyzing and comparing large quantities of pre-existing digital texts. Again, the problem was the licensing straitjacket that the Commission insisted on imposing on the discussions.

This inflexibility led to a group of eminent signatories drawn from Nobel prize winners, technology SMEs, research councils, university associations, learned academies, publishers, libraries and law academics from across Europe to send a letter to the European Commission outlining some of the key problems with that approach (pdf). Among other things, it pointed out:

> Organisations in the modern world access the internet, or buy and subscribe to digital content in order for humans and computers to read and develop new ideas from what they have lawfully read. We do not accept that the right for computers to read, extract facts and formulate new ideas is a separate right to the right of humans to freely perform the exact same activities.

This is a crucial point: by insisting on licensing as the only solution to text and data mining, the publishers are trying to carve out another monopoly right, and to set themselves up as gatekeepers over the knowledge contained within the articles they publish, as well as controlling access to the articles themselves. Clearly, that places unacceptable burdens on academics, and will throttle research and innovation in Europe, simply for the sake of being able to extract a further monopoly rent for the work carried out by others.

But the European Commission paid no heed, and insisted that licensing was the only way forward for handling text and data mining in Europe. Now a group of researchers, SMEs, civil society groups and open access publishers who were participating in the text and data mining talks, have had enough, as their recent letter makes clear (pdf):

> We believe that any meaningful engagement on the legal framework within which data driven innovation exists must, as a point of centrality, address the issue of limitations and exceptions. Having placed licensing as the central pillar of the discussion, the “Licences for Europe” Working Group has not made this focused evaluation possible. Instead, the dialogue on limitations and exceptions is only taking place through the refracted lens of licensing. This incorrectly presupposes that additional relicensing of already licensed content (i.e. double licensing) — and by implication also licensing of the open internet — is the solution to the rapid adoption of TDM technology. > > This approach also undermines the considerable work that has been done in Europe to increase the amount of Open Access content available and encourage its exploitation. We are concerned, therefore, that our participation in a discussion that focuses primarily on proprietary licenses could be used to imply that our sectors accept the notion of double licensing of as a solution. It is not. We firmly believe that “the right to read is the right to mine”.

The European Commission’s refusal even to allow people to discuss that issue left only one option:

> Given the above, and the fact that we need to prioritise our limited resources in a way which will best help the Commission to create an appropriate legal and environmental framework for data-driven innovation within the EU, we believe our contribution will be more productive outside the “Licences for Europe” framework. Therefore, we can no longer participate in the “Licences for Europe” process.

This is a real slap in the face for the European Commission, and for those who have organized these discussions in such a narrow and uncompromising way. As we saw with the user-generated content track, the sessions there were stacked with industry representatives that supported the Commission’s line, thus depriving its outcome of any kind of legitimacy. With the withdrawal of such an important group of stakeholders from the text and data mining discussions, the same is now true for this key area.

As a result, the entire Licences for Europe strategy lies in tatters, since it consists almost entirely of the usual copyright maximalists talking amongst themselves, studiously ignoring the changes brought about by the Internet, and simply demanding even more while offering nothing of value. What’s disappointing is that in the wake of ACTA’s defeat last year it seemed that the European Commission had finally realized that it could not simply keep applying the upward copyright ratchet, and had recognized that things needed to change if it wanted to avoid more people taking to the streets in protest. The Licences for Europe fiasco shows that the Commission has in fact learned nothing.

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

Filed Under: copyright, copyright reform, data mining, eu, licensing, text

Court Finds Fantasy Stories Obscene

from the obscenity-vs.-free-speech dept

Obscenity law and the First Amendment tend to run into each other from time to time and the whole “I know it when I see it” concept makes things a bit arbitrary in the best of situations. Still, it’s pretty standard for people to assume questions of obscenity revolve around imagery — still or video — rather than written works. Text and stories often explore taboo subjects, but still are seen to have legitimate literary value. Stories like Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita involve somewhat horrifying concepts, but generally are still considered legitimate works of literature. In an age of easy creation for user-generated content, fan fiction and the like, it is not uncommon for things like slash fiction or related fan fiction to involve incredibly graphic scenes. Whether or not you see the appeal (and, personally, I don’t get it at all), it’s difficult to step aside and say that a particular form of storytelling should be judged as obscene and illegal. When it’s purely fiction, and no one is being harmed or forced to participate and/or experience the work against their will, it is difficult to see what sort of harm has been caused. That is, perhaps, why it is “very rare” for there to be obscenity prosecutions for purely text-based works of fiction. Rare, but not unknown.

Just recently a federal district court in Georgia ruled that a series of stories written or edited by Frank McCoy were obscene, and thus he violated 18 USC 1462 in “transporting” obscene works. McCoy challenged whether or not the stories themselves could be considered obscene. As you might imagine, the subject matter is not mainstream. It is definitely on the extreme. Just reading the descriptions from the court case, which I will not repeat here, made me cringe and feel extremely uncomfortable. We’re talking about extremely taboo subjects that are somewhat horrifying even just to read.

But, again, one could argue the same sorts of things about Lolita, or any number of other works. Should they, too, be deemed obscene? It seems like a dangerous slippery slope, especially when we’re talking about purely written material. In this case, McCoy even had a distinguished English professor testify on his behalf that the works had “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

In his defense, Defendant relies upon the testimony of an expert witness, Professor Gary Richardson, in order to show the Court that his work has serious literary, political, and artistic value.*fn8 (Docs. 165-4 at 67-90, 165-5.) Professor Richardson is a Professor and Chairman of the Department of English at Mercer University. Professor Richardson previously received a Fulbright Scholarship and is a decorated academic in the field of English and literature. Professor Richardson concluded, in his expert opinion, that Defendant’s body of work had literary, political, and artistic value. (Doc. 165-5 at 34-36.) Professor Richardson describes Defendant’s stories as love stories, “basic romance plots,” and “science fiction.” (Doc. 165-4 at 80-81.) While Professor Richardson acknowledges that the predominant themes in Defendant’s work involve “social mores” and “may be considered taboo,” he testified that these are incidental to Defendant’s greater efforts to “undertake an artistic rendering.” (Id. at 84.) These themes, including graphic and explicit incestuous sexual abuse, rape, torture, and murder of prepubescent children and young girls, are according to Professor Richardson, a form of “reader entrapment” which reflects his intent to generate political interest. (Id. at 85.)

During his testimony, Professor Richardson also described Defendant’s use of complex literary techniques within his body of work that develop the characters and further the plot line;*fn9 including, interpolated tale (the use of competing narratives) and complex resonances. (Id. at 87.) Professor Richardson, as an expert in literature, urges the Court to consider a deeper level and “close reading” of Defendant’s work and examine the pornographic “visual gaze” and “central consciousness” are complex “variations on narrative point of view.” (Id. at 88.) According to Professor Richardson, Defendant’s work “reflects serious thought and serious artistry.” (Doc. 165-5 at 4.) Among his reasons in support of his conclusion that Defendant’s body of work contains literary value are, for example, Defendant’s use of inversion of a biological reality in the story entitled “Rapesuzy.” There, Professor Richardson points toward Defendant’s use of science fiction-including the use of nanobots-as he explores the complex and timeless themes of the nature of love, the difference and relationship between love and sexuality, and how society is disposed to interact sexually with the rest of the world. (Id. at 6-7.) For these reasons, Professor Richardson concluded that “under a narrow definition” Defendant’s work does have serious literary value and further that “from the standards of people who study literature, [Defendant’s] stories would manifest serious literary value.”*fn10 (Id. at 19, 22.)

But the judge disagreed, saying that “the Court can find no independent value within the work when considered as a whole” and thus judged the work obscene, finding McCoy guilty. In a separate ruling on the same day, the judge also rejected McCoy’s attempt to have the case thrown out by arguing that the burden was on the government to prove that the works had no “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” In other words, there was a question of whether or not the First Amendment requires the assumption that the work has other value, and then it’s the government’s job to prove otherwise. But the court rejects that and says that the burden is on McCoy to prove that the work has such value — though, as noted in the other decision, it then rejected the opinion of an expert who testified to that effect. Here, the judge said that the work deserves no assumption of protection:

Stated in other words, Defendant’s short stories are not entitled to a heightened evidentiary standard, as a matter of federal constitutional law, because he believes them to be intrinsically literary, capable of joining the ranks of great classical erotic literature such as Ulysses, Tropic of Cancer,and Lolita.*fn5 See Bench Opinion at 9-12 (Discussion of why the Court concludes that Defendant’s short stories, when taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value). Accordingly, though the Eleventh Circuit was not convinced that the musical composition Nasty could speak for itself, this Court has far less trouble declaring that Defendant’s sexually explicit narratives, with their only tangentially related plots, can speak for themselves.

The subject matter of McCoy’s stories is certainly extremely far from the mainstream, and (as noted) could make many people (including myself) somewhat squeamish. But, it still seems troubling that a court is determining that a written work is flat out illegal, when its creation harmed no one, and the work itself has not been forced upon anyone who did not want it. In fact, within the court’s ruling, it notes that McCoy put warnings on the work such that those who might be similarly troubled by the contents would know not to read it:

This story contains very graphic violence against a very young child. If such things bother you (and they do me) I advise against reading this. The story is based upon a line that ran through my head one night, and I couldn’t get it out […basic description of the very taboo subjects included in the story… ] FINAL WARNING !!!! If you think the previous description is based; the actual story is much worse! I strongly advise you to skip this one.

The court, however, uses this “warning” as extra evidence that McCoy knew the work was obscene, and thus uses it against him. That seems kind of silly. After all, wouldn’t the concern over obscenity be the impact the work might have on an unsuspecting or unexpecting reader? Yet here, such a reader would be clearly warned off.

I find this troubling on a variety of First Amendment grounds, especially as the standards used in the case could apply to all sorts of works both professionally published (books exploring the taboo are not exactly uncommon) and to a ton of things written by unsuspecting individuals on the internet. While you and I might not find such works to have value, it still seems quite worrying when a court can decide what kind of stories are legal or illegal.

Filed Under: first amendment, frank mccoy, free speech, obscenity, slippery slope, stories, text

The Ceiling For Mobile Voice and Text Falling Towards $50 Per Month

from the not-quite-free-yet dept

The cost of basic fixed-line voice telephony is quickly falling towards zero. Plenty of companies offer free voice calls (with various hoops to jump through), and the cost of VoIP service continues to drop. This is trickling over to mobile voice service, too, as three of the top four US operators now offer unlimited voice and text plans for about 100permonth.Buteventhatpriceceilingisunderpressure:CricketandMetroPCS,twosmalleroperatorsthatfocusonthelowendofthemarket(anddon’tofferthefootprintofbiggeroperators),havebeenofferingunlimitedplansforunder100 per month. But even that price ceiling is under pressure: Cricket and MetroPCS, two smaller operators that focus on the low end of the market (and don’t offer the footprint of bigger operators), have been offering unlimited plans for under 100permonth.Buteventhatpriceceilingisunderpressure:CricketandMetroPCS,twosmalleroperatorsthatfocusonthelowendofthemarket(anddon’tofferthefootprintofbiggeroperators),havebeenofferingunlimitedplansforunder50 per month, and today, Sprint’s Boost Mobile brand joined them. It’s unlikely that the major operators will enthusiastically fall into line, but in the current economic environment, it’s hard to imagine these cheaper unlimited offerings won’t pull some customers away and put pressure on the bigger operators’ prices. The bigger operators still have a number of competitive advantages, including bigger coverage areas and a wider choice of handsets, but they may find those appeal to fewer consumers if the price gap remains.

Filed Under: price, text, voice

Flirting Over Email Or Text In Scotland Could Land You In Jail

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

It appears some Scottish politicians are putting forth a bill that could put people in jail for up to 10 years for sending a text or email with “sexual content.” The goal of the bill is to discourage sexual harassment over email or text messaging — but it appears to be worded quite broadly. The bill defines the crime as “committed if someone sends an unsolicited text message to someone else which a court finds was designed to give the sender sexual gratification or to humiliate, distress or alarm the receiver.” How the court determines what gives the sender “sexual gratification” isn’t entirely clear. Does a flirty email count? You can also run afoul of the law by “causing a person to see or hear an indecent communication.” Forgot that NSFW tag? You might be in trouble. While you can understand the desire to cut down on harassing messages, this law seems problematic as worded.

Filed Under: criminal, email, harassment, scotland, text