P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Peer to Peer
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Peer to Peer The 3rd millenium technology!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-04-19, 07:02 AM   #1
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - April 6th, ’19

Since 2002































April 6th, 2019




Federal Prosecutors Recommend Paul Hansmeier Spend The Next 12 Years In Prison

Copyright troll appears to be getting comeuppance.
Tim Cushing

Cue the Ron Paul “It’s Happening!!!!” gif. The wheels of justice have been grinding away for years now, but they’ve finally generated several years for longtime copyright troll/supervillain Paul Hansmeier. After making a career out of extorting settlements from alleged porn-watching infringers, extorting settlements from small businesses with bogus ADA complaints, attempting to hide his wealth from his creditors (some of which were owed money for sanctions imposed in copyright trolling cases), and otherwise putting on a one-man show entitled “Why We Hate Lawyers,” Hansmeier is facing the possibility of spending the next decade in prison.

The sentencing recommendation [PDF] prepared by the prosecutors has nothing good to say about Hansmeier. In fact, the prosecutors make it clear they’d have given him even more than the 12+ years they’ve recommended. (h/t Virgil Abt)

Here are the numbers:

As reflected in the report, the appropriate guidelines range for Paul Hansmeier is 135 to 168 months in prison.

And here’s the reasoning for the lengthy sentence:

Paul Hansmeier was the driving force behind this massive scheme. It was Hansmeier who came up with the idea to construct a copyright settlement mill focused on pornographic films. It was Hansmeier who directed his brother to upload clients’ movies onto file-sharing websites to lure downloaders. It was Hansmeier who drafted nearly all of the legal pleadings used to deceive judges. It was Hansmeier who invented phantom hacking allegations. And it was Hansmeier who lied to judges, dissembled in depositions, and coerced others to conceal the truth.

The government says John Steele was basically the muscle — an intimidating figure who also handled the bookwork for the scheme. But it was Hansmeier who did the dirtiest of the dirty work. And as such, he should be dealt with more harshly. And this is hardly the end of the government’s summary of Hansmeiers’ dirty work. The filing continues in this fashion for several pages — a fitting tribute to Hansmeiers’ scamsmanship.

The headings alone indicate the depth of Hansmeiers’ grift.

Hansmeier repeatedly deceived courts

Hansmeier and Steele owned and controlled the plaintiffs

Hansmeier invented allegations of hacking

Hansmeier protected himself by using proxies

The details interspersed between these headings are devastating in their description of Hansmeier and his long-running fraud.

Hansmeier concealed from the courts that he filmed and produced much of the pornography in this case himself, not for commercial distribution, but for the sole purpose of using the resulting pornographic movies as bait.

[…]

Hansmeier compounded his egregiously disgraceful misuse of Judge Bransford’s subpoena authority by lying directly to her face in open court…

[…]

Hansmeier hid the fact that he and his codefendant, John Steele, were the attorneys responsible for filing every fraudulent copyright infringement lawsuit in this case. Hansmeier and Steele recruited an alcoholic and now-deceased Chicago attorney named Paul Duffy to serve as the putative owner of “Prenda Law,” the firm that represented AF Holdings, Ingenuity 13, and the other sham plaintiffs in the various copyright cases.

[…]

[W]hen courts around the country sought to hold Hansmeier responsible for the fraud and damages he had wrought, Hansmeier resorted to perjury and suborning perjury to escape blame and retain the proceeds of the scheme. Hansmeier and Steele swore out false declarations, gave false testimony in depositions and at court hearings, and caused Lutz to do the same…

[…]

Even after Judge Wright’s widely-read order sanctioning Hansmeier, Hansmeier continued to hide the money he gained through the fraudulent scheme. Hansmeier transferred money into his new law firm, Alpha Law, into accounts controlled by his wife, Padraigin Browne, and a sham trust called “Monyet,” and then filed a fraudulent bankruptcy case concealing the fact that Hansmeier retained control over a substantial amount of the proceeds of his fraud case.

The whole recommendation is a depressing read simply for the fact this scam went unimpeded for so long. The government wraps up this ugly narrative with its recommended sentence, but only after offering this last appraisal of Paul Hansmeier.

In summary, Hansmeier was greedy, arrogant, devious, mendacious, and consistently positioned other people to be damaged by his conduct, even as he enjoyed the proceeds of the scheme he orchestrated. Even now, Hansmeier continues to accept responsibility only in conditional terms, hoping to convince the appeals court that his shocking abuse of his position of trust as a Minnesota attorney, and an officer of its courts, was somehow legal.

The government says its final call is 150 months, but the footnote attached indicates the government would have handed out so much more if it had not already agreed not to.

In the plea agreement, the government agreed not to recommend a sentence above 150 months.

Twelve years is a lot of time. But Hansmeier appears to have earned every day of it.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...s-prison.shtml





Alexa Scientists Claim Audio Watermarking Technique with Nearly 100% Detection Accuracy
Kyle Wiggers

Ever hear (no pun intended) of audio watermarking? It’s the process of adding distinctive sound patterns identifiable to PCs, and it’s a major way web video hosts, set-top boxes, and media players spot copyrighted tracks. But watermarking schemes aren’t particularly reliable in noisy environments, like when the audio in question is broadcasted over a loudspeaker. The resulting noise and interference — referred to in academic literature as the “second-screen” problem — severely distorts watermarks, and introduces delays that detectors often struggle to reconcile.

Researchers at Amazon, though, believe they’ve pioneered a novel workaround, which they describe in a paper newly published on the preprint server Arxiv (“Audio Watermarking over the Air with Modulated Self-Correlation“) and an accompanying blog post. The team claims their method — which they’ll detail at the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing in May — can detect watermarks added to about two seconds of audio with “almost perfect accuracy,” even when the distance between the speaker and detector is greater than 20 feet.

Better still? Unlike traditional acoustic fingerprinting methods, which require storing a separate fingerprint for each instance and have a computational complexity that’s proportional to the fingerprint database, the researchers’ approach has a constant complexity, which they say makes it ideally suited for low-power devices like Bluetooth headsets.

“Our algorithm could complement the acoustic-fingerprinting technology that currently prevents Alexa from erroneously waking when she hears media mentions of her name,” wrote Yuan-yen Tai, a research scientist in Amazon’s Alexa Speech group and coauthor of the paper. “We also envision that audio watermarking could improve the performance of Alexa’s automatic-speech-recognition system. Audio content that Alexa plays — music, audiobooks, podcasts, radio broadcasts, movies — could be watermarked on the fly, so that Alexa-enabled devices can better gauge room reverberation and filter out echoes.”

Amazon watermarking

So how’s it work? As Tai explains, the model employs a “spread-spectrum” technique in which watermark energy is spread across time and frequency, rendering it inaudible to human ears while robustifying it against postprocessing (like compression). And it generates watermarks from noise blocks of a fixed duration, each of which introduces its own distinct pattern to selected frequency components in the host audio signal.

Conventional detectors would compare the resulting sequence of noise blocks — the decoding key — with a reference copy. But Tai and colleagues take a different approach: Their algorithm embeds the noise pattern in the audio signal multiple times and compares it to itself. Because said signal passes through the same acoustic environment, Tai explains, instances of the pattern are distorted in similar ways, enabling them to be compared directly.

“The detector takes advantage of the distortion due to the acoustic channel, rather than combatting it,” he added.

It’s not a perfect solution — it necessitates shorter noise patterns, which correlate to lower detection accuracy, and when the target audio includes music, the rhythms sometimes too closely mimic the repeating noise pattern. But the team says both of these can be largely mitigated with repetitions of the noise block pattern — they randomly invert some of the blocks, decreasing the amplitude of the block where it would normally increase and vice versa.

The decoding key, then, becomes a sequence of binary values instead of noise blocks (a sequence of floating-point values), indicating whether a given noise block is inverted or not. (They’re flipped at the detector stage, at which point they’re compared with the noise block patterns.) In experiments, the team says their algorithm’s performance yielded almost 100 percent detection accuracy with watermarks 1.6 seconds in length.
https://venturebeat.com/2019/03/28/a...tion-accuracy/





Streaming Music is Increasing Our Total Spend on Music, Says Official Industry Body
Ben Lovejoy

When streaming music started to take off, there were many pundits suggesting that it would be the death of the music industry, with total revenues plunging. In fact, says the industry’s worldwide trade body, the opposite has been true.

Streaming music has seen total recording industry revenue rise for the fourth year running …

CNET reports the numbers from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).

Streaming music, especially paid subscriptions, last year once again fueled the recording industry’s global growth, lifting worldwide revenue 9.7 percent to $19.1 billion in 2018, according to the music industry’s worldwide trade group Tuesday. That’s the fourth straight year of increase.

Of all categories, streaming grew most, jumping 34 percent to more than $8.93 billion and making up 47 percent of all of the world’s revenue for recorded music, IFPI said.

IFPI busts another myth: that streaming music relies mostly on free tiers.

Paid subscriptions, in fact, were the biggest slice of streaming sales, making up 32.9 percent of global revenue.

Apple Music, with no free tier after an initial free trial, has almost certainly contributed significantly to that stat.

With streaming music accounting for almost half of total music industry income, it clearly won’t be long before it makes up the majority of it – something all but certain to happen this year.

Every new method of selling recorded music has raised concerns. When cassettes overtook vinyl, there were fears that this would open the way to large-scale piracy. CDs led to worries about how easy it was to rip music, and when iTunes started selling individual tracks it was predicted that this would be the end of album sales. Streaming music would see recording revenues plummet, said many, but this too has proven a groundless fear.

Apple Music continues to roll out onto new platforms. After the Android app expanded to tablets, Apple Music launched on Amazon’s range of Echo speakers and then later to Amazon Fire TV.
https://9to5mac.com/2019/04/02/streaming-music/





Google Patches Ads into Android TV Home Screens Without Warning

‘The purpose is to help you discover new apps and contents for your TV’
Jon Porter

Users of multiple popular Android TV devices have discovered that ads are appearing on their home screens. XDA-Developers reports that the new “Sponsored” channel has been spotted on Sony smart TVs, Xiaomi’s Mi Box 3, and the Nvidia Shield TV.

The ads started appearing with a recent update to the Android TV operating system, and users have not reported being warned about them ahead of time. One Reddit thread noted that the ads had appeared on a Sony 900F, which has a starting price of $999.99.

In a statement given to XDA-Developers, a spokesperson from Google said that the ads were part of a “pilot program,” adding, “Android TV is committed to optimizing and personalizing the entertainment experience at home.”

A Sony support page, discovered by Ars Technica, placed the blame for the ads firmly in Google’s hands, saying, “the purpose [of the sponsored channel] is to help you discover new apps and contents for your TV.” It added that the only way to disable the channel is to create a Restricted Profile in the TV that’s filled with the apps you actually want to use.

Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be many other options to get rid of the ads. Users on Reddit have reported that even if they attempt to disable “Android TV Core Services,” turn off auto-updates, and uninstall the latest update, the ads still seem to return after they restart their TVs.

Google isn’t the only company that has put ads on smart TVs. Samsung got caught doing something similar back in 2016, and just last month, Vizio announced that it is developing a new standard to allow smart TVs to show targeted ads. Previously, the manufacturer was hit with a $2.2 million fine back in 2017 for turning tracking on by default across millions of its TVs without its customers’ consent.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/5/18...nsored-channel





Porn is Being Blocked Across All of the UK. Here's Why People Think it's a Terrible Idea.
Isobel Asher Hamilton

• The UK is rolling out laws forcing porn websites to introduce effective age verification blocks, making sure people under the age of 18 cannot access them.
• MindGeek, the company behind PornHub, YouPorn, and RedTube, has said it is developing a system called AgeID which will verify users' ages.
• The government says it will protect children from adult content, but the laws have been sharply criticised on a number of fronts.
• Critics say the so-called "porn block" could have huge ramifications for privacy, freedom of expression, and sex workers' safety — all while being ineffective.

Some of the world's biggest porn sites are about to go dark in the UK.

The government is going to introduce new a law that will require sites, like PornHub, to introduce effective age verification blocks, making sure people under the age of 18 cannot access them.

The law which has come to be known as the "porn block" was introduced as part of the Digital Economy Act in 2017. Quite when it will be formally rolled out is unclear, with the government denying reports it will be next month.

The regulation has been backed by Britain's largest children's charity the NSPCC, but has also sharply criticised for being poorly-thought-out and potentially damaging to privacy and freedom of speech.

"It would appear the government thought this was a cost-neutral freebie that they could get away with very easily without realising the potential impact it would have on privacy and data security," said Myles Jackman, a UK obscenity lawyer.

A spokesman for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) told Business Insider: "Introducing age verification is a world-leading step forward to protect children. Adult content is currently too easy to access on the internet, we’re making sure the protections that exist for children offline are provided online too."

Here's everything you need to know about Britain's porn block.

Handing the keys to PornHub's parent company

The government itself won't be implementing any age verification tech, instead, a technical solution to ban under-18s from accessing porn has been proposed by a firm called MindGeek.

MindGeek is an umbrella company which owns PornHub, YouPorn, and RedTube. It has said it is setting up a company called AgeID, which will provide a system for verifying that users are in fact over 18.

It is not exactly clear how AgeID will accomplish this, although MindGeek says it will offer three or four options bundled together as part of the AgeID interface.

One is that users will have to go down to a convenience store and show a piece of valid ID in order to obtain a "porn pass," which could then be uploaded to a user's account on Pornhub. Another proposed method would be to scrape users' Facebook data, and then infer from their activity whether they're over 18.

Open Rights Group (ORG) Executive Director Jim Killock told Business Insider that the government's decision to let the industry deal with age verification is "downright irresponsible" when it comes to protecting citizens' privacy, because their data and therefore their porn habits could be vulnerable to a breach.

"It's neither accurate nor desirable in terms of giving away all of your private details to a third-party provider," added Jackman, the obscenity lawyer.

"Google is very secure, pornographic websites are not"

He pointed to the Ashley Madison data breach of 2015, in which the identities of people using the extra-marital affairs website were leaked to the public. It led to massive personal upheaval for those affected including divorces, and in some cases contributed to suicides.

Killock said the porn industry is not cash-rich enough to safely store millions of IDs. "Google is very secure, pornographic websites are not," he said.

He also fears that leaked information could be used to blackmail people, pointing to current "sextortion" scam emails which claim — largely falsely — that they have evidence someone's porn habits and demand bitcoin in return.

On a more quotidian level, Killock is also discomfited by a private company like MindGeek possessing personal user data, as it would be in its commercial interest to monetize it. "There's literally no way you can trust a private company on privacy," he said.

MindGeek's AgeID was not immediately available for comment when contacted by Business Insider.

Will it actually work?

But there are also more basic concerns about whether the law will actually work.

People may be able to circumvent it using a VPN or Tor, which can trick a site into believing the user is accessing it from a country other than the UK. Teenagers are well aware of such tools and have them installed on their phone.

Jackman believes that the block will inevitably drive people towards these technologies. "It's arguably an own-goal from a government perspective," Jackman said.

Killock said that the legislation was drawn up with a view to preventing under-12s from stumbling across pornographic material — and that for this purpose it is unfit.

"It's unlikely that children stumble on major porn sites, they're more likely to stumble on an image on Google search or stumble on a pornographic advert on some slightly dodgy torrent site," he said.

The block also won't affect social media sites like Twitter where pornographic material can spread, something that was described as a "particular challenge" by think-tank, the Digital Policy Alliance, which collaborated with the government on drafting the legislation.

Ripple effects on free speech and sex workers' safety

Critics of the porn block also fear that handing over market dominance to a porn conglomerate like MindGeek has the potential to start a domino effect, disadvantaging marginalised groups and therefore impacting freedom of expression in porn online.

"Arguably there is significant risk of one corporation effectively having control over all types of sexual content. So there are risks that more marginal sexual communities like LGBTQ, BDSM, etc will have material evaporate in the free speech environment, therefore will all be beholden to PornHub," Jackman said.

Killock agreed that MindGeek could end up being a major beneficiary of the policy. "It is paradoxical that the government are effectively giving the world's biggest porn company the opportunity to dominate the online market in age verification," he said.

Another knock-on effect could be an increased strain on sex workers. Individual sites maintained by British sex workers could fall under the remit of the new laws, as they contain adult content for "commercial gain." Sex workers who advertise their services on personal websites would then have to either buy MindGeek's software, or build their own age verification systems.

Sex work historian Kate Lister said that the ability for sex workers to work online has greatly increased their safety.

"When sex work is online it's not on the streets, and it also means sex workers can work for themselves and not for a third party like a pimp or a madam," Lister said. She added that working online also allows sex workers to screen clients more carefully.

"It is really scary if you're a sex worker online because online is how you screen your clients, it's how you get your business, it's how you promote your brand, it's how you stay safe," Lister explained.

When will the porn block happen?

It's not at all clear when the porn block might become reality.

It was meant to come into force in April 2018, but got postponed by the DCMS. A press release from March 2018 said age verification would then be enforceable by the end of last year.

Some outlets have reported that the block will now come into effect on April 1, 2019. The DCMS has not given that as a date, but has said it will be announcing a date soon.

Lister said that for the sex workers, waiting to see whether the block will affect their business, the uncertainty is like waiting for the axe to fall, especially since they're not entirely clear on what content might get swept into the block.

"It's all quite vague. I suppose it has to be, because if they just say 'anyone with any adult content' then the internet will come screeching to a halt," she said. "We just don't know how it's going to work... it's a bit like Brexit I suppose, in a mad way."
https://www.newstimes.com/technology...K-13729887.php





Google Blocks China Adverts for Sites that Help Bypass Censorship
Yuan Yang

Google has stopped distributing advertisements in China for two websites that review anti-censorship software, in a move that critics consider signals the US tech giant's efforts to curry favour with Beijing.

Mr Kaye also questioned whether Google had researched the legal status of the review sites, or "Sought ways to ameliorate the impact on expression" before deciding to enforce a ban against them as regards all VPN-related adverts.

"Google have withdrawn from China before and that scene wasn't pleasant, so if they want to come back again, they have to show a stronger 'kindness' signal."

Google closed its China search engine in 2010 after suffering cyber attacks and periodic blocks from the government.

Google said its decision to block VPNMentor's adverts was "Completely unrelated" to trying to re-enter China.

"As we've said for many months, we have no plans to launch Search in China and there is no work being undertaken on such a project," the company added, referring to its previously leaked "Dragonfly" plan to bring a censored Google Search back to China, which it has indicated it is not pursuing.

Last week, VPNMentor, a company that reviews virtual private network services that allow users to bypass China's internet controls and avoid surveillance, said that Google had refused to sell its adverts to Chinese users, after doing so for more than two years.

On Wednesday, Top10VPN, another review site, said it had received the same notice after advertising with Google for several months.

VPNMentor posted a screenshot of an email to Twitter, appearing to be from Google, saying "It is currently Google policy to disallowed [sic] promoting VPN services in China, due to the local legal restrictions".

Google runs adverts on third-party websites in China.

Google said it had "Longstanding policies prohibiting ads in our network for private servers, in countries where such servers are illegal", adding that bans on VPN adverts in China had been in place for several years.

On Friday, China's market regulator demanded that internet platforms step up their censorship of adverts.

Charlie Smith of GreatFire, a censorship monitoring organisation, criticised Google's blunt action in relation to VPNMentor and Top10VPN as being too broad. He said: "There are legally registered VPNs operating in China, so either Google has not kept up to date with local regulations or they are overstepping their boundaries."

"If Google is in the business of expanding access to information, why do they not conceive of their business in those terms in China?" he asked.
https://www.ft.com/content/1091cf20-...1-8d9ef1626294





New Australian Laws Could See Social Media Execs Jailed Over Terror Images

Facebook said it "quickly" removed a staggering 1.5 million videos of the Christchurch mosque attacks earlier this month
Daniel De Carteret

Australia pledged Saturday to introduce new laws that could see social media executives jailed and tech giants fined billions for failing to remove extremist material from their platforms.

The tough new legislation will be brought to parliament next week as Canberra pushes for social media companies to prevent their platforms from being "weaponised" by terrorists in the wake of the Christchurch mosque attacks.

Facebook said it "quickly" removed a staggering 1.5 million videos of the white supremacist massacre livestreamed on the social media platform.

A 17-minute video of the March 15 rampage that claimed the lives of 50 people was widely available online and experts said it was easily retrievable several hours after the attack.

"Big social media companies have a responsibility to take every possible action to ensure their technology products are not exploited by murderous terrorists," Prime Minister Scott Morrison said in a statement.

Morrison, who met with a number of tech firms Tuesday—including Facebook, Twitter and Google—said Australia would encourage other G20 nations to hold social media firms to account.

Attorney-General Christian Porter said the new laws would make it a criminal offence for platforms not to "expeditiously" take down "abhorrent violent material" like terror attacks, murder or rape.

Executives could face up to three years in prison for failing to do so, he added, while social media platforms—whose annual revenues can stretch into the tens of billions—would face fines of up to ten percent of their annual turnover.

"Mainstream media that broadcast such material would be putting their licence at risk and there is no reason why social media platforms should be treated any differently," Porter said.

The government was so far "underwhelmed" by the response from tech giants at their Tuesday meeting with Morrison, communications minister Mitch Fifield told reporters Saturday.

Facebook said on Tuesday it was "committed to working with leaders and communities" around the world to "help counter hate speech and the threat of terrorism". The company declined to comment further on Saturday.

Cyber-security expert Nigel Phair cast doubt over the likelihood the proposed Australian laws could impose jail time.

Extradition is complicated and reserved for "serious criminal matters", the University of New South Wales academic and former federal police officer told AFP, while Australian-based executives were not company "decision makers".

"Jail is for violent offenders not a marketing representatives in Australia of an American social media company," he added.

But Phair said social media firms can also do more than they pledged at the Tuesday meeting.

"They didn't read the tea leaves then, it'll be different how they read the tea leaves now," he said.
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-austra...dia-execs.html





Factbox: "Fake News" Laws Around the World

Singapore’s parliament on Monday began considering a law on “fake news” that an internet watchdog has called the world’s most far-reaching, stoking fears the government could use additional powers to choke freedom of speech and chill dissent.

Governments and companies worldwide are increasingly worried about the spread of false information online and its impact on everything from share prices to elections and social unrest.

Human rights activists fear laws to curb so-called “fake news” could be abused to silence opposition.

Here are details of such laws around the world:

SINGAPORE

Singapore’s new law would require social media sites like Facebook to carry warnings on posts the government deems false and remove comments against the “public interest”.

Singapore, which ranks 151 among 180 countries rated by the World Press Freedom Index, defines “public interests” as threats to its security, foreign relations, electoral integrity and public perception of the government and state institutions.

Violations could attract fines of up to S$ 1 million ($737,500) and 10 years in prison.

RUSSIA

Last month, President Vladimir Putin signed into law tough new fines for Russians who spread what the authorities regard as fake news or who show “blatant disrespect” for the state online.

Critics have warned the law could aid state censorship, but lawmakers say it is needed to combat false news and abusive online comment.

Authorities may block websites that do not meet requests to remove inaccurate information. Individuals can be fined up to 400,000 rouble ($6,109.44) for circulating false information online that leads to a “mass violation of public order”.

FRANCE

France passed two anti-fake news laws last year, to rein in false information during election campaigns following allegations of Russian meddling in the 2017 presidential vote.

President Emmanuel Macron vowed to overhaul media laws to fight “fake news” on social media, despite criticism that the move was a risk to civil liberties.

GERMANY

Germany passed a law last year for social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, to quickly remove hate speech.

Called NetzDG for short, the law is the most ambitious effort by a Western democracy to control what appears on social media. It will enforce online Germany’s tough curbs on hate speech, including pro-Nazi ideology, by giving sites a 24-hour deadline to remove banned content or face fines of up to 50 million euros.

Since it was adopted, however, German officials have said too much online content was being blocked, and are weighing changes. [reut.rs/2RP1OeW]

MALAYSIA

Malaysia’s ousted former government was among the first to adopt a law against fake news, which critics say was used to curb free speech ahead of last year’s general elections, which it lost.The measure was seen as a tool to fend off criticism over graft and mismanagement of funds by then prime minister Najib Razak, who now faces charges linked to a multibillion-dollar scandal at state fund 1 Malaysia Development Berhad.

The new government's bid to deliver on an election promise to repeal the law was blocked by the opposition-led Senate, however. [reut.rs/2R4IR6I]

EUROPEAN UNION

The European Union and authorities worldwide will have to regulate big technology and social media companies to protect citizens, European Commission deputy head Frans Timmermans said last month.

EU heads of state will urge governments to share information on threats via a new warning system, launched by the bloc’s executive. They will also call for online platforms to do more to remove misleading or illegal content.

Union-level efforts have been limited by different election rules in each member nation and qualms over how vigorously regulators can tackle misleading content online.

($1=1.3559 Singapore dollars)

($1=65.4725 roubles)

Reporting by Fathin Ungku; Editing by Clarence Fernandez; and Joe Brock
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-si...-idUKKCN1RE0XH





Why Courtrooms Are Kryptonite for Alex Jones

Shock jocks lose their power when forced to tell the truth, the whole truth.
Charlie Warzel

Nothing like a three-hour deposition under oath to turn an excitable conspiracy theorist into a man subdued, deferential and humbled. That’s the Alex Jones who the world met for the first time on Friday, when attorneys for families of the victims of a school shooting posted his deposition online.

The deposition was given earlier this month in conjunction with a number of lawsuits on behalf of parents of victims of the attack in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Mr. Jones, the longtime misinformation-peddler and founder of the radio and online show Infowars, is being sued for defamation for saying repeatedly during his broadcasts that parts of the Sandy Hook shooting were staged and that the tragedy was a “false flag” operation, designed to take away firearms from American citizens.

For anyone familiar with his broadcasts and style, the deposition is a jarring piece of evidence. It is also perhaps the most revealing portrait of Mr. Jones — one that strips bare the bloviating host to expose a huckster. Amid his heavy sighing and wincing, the hours of out-of-court testimony show the real Alexander Jones: a man caught between the desire to defend his conspiracy empire and a legal system that threatens to bring it all crashing down.

On camera and in public, the stocky Texan is famous for his meandering soliloquies and belligerent, occasionally violent verbal outbursts. The Alex Jones persona orbits around his volatility, keeping audiences entertained and colleagues on their toes. It’s never quite clear whether he’ll laugh and burst into song, pound the table in a fit of rage or begin dramatically weeping.

The deposition video features Mr. Jones from the waist-up, sitting at a table — a camera angle similar to his online broadcasts. However, unlike an Infowars episode, the host is not in control. Instead, Mr. Jones is peppered with aggressive questions from an attorney. His confidential sources are exposed to be message board trolls and cranks. He’s made to read from a disturbing police report, chronicling the testimony of emergency medical workers who attended the shooting at Sandy Hook, and then immediately watch footage of his past broadcasts, in which he declares that elements of the violence were part of a “false flag” operation.

In the video, Mr. Jones occasionally attempts to slip into his Infowars persona. But his digressions are dismissed by lawyers as “nonresponsive.” At one point, Mr. Jones, evidently weary from questioning, asks for clarification of the lawyers’ meaning of the word “staged.” His question is cut off. “I’m not here to answer your questions,” the lawyer says. “You’re going to tell me what staged means when you said it.”

“This is such a rare public insight to his character and integrity,” Joshua Owens, a former Infowars employee who worked closely with Jones until 2017, told me on Friday evening after watching the deposition. “As someone who regularly saw his dynamic with others, no one speaks to him like this. [No one] asks these kinds of questions, pressures him to answer, or expects him to remain composed long enough for it to go anywhere productive.” Mr. Owens left Infowars after disagreements with Mr. Jones.

For more than two decades, Mr. Jones has built a big business on specious claims and fear-mongering. When pressed on false claims by critics, his classic response tends to be that he’s merely asking questions others are too afraid to ask.

Portions of the deposition are vintage Infowars: Mr. Jones blames “the media"; suggests that he is actually the person who is the victim of an unfair smear campaign; casts doubt on the veracity of the Infowars clips the lawyers have presented to him as evidence and suggests they’ve been heavily edited and that the audio was altered.

“That’s Alex Jones’s M.O.,” Owens said of the deposition. “To flood any topic with confusion and doubt so no one can grab onto anything.”

But under oath, Mr. Jones’s tactics fissile. And the deposition highlights a troubling reality: The legal system may be the only way to defang a well-known conspiracy theorist at the height of his powers. Not only does the parade of lawsuits related to the Sandy Hook shooting cast him as a villain, but they threaten to expose and, perhaps drain, the funding sources that keep Infowars running without advertisers. There’s plenty at stake; documents reviewed by The New York Times last September suggest the bulk of Mr. Jones’s money comes from his business selling supplement products, allegedly netting more than $20 million in revenue per year.

Near the end of the questioning, Mr. Jones suggested his claims about the Sandy Hook massacre were the result of a mental disorder. He said he “almost had like a form of psychosis back in the past where I basically thought everything was staged, even though I’m now learning a lot of times things aren’t staged.”

The deposition footage is a rare occasion where Mr. Jones’s anger is caged. But I saw it once before, while covering his child custody trial in 2017, where he claimed that his Infowars persona was “performance art.” Throughout the trial, Mr. Jones, frustrated at being legally compelled to stay quiet, was restless and irritable. On the stand, he couldn’t maintain his composure. His behavior — pretending to lack specific knowledge, wagging his finger at opposing counsel and refusing to answer yes or no questions — was far more reminiscent of a spoiled child than a multimillionaire media tycoon.

It’s unsurprising that the opposing legal team chose to release the deposition footage online, where it received tens of thousands of views in just 24 hours. In the sea of viral clips of Alex Jones, he always appears larger than life — and, crucially, in tenuous control of whatever narrative he’s spinning. That control is largely the source of his power over his audience, his employees and his critics.

But this new set of viral clips busts the myth of Alex Jones, presenting him in a situation he can neither engineer nor spin. He’s a man who has lost control of the narrative. And it’s this performance — more than any ruling from any judge — that poses the greatest threat to the Infowars empire.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/31/o...andy-hook.html





FTC Gives ISPs Green Light to Block Applications as Long as they Disclose it

Despite Ajit Pai's assurances, FTC can't fully police net neutrality.
Jon Brodkin

When repealing net neutrality rules, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and fellow Republicans argued that consumers had nothing to worry about because the Federal Trade Commission would protect them from discriminatory practices by Internet service providers.

But there was never any good reason to think the FTC could come close to replacing FCC oversight of broadband providers, and FTC Chairman Joseph Simons essentially confirmed as much in a speech last week.

Simons said that "blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization would not be per se antitrust violations." By contrast, the now-repealed FCC rules prohibited all three classes of behavior on a per se basis, Simons noted. Simons made the remarks at a telecom policy conference hosted by the Free State Foundation, a free-market think tank (see transcript).

The FCC gutted its own authority over ISPs by deciding that broadband is no longer telecommunications or a common-carrier service. That decision also gave the FTC some power to oversee ISPs, because the FTC is authorized to regulate non-common carriers, but the FTC can't issue its own net neutrality rules.

"The FTC is, principally, a law enforcement agency. It is not a sector regulator like the FCC," Simons said.

ISPs can block if they disclose it

The FTC can punish US companies for unfair or deceptive practices. But in regard to net neutrality, this simply means that ISPs must disclose any behavior that would have violated the old net neutrality rules.

"Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, we may prosecute unfair or deceptive acts or practices... Simply stated, we have a strong interest in ensuring that companies stand by their promises to consumers," Simons said.

The FTC would review whether ISPs keep their promises just as it reviews whether other companies keep their promises. "We would review ISPs' activities in the same way," Simons said. "For example, we could take action against ISPs if they block applications without adequately disclosing those practices or mislead consumers about what applications they block or how."

How would the FTC handle throttling of websites or online services? Simons explained:

To determine whether particular instances of throttling are deceptive, we would first evaluate what claims an ISP made to consumers about their services and how those claims are supported. We would look closely at any relevant research and evaluate the study's design, scope, and results and consider how a study relates to a particular claim. To evaluate whether a practice was unfair, we would consider whether the alleged throttling had countervailing benefits and whether there were reasonable steps consumers could have taken to avoid it. We would also consider consumer injury, the number of consumers affected, and the need to prevent future misconduct.

In previous years, the FTC has sued both TracFone and AT&T for failing to adequately disclose throttling on unlimited data plans. (TracFone agreed to pay $40 million, and the AT&T case is still pending.)

With TracFone and AT&T, the alleged violation wasn't the throttling itself. The violation was the act of deceiving consumers.

FCC member claimed blocking still “unlawful”

The FTC chair's comments about his agency's authority over ISPs are no surprise. In April 2017, eight months before Pai led the vote to repeal net neutrality rules, we wrote that, under FTC enforcement, "ISPs would only be bound by net neutrality requirements as long as they promise to follow them."

But as Gizmodo noted Friday, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr claimed shortly before the net neutrality repeal vote that blocking and throttling would still be illegal after the repeal.

Carr, an FCC commissioner since August 2017, was previously the FCC's general counsel and before that was a legal advisor to Pai when Pai was merely a commissioner and not the chairman. In a November 2017 op-ed for The Washington Post, Carr wrote:

[F]ederal antitrust laws will apply. Section 1 of the Sherman Act renders anti-competitive agreements illegal. So, if ISPs reached agreements to act in a non-neutral manner by unfairly blocking, throttling or discriminating against traffic, those agreements would be per se unlawful. Moreover, Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it illegal for a vertically integrated ISP to anti-competitively favor its content or services over that of an unaffiliated business.

Carr's statement had some qualifiers, such as "reached agreements" and the word "unfairly" before "blocking." But he was clearly trying to give the public the impression that the same kinds of behavior previously outlawed by the FCC would still be barred in a post-net neutrality legal system.

FCC admitted limitation in court

The FTC isn't the only antitrust enforcer. Businesses and individuals can bring lawsuits for violations of the Sherman Act, and antitrust lawsuits can also be brought by state attorneys general and the US Department of Justice. Perhaps Carr's theory could be tested in court even without FTC involvement, but winning a case against an ISP over blocking or throttling would be difficult at best if the ISP disclosed the blocking or throttling in advance.

FCC rules still require ISPs to disclose blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization to consumers. The FCC's legal team has defended its repeal in part by telling judges that the FTC and antitrust rules would be able to protect consumers in the absence of net neutrality rules. But in February, during oral arguments in the lawsuit seeking to reinstate net neutrality rules, an FCC lawyer admitted that blocking and throttling would not be punishable if an ISP discloses the blocking and throttling.

"If it's fully disclosed, there wouldn't be anything deceptive," FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson said at the time.

All violations of the Sherman Act are also violations of the FTC Act, and as such the FTC notes that "it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act." The FTC chair is thus a pretty good source on what violates antitrust law, and he clearly stated last week that blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization are not per se violations.

"I intend to use our authority aggressively to address violations of the laws we enforce, but there are key differences between conduct prohibited by the FCC's [now-repealed] Open Internet Order, and conduct that the FTC can reach now with our antitrust and consumer protection jurisdiction," Simons said.

Paid prioritization is “price discrimination,” but often legal

Simons noted that in the broadband market, "some conduct, such as horizontal agreements between ISPs to fix prices, allocate markets, or divide customers would be a per se antitrust violation."

That's not true for something like paid prioritization, in which ISPs would charge websites or online services for priority access to end users. Paid prioritization was outlawed by the Obama-era FCC's net neutrality rules in part because it could make it difficult for startups to compete against large companies that can afford to pay ISPs for better access.

But in other markets, paid prioritization is normal, Simons argued:

Paid prioritization is a type of price discrimination, which is ubiquitous in the economy. For example, think about when you walk into grocery store. Some customers get lower prices because they cut out coupons. Others might get a seniors discount. Others might get 2 percent off with their credit card. Yet others get discounts because they have a loyalty card with that supermarket... think about the express toll lanes on interstates 95 and 66. Or think about Amtrak's Acela service to New York, which is faster and more expensive than the local trains. Clearly, our transportation authorities think that allowing people to pay more for faster service is at least sometimes beneficial.

Simons allowed that ISP conduct including paid prioritization may be anti-competitive in some cases. "Where an ISP excludes certain content, applications, or services, we would engage in a fact-specific analysis to see whether that foreclosure harmed competition through raising rivals' costs or excluding competitors," he said.

But it's clear that antitrust law and FTC enforcement is not a full replacement for the FCC's repealed net neutrality rules. While Simons called antitrust law "sufficiently flexible and dynamic to cover a wide range of activities," he said the laws are "limited to prohibiting conduct that is anti-competitive, not simply perceived to be unfair or discriminatory."

As noted earlier in this story, the FCC's claim that the FTC can handle net neutrality violations has played a role in the lawsuit seeking to reverse the repeal. As petitioners including Mozilla and consumer advocacy groups told a federal appeals court, "The FCC may not delegate to DOJ and the FTC responsibility for addressing fundamental questions of national telecommunications policy when Congress expressly assigned that job to the FCC."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...y-disclose-it/





Thousands Tell the FCC to Scrap Its Dumb Rules That Let Carriers Block Text Messages
Catie Keck

Thousands of people have written to the Federal Communications Commission to lambast the agency over its controversial decision to give wireless carriers far more power over text messages sent to large groups.

Essentially, the FCC’s decision gives your carrier the ability to block or charge senders more for certain messages. As Gizmodo previously explained following the FCC’s decision in December, its critics claim that giving carriers more power over texts is a free speech issue that could negatively affect activists and nonprofits. Eight senators who opposed the ruling wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in December that “carriers could force businesses, advocacy organizations, first responders, doctors, and any others” to pay more to reach their audiences via text messages.

The FCC, meanwhile, neatly packaged the announcement of its decision, which reclassifies SMS and MMS as “information services” rather than “telecommunication services” like phone calls, as a benefit to consumers, claiming that it will enable carriers to better protect them against robo-texts and spamming. While we can likely collectively agree that spamming in any form is at least a perpetual annoyance and at worst a form of harassment, giving wireless carriers broad powers over text messages (that, by the way, also allows them to hike their fees) clearly creates a scenario ripe for a whole lot of bullshit.

In response to the FCC’s decision, John Bergmayer, an attorney at internet rights group Public Knowledge, filed a so-called petition for reconsideration on behalf of his organization in an attempt to push the FCC to go back on its decision to give carriers more power over text messages. Tuesday is the last day for members of the public to write to the FCC in support of the Public Knowledge petition, and doing so will help bolster the case against groups that like the carriers’ newfound power, namely AT&T and telecoms trade group CTIA.

In addition to the group of senators, 20 groups, including Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have opposed the decision, writing in a group letter in December that “based on numerous incidents in the past, we fear that permitting carriers to block messages without any oversight will result in censoring time-critical speech, hamper efforts to organize political engagement and severely restrict the ability of civil rights organizations, religious organizations, and other non-commercial organizations to use texting platforms to their full capacity.”

Is the FCC likely to overturn its decision if enough letters are sent to the agency? Almost certainly not, but Bergmayer said writing to the FCC in support of the petition has two important purposes: establishing a public docket on the record on this issue, and creating something to show members of Congress that this is an issue their constituents care about.

Writing to the FCC about this issue also effectively lays some groundwork for the issue to be readdressed, as Josh Tabish, Technology Exchange Fellow with digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future, explained to Gizmodo. According to Tabish, more than 7,500 people have written to the FCC through a website Fight for the Future built for the write-in campaign.

“Even if the FCC doesn’t ultimately decide to reconsider and classify text messages as a Title II service, it sends a really strong message that internet users are pissed about this, cellphone users are unhappy, and they expect congressional action to correct the mistakes of Ajit Pai’s FCC,” he said. Who among us can’t get behind that action?

In the meantime, the FCC’s decision has effectively pushed regular SMS and MMS texts into the black hole of corporate telecoms. So please consider this a friendly reminder to use Signal now.
https://gizmodo.com/thousands-tell-t...let-1833727641





House Democrats Refuse to Weaken Net Neutrality Bill, Defeat GOP Amendments

House Commerce Committee voted to reverse Ajit Pai's net neutrality repeal.
Jon Brodkin

Democrats in the US House of Representatives yesterday rejected Republican attempts to weaken a bill that would restore net neutrality rules.

The House Commerce Committee yesterday approved the "Save the Internet Act" in a 30-22 party-line vote, potentially setting up a vote of the full House next week. The bill is short and simple—it would fully reinstate the rules implemented by the Federal Communications Commission under then-Chairman Tom Wheeler in 2015, reversing the repeal led by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in 2017.

Commerce Committee Republicans repeatedly introduced amendments that would weaken the bill but were consistently rebuffed by the committee's Democratic majority. "The Democrats beat back more than a dozen attempts from Republicans to gut the bill with amendments throughout the bill's markup that lasted 9.5 hours," The Hill reported yesterday.

Republican amendments would have weakened the bill by doing the following:

• Exempt all 5G wireless services from net neutrality rules.
• Exempt all multi-gigabit broadband services from net neutrality rules.
• Exempt from net neutrality rules any ISP that builds broadband service in any part of the US that doesn't yet have download speeds of at least 25Mbps and upload speeds of at least 3Mbps.
• Exempt from net neutrality rules any ISP that gets universal service funding from the FCC's Rural Health Care Program.
• Exempt ISPs that serve 250,000 or fewer subscribers from certain transparency rules that require public disclosure of network management practices.
• Prevent the FCC from limiting the types of zero-rating (i.e., data cap exemptions) that ISPs can deploy.

Another Republican amendment would have imposed net neutrality rules but declared that broadband is an information service. This would have prevented the FCC from imposing any other type of common-carrier regulations on ISPs.

The committee did approve a Democratic amendment to exempt ISPs with 100,000 or fewer subscribers from the transparency rules, but only for one year.

GOP: “More government socialism”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) claimed that the Democrats' bill "is not the net neutrality that people want" and is "actually more government socialism," according to The Hill.

But the primary opponents of the FCC's net neutrality rules were broadband providers and Republicans in Congress, not the people at large. Polls showed that the FCC's repeal was opposed by most Americans: "Eighty-six percent oppose the repeal of net neutrality, including 82 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats," the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland reported last year after surveying nearly 1,000 registered voters.

"It's embarrassing watching telecom shills in these committee votes attempt to turn this into a partisan issue when it's actually quite simple: no one wants their cable company to control what they can see and do on the Internet, or manipulate where they get their news, how they listen to music, or what apps they can use," Deputy Director Evan Greer of advocacy group Fight for the Future said.

The now-repealed net neutrality rules prohibited ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful content and from charging online services for prioritization. The Democrats' bill would reinstate those rules and other consumer protections that used to be enforced by the FCC. For example, Pai's repeal vote also wiped out a requirement that ISPs be more transparent with customers about hidden fees and the consequences of exceeding data caps.

"Our bill protects consumers and small businesses from abusive and discriminatory practices by Internet service providers and protects free speech and innovation," Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) said after yesterday's vote. "It's time for the full House to vote to keep the Internet open and free, and I will work to make that happen soon."

Long odds in GOP-controlled Senate

Republicans in the FCC and Congress have claimed that the Federal Trade Commission can pick up the slack under its antitrust authority, but FTC Chairman Joseph Simons last week said that "blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization would not be per se antitrust violations." In other words, ISPs can violate net neutrality as long as they publicly disclose that they are doing so.

Even if the Democrats' bill passes the House, it will still face long odds, because Republicans control the Senate and President Trump has opposed net neutrality rules.

The Senate did vote to reinstate net neutrality rules in May 2018, when three Republicans joined the Democratic minority in a 52-47 vote. But Republicans have since strengthened their Senate majority from 51-49 to 53-47.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...op-amendments/





Gov. Polis is About to Sign a Colorado Net Neutrality Bill — One with Some Serious Teeth

Colorado's “open internet” bill would punish internet-providing violators by taking their grant money away

Now that Democrats are in charge, Colorado’s second attempt at its own version of a net neutrality law passed the General Assembly and now heads to Gov. Jared Polis for his certain signature.

Keeping internet speeds consistent regardless of whether a customer is streaming video from Comcast or Netflix wasn’t the only intent of the Senate Bill 78. The bill also makes internet service providers pay back state grants to build broadband infrastructure if those companies use paid prioritization to favor some internet traffic over others, or slow down speeds for some users.

“What I was really looking for in this year’s bill was the appropriate nexus of action. A lot of the bills we saw getting in trouble in other states, or bills that were facing a lot of opposition, were more about sending a message of net neutrality instead of looking for a fulcrum point for state action,” said Sen. Kerry Donovan, a Democrat from Vail who sponsored last year’s bill and wrote this year’s bill. “This bill says that if you’re going to ask to be funded by the people in Colorado directly out of their paycheck then you need to adhere to these principles.”

Polis, a former tech entrepreneur, “supports this bill,” a spokeswoman said.

Net neutrality refers to the idea that all legal digital data flowing through internet pipes must be treated the same. An internet service provider can’t allow Netflix videos, for example, to stream faster than email, Spotify music or online videos from a local library service — even if Netflix is paying extra for it. Also not allowed: A system where Comcast makes sure its customers get better speeds watching its own content over Netflix’s.

When the Federal Communications Commission ended the net neutrality rules in December 2017, the debate continued. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 34 states and the District of Columbia have since introduced 120 bills and resolutions on the topic. Five, including California and New Jersey, have enacted legislation or adopted resolutions. And the U.S. House of Representatives is currently considering a bill to reinstate net neutrality rules.

Since the federal rules went away, instances of net neutrality violations have cropped up around the country. But not all may have violated the old rules. Verizon, for example, was accused of throttling the mobile data plans of firefighters last fall in Northern California. The speeds reportedly dropped to that of a 1990s dial-up modem. But, according to fact-checking site PolitiFact, the FCC had an exception for mobile customers who agreed to throttling if they exceeded their data cap. Politifact rated the net neutrality violation as “half true.”

The telecom industry and other businesses that spoke out against Colorado’s net neutrality bill felt it wasn’t necessary and would hurt the small internet providers who relied on state grants to help build broadband to Colorado’s rural communities.

“An open internet is a critical issue, and the federal government has been clear that it is in their purview. (Senate Bill 78) is unnecessary and would only add to a patchwork of regulations, confusing the regulatory certainty that exists in Colorado today,” said Nicholas J. Colglazier, director of Colorado Competitive Council, and who testified against the bill. “The Federal Trade Commission has authority to enforce the open internet practices of internet service providers, and has demonstrated its willingness to do so.”

Mark Soltes, CenturyLink’s director of government affairs, didn’t want to speculate about the impact of the pending law on company operations or its Colorado customers. But he said in a statement: “A patchwork of state-by-state regulations of the internet, which is what Colorado SB 78 calls for, is not the right approach for this important policy.”

Right now, there is no federal net neutrality law. And reliable internet access is important, said Amanda Gonzalez, executive director of Colorado Common Cause, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that testified in favor of the bill.

“We come at this from a democracy perspective,” she said. “In today’s day and age, everyone needs access to the internet. The free flow of information is necessary in a functioning democracy. Today, that’s where Coloradans get their news, where they find out who’s running and who’s trying to influence their vote. We see this as a cornerstone to democracy.”

The Colorado law is similar to the former federal one in that it would prohibit ISPs from prioritizing certain content. It would also force violating ISPs that benefited from state broadband grants to refund all money received in the previous 24 months.

In the House debate this week, an amendment to allow internet service providers to filter out sexually explicit material or graphic violent content failed on a 32-32 vote in which a handful of Democrats broke ranks to side with Republicans.

After the governor signs the bill into law, Colorado’s attorney general would by Oct. 1 create guidelines on how consumers can file complaints about net neutrality violations.

“I’m really proud of the policy,” Donovan said, “and I think it’s going to stand up to the scrutiny and result in the kind of corporate behavior that we want, which is that net neutrality practices are adhered to in Colorado.”

Staff writer John Frank contributed to this report.
https://coloradosun.com/2019/04/05/c...ts-some-teeth/





New Book Looks Inside Apple’s Legal Fight with the FBI
Zack Whittaker

A new biography of Apple chief executive Tim Cook out this month describes the moment — and the deliberations — after the FBI issued an unprecedented legal order demanding Apple undermine the security of its flagship product.

The new book, “Tim Cook: The Genius Who Took Apple to the Next Level” by Leander Kahney, offers a first-hand view from former staff about how Apple battled the order, which Cook said would be “too dangerous” to comply with.

Three years ago, following the San Bernardino terrorist attack, which killed 12 people and injured dozens, the FBI demanded Apple create a special version of its mobile software capable of bypassing the encryption and other security features on an iPhone used by one of the shooters. But fearing the backdoored software could one day end up in the wrong hands, Cook wrote in a public letter that the company would reject the order and fight the FBI in court. “This software would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession,” said Cook. What would ensue was a public battle between the tech giant and the government in a lawsuit lasting several months, until the government paid out for hackers to break into the device.

Apple long contended that the Justice Department wanted to fight Apple in the open to win over the public in the aftermath of the attack — painting Apple as helping terrorists — and sought a court order before the company could respond.

Had Apple lost the case, its long-running privacy and security mantra would be shattered. Cook is said to have “bet the company” on the decision to fight the order, according to former Apple general counsel Brian Sewell, who was quoted in the book.

Sewell described the FBI’s order as a tipping point following “a lot of activity” that preceded the decision by former FBI director James Comey to ask a judge to sign the order.

The order was issued on an obscure law known as the All Writs Act, which the FBI interpreted as a way to ask a court to order a company to do something not otherwise covered by the law. An order cannot be “unduly burdensome,” a subjective term often determined by the court issuing the order.

Sewell said the FBI had as early as 2014 asked Apple for “getting access to phones on a mass basis” after Apple rolled out iOS 8, which encrypted iPhones and iPads with a passcode. Law enforcement struggled to get into devices they said was necessary to investigate crimes. There was no other feasible way to break into an iPhone — even with a court order. Not even Apple could unlock the devices. The company declined the FBI’s request.

But the book said law enforcement “saw it as an opportunity to force Apple’s hand,” wrote Kahney.

“There was a sense at the FBI that this was the perfect storm,” said Sewell, as quoted. “We now have a tragic situation. We have a phone. We have a dead assailant. This is the time that we’re going to push it. And that’s when the FBI decided to file [the order],” he said.

Apple knew public opinion was divided. But the company didn’t let up.

For the following two months, Apple’s executive floor at its former headquarters at One Infinite Loop in Cupertino “turned into a 24/7 situation room,” with an intensified effort to respond to press queries — which Apple had seldom done before, known historically as a secretive company.

The case eventually resolved without a trial. The day before Apple was meant to go head-to-head with the government in a California court, the government pulled the plug on its legal action. It had paid almost a million dollars to hackers to successfully break into the phone. Cook was said to be “disappointed” the case didn’t come to trial, according to Sewell, because he sought a resolution to the case that he believed would have ruled in Apple’s favor. The legality of the order remains unsettled today, despite efforts by the government to force other companies — like Facebook — to rework their software to allow access to police.

Justice Department spokesperson Nicole Navas declined to comment. Apple did not comment.

“Tim Cook: The Genius Who Took Apple to the Next Level” is on sale April 16.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/01/inside-apple-fbi/





Intel VISA Exploit Gives Access to Computer’s Entire Data, Researchers Show
Gaurav Shukla

Intel VISA is said to be a utility that is bundled by the chipmaker for testing

• Researchers used previously disclosed vulnerabilities to access VISA
• Intel is very secretive about VISA and information about it is not public
• Intel underplayed the VISA exploits

Security researchers have discovered a previously unknown feature in the Intel chipsets, which could allow an attacker to intercept data from the computer memory. The feature called Intel Visualization of Internal Signals Architecture (Intel VISA) is said to be a utility that is bundled by the chipmaker for testing on the manufacturing lines. Although Intel doesn't publicly disclose the existence of Intel VISA and is extremely secretive about it, the researchers were able to find several ways to enable the feature on the Intel chipsets and capture the data from the CPU.

As a per presentation made by the researchers Mark Ermolov and Maxim Goryachy of Positive Technologies at the ongoing Blackhat Asia 2019 conference in Singapore, their exploits of the Intel chipsets don't require any hardware modifications or special equipment. One of the techniques shared by the researchers involved vulnerabilities detailed in Intel-SA-00086 advisory that give access to Intel Management Engine (Intel ME), in turn helping enable VISA. Access to Intel VISA makes the computer's entire data vulnerable and obtainable for the attacker.

Intel underplayed the exploit and told ZDNet that the VISA issue requires physical access to the machines and the Intel-SA-00086 vulnerabilities have already been mitigated. The researchers however disagreed with Intel's comments and reportedly said in an online discussion that the patched Intel firmware can be downgraded using Intel ME, making the chipset vulnerable and opening the door for accessing Intel VISA.

Mark Ermolov also noted that the vulnerabilities detailed in Intel-SA-00086 are just one of the ways to access VISA, and there are other methods as well, including Orange Mystery and Intel JTAG password. The technical details of these exploits can be found in the presentation slides shared on Blackhat Asia website.
https://gadgets.ndtv.com/laptops/new...access-2014854





That TV Show You Illegally Downloaded Has A Nasty Surprise For Your Windows PC
Jason Evangelho

If you’re a fan of shows like Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead and Arrow, but resort to alternative methods of watching them, be on guard. A new report from internet security company Kaspersky reveals some disturbing findings about that episode you snagged from the hundreds of websites serving torrents and illegal downloads of shows from HBO, AMC and other TV networks.

Kasperky’s report goes into exhaustive detail, analyzing the 31 most popular and most pirated TV shows of 2018. Many of them contain malware, adware and even dangerous Trojans capable of hijacking your computer.

One particular series eclipses the rest: Game of Thrones. Kaspersky counted 9,986 individual malware-laced threats among existing torrents of HBO’s series, and recorded 129,819 attempted attacks (as registered by their various anti-malware and internet security tools).

And the company points out that no new episodes even aired in 2018. With Season 8 debuting soon, it expects the show to become a renewed target.

Kaspersky reports that The Walking Dead, Arrow, Supernatural and Grey’s Anatomy also rank among the Top 10 most targeted TV shows.

This is a growing concern. Even in 2017, more than 27 billion visits were registered to illegal torrent and streaming websites by U.S. visitors. Globally, that number balloons to more than 300 billion.

Because torrents are downloadable and clearly represent a popular method of distributing all kinds of media, that also makes the medium a prime target for cybercriminals.

Top 10 malware disguised as a TV show by the share of users attacked in 2018 Kaspersky

In addition to the video files contained in a torrent, users may find “shortcuts” within the downloaded folder to watch the episode, but clicking this actually installs Trojans or various forms of malware. This software can commonly steal your passwords or cryptocurrency mining programs that operate undetected to the average user.

Some of these attacks are so sophisticated that they can stealthily alter your Google search results to lead to additional malware sites disguised as anti-virus tools, or cleverly inject fake donation banners on top of popular sites like Wikipedia (which frequently have donation banners in the same location).

Kaspersky’s report tactfully avoids taking any moral high ground regarding pirating and Bittorrent. A cynical reader may suggest that’s because Kaspersky’s business revolves around the existence of threats just like this, and its suite of software protecting users from them.

Still, the company offers folks the following valuable advice:

• Pay close attention to website authenticity and do not visit them unless you are sure they are legitimate
• Always make sure the website is genuine by double-checking the URL format or company name spelling before you download. Fake websites may look just like the real thing, but there will be anomalies to help you spot the difference
• Pay attention to the extension of the downloaded file. If downloading TV show episodes, the file must not end in .exe
• Be careful about the torrents you use and do look up the comments about the downloadable files. If comments are unrelated to the content, you are probably looking at malware
• Don’t click on suspicious links promising exclusive early premiere of the latest episodes; consult the TV show schedule and keep track of it
• Use reliable security solutions for comprehensive protection against a wide range of threats, such as Kaspersky Internet Security [ah, there's the plug!]

You can read the entire Kaspersky report here.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev.../#7bf8f842731a





When this eBook Store Closes, Your Books Disappear Too
Dave Lee North

There’s bad news for users of Microsoft’s eBook store: the company is closing it down, and, with it, any books bought through the service will no longer be readable.

To soften the blow, the company has promised to refund any customers who bought books through the store (a clue that there may not have been that many of them, hence the closure. Microsoft did not offer further comment).

But just think about that for a moment. Isn’t it strange? If you’re a Microsoft customer, you paid for those books. They’re yours.

Except, I’m afraid, they’re not, and they never were - when you hand over money for your “book”, what you’re really paying for is access to the book. That access, per the terms and conditions of every major eBook store, can be taken away at any moment.

This is how we’ve been led to this curious situation, where Microsoft’s eBook customers - however few - will see their book collection vanish, just because company executives have decided it’s no longer worth keeping the store running.

It’s a reminder, one I think which needs repeating regularly, of the shift in how we define ownership in the always-online era. In this case it’s about books, but it’s the same with most of your digital purchases - we’re increasingly leasing our minor belongings, which I think means leasing aspects of our memories and even personalities too.

Protecting the food chain

I doubt we’d accept such a scenario in the offline world, with some kind of book bailiff barging through the front door, and emptying your shelves, because a local bookshop has closed down.

But online, that’s the status quo we’ve created. Or perhaps more accurately, technology companies have made it work that way. Ebook stores from Amazon, Apple, Google, Kobo, Barnes and Noble all follow broadly the same rules. You’re buying a licence to read, not a licence to own.

This means, also, you generally can’t freely give away your book to someone else once you’ve read them. It’s a restriction that, to my mind, goes against one of the true joys of reading - a joy second only to reading itself*.

Ebook stores and publishers will tell you there’s one very big and very valid reason for all this restriction: piracy, both massive and casual. Books sold on most eBook stores (but not all) come loaded with digital rights management software - DRM - which makes sure the copy you are accessing has been bought and paid for properly. It does this by authenticating your file via the servers of the book store in question (or sometimes a company such as Adobe, which acts like a kind of DRM wholesaler).

Publishers and eBook retailers say that while DRM is restrictive, it’s a necessary evil we must put up with if we are to make sure authors, and everyone else in the food chain, get paid. That may well be the case - it’s certainly a view shared by other industries like music and video gaming, where DRM also stops us sharing too widely, and where again you’re often paying for access rather than ownership.

You, the consumer, may be fine with all this right now. But with the 5G boom about to hit, experts will tell you we’re set to see a massive increase in connected devices and appliances, many of which we’ll probably only be able to licence, rather than own.

Taking a book away is, at worst, mean-spirited. But in the future, what if we start to see more consequential belongings in our lives ceasing to operate? Should tech giants reserve the right to take away something we have paid for, just because they’re not making as much money as they’d hoped?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47810367





Why 2.7 Million Americans still Get Netflix DVDs in the Mail
Neil Monahan and Brandon Griggs

Remember when Netflix used to be a DVD-by-mail company? Well, for 2.7 million subscribers in the US, it still is.

The familiar red envelopes have been arriving in customers' mailboxes since 1998 and helped earn the company a healthy $212 million profit last year.

Why are so many people still using this old-school service in the age of streaming? There are a number of reasons.

Rural America struggles with broadband access

Streaming Netflix video requires a lot of bandwidth -- so much so that Netflix consumes 15% of all US internet bandwidth, according to a 2018 industry report.

But many rural areas of the country remain without broadband access. The Federal Communications Commission estimates 24 million Americans fall on the wrong side of this digital divide.

The US Postal Service, however, can reach every ZIP code with those red envelopes.

One such customer is Dana Palmateer, who lives in the Black Hills of South Dakota.

"Streaming movies was a no-go, so I just went with the disc service that Netflix offers," she says. "As all of us are doing it in these parts."

But Netflix also has plenty of DVD customers in urban areas who prefer the service for its convenience and selection of movies, spokeswoman Annie Jung says.

"People assume that our customers must either be super seniors or folks that live in the boonies with no internet access," she says. "Actually, our biggest hot spots are the coasts, like the Bay Area and New York."

Streaming offers a limited selection compared with DVDs

Anyone who has perused the digital aisles of their streaming service will know the options can be limited. Netflix streaming reportedly has fewer than 6,000 film and TV titles, while DVD Netflix has about 100,000. (The company won't disclose such figures.)

"The attraction for me is the choice," says Netflix subscriber Rick Byrne, who lives in California and has rented nearly 5,000 discs over the past decade. "There is so much more choice on the DVD service than the streaming."

Netflix's streaming service declined to comment for this story.

There is no one-stop shop for streaming

Spotify has nearly every song you could ever want. Amazon has nearly every book.

But there is no equivalent one-stop shop for streaming movies and TV shows. Despite the infinite capacities of the internet, copyright law and economics have precluded this.

Rival media companies such as Disney don't want to share their precious content as they plan to launch their own streaming services. Or if they do, they demand a king's ransom. WarnerMedia (the parent company of CNN) reportedly billed Netflix $100 million to carry episodes of "Friends."

As Netflix increases its focus on TV content, movie fans may feel left out. Netflix says movies take up about one-third of customers' watch time, no matter how many titles they stock. TV shows are its biggest draw, as evident by the vast quantity of original series it produces.

Movie buffs need multiple streaming subscriptions

Netflix streams lots of movies. But others are only available on other services such as Amazon or Hulu.

"If you are a film fan, you need to have five or six streaming services," says Matt Booth, who owns the popular video store Videodrome in Atlanta. "Netflix barely has any films from before 2000."

For film buffs, this makes DVD Netflix an attractive option.

"They have the best library of anybody," says DVD Netflix subscriber Andrew Karcher of Whittier, California. "Movies don't just disappear without warning," he adds, referring to how movies and TV shows can vanish from streaming services depending on licensing deals.

The titles in Netflix' DVD library, on the other hand, pretty much stay forever. "We have a truly deep catalog, and we add new movies and shows every single week," Netflix's Jung says.

Some Oscar nominees are not available on streaming

You won't find recent Oscar winners such as "Green Book" or "A Star Is Born" currently streaming on Netflix. Movie studios try to rake in as much cash from DVD sales and rental fees before allowing their films to be streamed.

But DVD Netflix subscribers can watch all the latest Oscar-nominated films. The service has all 90 best picture winners.

"You get to see the new movies when they come out," says Bil Alvernaz of Valley Springs, California, who has been a red-envelope devotee since 2004.
Subscription fatigue may be kicking in

With multiple streaming subscriptions, costs can quickly add up. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, CBS, YouTube, HBO and now Apple all have streaming offerings, while Disney and WarnerMedia are readying their own.

In addition, one-off rentals on iTunes of new releases such as "Green Book" can cost $5.99 a pop.

Considering all this, it seems less surprising that 2.7 million Americans have stuck with Netflix's DVD service, which begins at $7.99 per month.

And there's one final reason. A former Netflix employee has said many subscribers still pay for the DVD service, even though they haven't ordered a DVD in a long time. Many have apparently forgotten they still have DVD accounts.
http://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/04/me...ion-mail-trnd/





Free Anonymous File Sharing Services – Share Files Without Creating an Account

Just like you want to stay anonymous when browsing the internet, many users also want to do the same for File Sharing. While we have tons of file-sharing services on the internet, there are very few which allow you to share anonymously. In this post, we are highlighting free anonymous file-sharing services which allow you to share files without creating an account.

Free Anonymous File Sharing Services

I am sure you clearly understand when I say Anonymous. All you want is a link at the end which you can share with someone. The person downloads the file, and then you are not bothered about it. These files are usually removed from the server never to be found again.

1] Firefox Send [2GB] send.firefox.com

Mozilla’s Firefox Send service allows you to send file size of 2GB without any tracking. Just drag, and drop the file, grab the link, set up a few parameters, and you are done.

2] WeTransfer.com [2GB + 2 Weeks]

Among the most popular file-sharing services category, just like Firefox Send, you can use this to send any file format. The limit is 2Gb tops, and the file will be available for two weeks. Unline Firefox Send you dont need to set any limit based on download count or days. It is handy for those situations.

3] SendGB.com [4GB + 7 Days]

When most of the service cap the file size to 2GB, this one allows you to send 4GB of data. If you have multiple files, you can zip them, and upload them here. There is no data transfer limit, but you can share with a maximum of 20 people. After seven days, the file is deleted from their servers. Like Firefox Send and WeTranfser, you can choose to add a password to make the files secure. The service also offers a “Self destruct” option. Once all the members have downloaded the file, it will be deleted. All the files are encrypted with 256-bit AES Encryption.

4] Volafile.org [20Gb + 2 Days]

Looking for a free solution which also lets you chat? Volafile is a file sharing service with style. They allow you to create a room where you can and upload files. The files stay for two days, and they can max of 20 GB per file. You can also share the room with others where they can contribute by uploading files. The service looks promising, and best suited for those who want to share large files and are ok with the short period. It is my favorite of all the anonymous file-sharing services.

5] Openload.co [1-10GB + 60 Days]

Primarily built for Videos, this file lets you share video file as big as 10Gb. There is a catch though; you should allow it to convert the videos. Apart from that here is the list of supported files:

Audio: MP3;AAC;Ogg Opus;WebM Vorbis;WebM Opus;WAV-PCM
Video: MP4; WebM; Ogg Theora
Docs: .html; .php; .txt

6] Filedropper.com[ 5GB + Download Count Limit]

If you want the files to stay as long somebody is downloading it; File Dropper is just for you. You can upload a file with a max of 5 GB size. The service keeps track of the download count. If the file is not downloaded once every 30 days, it will be deleted.

7] Onionshare.org [Tor Encryption]

This one is a bit different from others. Instead of depending on online servers, it uses your computer, and Tor to encrypt. You can download, and install OnionShare application on macOS and Windows. Once you start the server, drag and drop the file. Then generate a link and share with anybody.

It will generate a unique link which will not be easy to remember or guess. However, the end user will need to open this in TOR browser to download the files. You host the files on your computer. The recipient doesn’t need OnionShare. Opening the address in Tor Browser is all that is required to download the file.

8] Dropbox File Request – dropbox.com/requests/

While Dropbox requires an account, File Request works precisely the opposite way. If you want others to send data to you, but stay anonymous, you can use File Request. It creates a file uploader for the end user, and they can send files to you. The uploaded files will be available in the Dropbox Account.

If you have enough storage space on your Dropbox account, there is no limit on the file size.

9] Uploadfiles.io [5 GB + 30 Days]

You can securely share files up to 5GB for 30 days. It is as simple as that. Apart from this, the service also offers you option to sell files, affiliates and so on. When using this without an account, you will not be able to delete it before that.

10] Gofile.io [Unlimited + 60 days]

While the service doesn’t put any restriction on file size, it wants it to be active. You will receive an email before deletion. So if you want to reset, redownload it again. Also, file transfers are encrypted.
https://www.thewindowsclub.com/free-...ing-an-account

















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

March 30th, March 23rd, March 16th, March 9th

Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles, press releases, comments, questions etc. in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. The right to publish all remarks is reserved.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."
- Hugo Black
__________________
Thanks For Sharing
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 16th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 13-07-11 06:43 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 9th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 06-07-11 05:36 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 30th, '10 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 27-01-10 07:49 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 16th, '10 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 13-01-10 09:02 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 5th, '09 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 02-12-09 08:32 AM






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)