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 22-08-18, 07:49 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 - August 25th, ’18

Since 2002
































August 25th, 2018




You Could Be Kicked Offline For Piracy If This Music Industry Lawsuit Succeeds

And the evidence “proving” your guilt could be little more than fluff and nonsense.
Karl Bode

The entertainment industry is waging a major legal campaign to turn ISPs into copyright cops authorized to kick broadband users offline—based on what’s often flimsy to nonexistent evidence of wrongdoing.

As it currently stands, if you download a copyrighted file via BitTorrent or another platform, you’re risking a copyright violation warning from your ISP. These warnings are generated by investigators hired by the entertainment industry to track and combat online piracy, often by monitoring BitTorrent swarms.

Unfortunately, the warnings are often based on flimsy evidence, and the presumption that if a downloaded file is traced to your IP address, you’re automatically guilty. Of course that’s not always the case, the most common example being if someone decided to download the latest episode of Game of Thrones while sitting in your driveway using your WiFi hotspot.

ISPs are required to pass these copyright infringement notices on to end users under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). But since users frequently ignore these warnings, and there’s no real penalty for repeat offenses, the entertainment industry has spent years trying to dramatically up the ante, often to a ridiculous degree.

For example, the music industry has attempted to turn copyright infringement into a revenue model by hiring companies tasked with scaring potential pirates into paying up to avoid a trial. Industry organizations like Rightscorp send “pre-settlement” letters to pirates informing them they can avoid any prolonged, nasty legal headaches simply by paying a fine.

But the practice is legally sketchy, and as this Reddit thread illustrates, paying up is often a bottomless rabbit hole of ever-steeper penalties. Rightscorp, routinely accused of being a “copyright troll,” has subsequently been forced to ease off the practice in recent years in the wake of terrible publicity.

But using Rightscorp as an intermediary, the entertainment industry has also taken to suing ISPs it claims aren’t doing enough to thwart piracy.

The entertainment industry has long misrepresented an integral part of the DMCA to mean that ISPs should be forced to kick pirates offline permanently. Supreme Court precedent ( Packingham v North Carolina ) has been interpreted by copyright experts to indicate that booting users offline for piracy is a violation of the First Amendment.

But the entertainment industry has taken sustained legal action against smaller ISPs that disagree.

One of the industry’s targets has been a small Texas ISP called Grande Communications. Grande was sued in 2017 by a collection of 18 different music and film labels for failing to stop subscribers from engaging "in more than one million infringements of copyrighted works over BitTorrent systems."

In its latest filing in the ongoing case, the ISP pulled no punches calling the entertainment industry’s lawsuit against it an “absurd” gambit to force ISPs into the role of “de facto copyright enforcement agents.” Often, the ISP warned, using nonexistent or incomplete evidence as the basis of “misleading” infringement warnings and threats.

"Having given up on actually pursuing direct infringers due to bad publicity, and having decided not to target the software and websites that make online file-sharing possible, the recording industry has shifted its focus to fashioning new forms of copyright liability that would require ISPs to act as the copyright police,” the ISP wrote in its lawsuit.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a recent music industry legal victory against Cox Communications. It’s a victory that copyright experts say was based on a notable misrepresentation of the law by the courts, and could pave the way toward the erosion of ISP “safe harbor” protections under the DMCA protecting them from liability.

That could be a huge problem for ISPs and users alike, Meredith Rose, Policy Counsel at consumer group Public Knowledge told me in an email.

“If ISPs lost their safe harbor protections, the incentive would be for ISPs to boot customers proactively, before they ran into any liability,” Rose said. “Proactive enforcement would necessitate pervasive monitoring of user behavior online, which, again, would chill speech—to put it mildly.”

Critics charge that kicking and keeping users offline for alleged copyright infringement isn’t just a draconian over reach and a potential First Amendment violation, it’s a technical nightmare. Tracking booted users and preventing them from simply signing up with other ISPs—under say a spouse's name—would be largely impossible.

But the daunting technical logistics, the resulting legal mess, and the potential stifling of online speech doesn’t seem to worry the music industry, which has argued that a good faith accusation of piracy is enough to warrant kicking a user offline permanently.

“If they won that argument, it creates a perfect storm for consumer extortion, without a much in the way of legal safeguards,” Rose said.

Mitch Stoltz, Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, agreed. Stoltz told me in a email that the erosion of ISP safe harbor protections “would mean a huge expansion of surveillance over our online lives.”

“It also means that people could be kicked off of their home Internet service because of the actions of roommates, houseguests, children, or strangers,” he said. “In today's world, that means losing access to schoolwork, medical services, political participation, and other vital information—especially because many Americans have only one option for home broadband service.”

For its part, Grande Communications’ latest filing states that the music industry’s lawsuit places it in an “impossible position: either terminate subscribers based on unverified allegations of infringement, or face litigation for the secondary infringement of thousands of copyrighted works."

So far, the music industry has yet to challenge bigger players with deeper pockets like AT&T, Comcast or Verizon, though these giants are likely watching the case with great interest for liability reasons. Consumers eager to avoid being kicked offline based on nebulous allegations of guilt should probably keep a close eye on the ongoing case.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...wsuit-succeeds





BMG Scores 'Substantial Settlement' With Cox
Jeff Baumgartner

In a settlement that could cause some other ISPs to toughen up their piracy policies, music company BMG Rights Management announced Friday that it had secured a "substantial settlement" with Cox Communications stemming from a long-standing digital copyright case.

Financial terms were not announced, but the settlement comes nearly three years after BMG was awarded $25 million in damages and $8.5 million in costs after the court found Cox Communications Inc. liable for contributory copyright infringement.

The verdict was later overturned on a technicality -- a mistake in jury instructions -- and was to be retried. Ahead of the retrial, BMG said US District Court Judge Liam O’Grady last week confirmed that BMG was entitled to use words such as "stealing" and "theft" in relation to Cox’s activities.

BMG went after Cox for contributory copyright infringement tied to Cox customers allegedly pirating the music of BMG songwriters and alleging that ISP went soft on broadband customers found to be stealing content. BMG handles rights for individual artists and bands such as Bruno Mars, Iron Maiden, Scorpions, David Crosby, Janet Jackson and the late David Bowie.

The court disagreed with Cox's assertion that the MSO was entitled to "safe harbor" from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which protects internet companies from unknowingly enabling third parties to infringe on copyrighted works, though they must still have systems that seek to remove infringing content or go after infringing activity of those customers. BMG argued that Cox refused to terminate the accounts of infringers because it would cause them to lose customers.

Cox had used a "thirteen-strike policy" to handle issues, but BMG contended that Cox would not toss those pirates for good, and instead apply a "soft termination" policy in which it would quickly reinstate accounts that were temporarily disconnected, according to TorrentFreak.

"I can confirm we've reached a settlement with BMG," a Cox official said in an emailed statement. "We're honoring the confidentially agreement and not commenting beyond that."

With the settlement in hand, BMG called it a "landmark case." It also put other ISPs on notice, hoping it will persuade other US ISPs "to tighten up their procedures on copyright infringement."

"Other ISPs should take note that the law gives protection to the work of artists and songwriters. We will not hesitate to take action where necessary," Keith Hauprich, BMG North America's general counsel, said in a statement.

A group of other major labels, including Sony, Universal and Warner Bros recently filed a similar suit against Cox. That suit is still active.

Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music, and Universal Music, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, have also thrown the book at Grande Communications . Digital Music News reports that the RIAA offered to settle with Grande about three months ago.

Back in 2013, ISPs such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable (now part of Charter Communications), AT&T, Verizon Communications and Cablevision Systems (now part of Altice USA), participated in a so-called "six strikes" program with the Center for Copyright Information that aimed to educate, rather than punish, broadband users about pirating activities. (See ISPs Boot Up 'Six Strikes' Anti-Piracy Plan.)

Under that controversial program, "mitigation measures" such as temporary speed throttling and the redirecting of users to landing pages with information about digital piracy would ensue after six alerts were sent to a customer. Account termination wasn't part of the system, which was shuttered in January 2017, with members committing to address copyright issues voluntarily.
https://www.lightreading.com/service.../d/d-id/745637





Texas ISP Slams Music Biz for Trying to Turn it Into a 'Copyright Cop'

Grande Comms tells US court it's swamped with fake takedowns
Kieren McCarthy

An ISP based in Texas has complained to a judge that the music industry to trying to turn internet providers into the "copyright police."

"This case is an attempt by the US recording industry to make Internet service providers its de facto copyright enforcement agents," reads the latest filing [PDF] in an ongoing court case involving ISP Grande Communications.

It goes on: "Having given up on actually pursuing direct infringers due to bad publicity, and having decided not to target the software and websites that make online file-sharing possible, the recording industry has shifted its focus to fashioning new forms of copyright liability that would require ISPs to act as the copyright police."

Grande Communications is a high-speed ISP that is the main provider for several university campuses in Texas. It was sued in April 2017 by 18 music companies including Universal, Capitol, Warner and Sony, who accuse it of allowing its users to "engage in more than one million infringements of copyrighted works over BitTorrent systems."

Despite having repeatedly complained to the company, the music industry argues [PDF] that Grande has failed to "take any meaningful action to discourage this continuing theft, let alone suspend or terminate subscribers who repeatedly commit copyright infringement through its network, as required by law."

Grande isn't having any of it however and argues that the industry's attempt to make it legally responsible for copyright infringement is "absurd." It counter-claims that it has been inundated with "unsubstantiated and unverifiable allegations of copyright infringement" complete with a demand that it terminate user accounts in response.

"To further this effort, the recording industry enlists a third party to bombard ISPs like Grande with hundreds of thousands of such allegations per year," the ISP argues, adding that it is "more than any ISP could ever reasonably investigate and attempt to verify, even if it had the practical ability to do so."

Impossible situation

The end result, Grande argues, is that it is put "in an impossible position: either terminate subscribers based on unverified allegations of infringement, or face litigation for the secondary infringement of thousands of copyrighted works."

It argues however that the music industry has no case because "copyright law simply does not and cannot allow for secondary liability in these circumstances."

The music industry's argues that by failing to respond to infringement notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Grande is contributing to copyright infringement and cannot benefit from the DMCA's "safe harbor" protections.

"To be eligible for the safe harbor, an ISP is required, among other things, to adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for the termination of subscribers and account holders that are repeat copyright infringers," it argues.

The music industry claims to be able to identify copyright infringers using BitTorrent thanks to a system developed by Rightscorp that "identifies actual infringements and the perpetrators of these infringements (by IP address, port number, time, and date)."

The system monitors BitTorrent and, according to the music industry, "has the capability to acquire entire files from the infringing host computers."

Grande throws cold water on those claims however, arguing that there is no evidence that "a Grande subscriber ever reproduced or distributed a copyrighted work on Grande’s network." It argues that the companies have failed to carry out "the legally-required comparison of any copyrighted song to any infringed work."

Detection

It also slams Rightscorp's claims, arguing that its system "is only capable of detecting when a file is made accessible - the system cannot detect when, or even whether, a file has ever actually been copied."

Grande says Rightscorp' system simply "obtains a list of song titles and artist names from its clients" and then uses this "limited information to scour the Internet for alleged 'infringements' so that it can generate notices and possibly elicit monetary settlements from individual Internet subscribers."

It goes on: "Amazingly, Rightscorp conducts these notification and settlement activities without ever obtaining (1) a true copy of the song that could be compared to the “infringing” copy, (2) registration information that establishes the song is registered with the Copyright Office, or (3) documentation proving that the client is the true owner of the registered work."

It's not finished yet another. Grande goes on: "Because Rightscorp’s system cannot detect actual instances of a file being uploaded or downloaded by anyone, the notices it sends do not evidence any instance of actual infringement of a copyrighted work. Even the date and time on the notice are misleading - they merely reflect the moment at which Rightscorp's system performed its scan and not any recorded instance of a work being copied."

Ouch.

As a result, Grande argues, "if Rightscorp’s system were to be run twice as often, Rightscorp would generate twice as many 'infringement' notices, without any related change in the conduct of Grande’s subscribers. These notices would then be used by Rightscorp to attempt to collect twice as many settlements from affected subscribers."

In response to the claim that Rightscorp's system is flawed and built around making money from fake notices, the music industry argues Grande benefits financially from selling faster speed internet connections to copyright infringers. "The greater the bandwidth its subscribers require for pirating content, the more money Grande receives."

In summary: go away

In essence, Grande is saying that the music industry can't prove that anyone is downloading copyrighted tracks, or that the files on the system aren’t legitimate copies, so it can take a hike.

And the music industry says it can see hundreds of thousands of examples of its music being shared on file-sharing networks and so argues that the only rational explanation is vast copyright infringement that Grande is refusing to do anything about.

Normally ISPs send warnings to any user that it is informed is infringing copyright telling them to cut it out of face being cut off. Sometimes ISPs simply block or throttle such file-sharing services. But Grande is unusual in that it supplies internet access to university campuses situated on private land. As such, it's much harder for the music industry to simply set up an account with Grande and demonstrate proof of copyright infringement.

Of course the likelihood that thousands of university students are using BitTorrent to share files that everyone has a legitimate right to own is virtually zero. But if the judge decides there is no actual evidence of infringement, the music industry would be in a bind and may have to get a student on campus to find copyrighted material and agree to act as a witness.

If the judge does appear to side with Grande on the evidentiary issue in this case, we strongly suspect that the music industry will try to do just that and recruit a student witness. Whether it's successful or not would be another matter entirely.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0...yright_police/





Ghana Legal Council Sends Strong Warning To Persons Pirating Law Books
Eric Nana Yaw Kwafo

The General Legal Council (GLC) of the country has warned Lawyers, Judges and Academics who have been pirating law books to restrain from the act because it is an offence under sections 42 and 43 of the Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690).

According to the GLC, their attention has been drawn to the punishable offense and as a result the need for them to send a strong warning to persons doing that to desist from it. They say selling pirated law books is an offence so lawyers, Judges and academics should desist from it.

The GLC in a statement, said it has been receiving complaints concerning the pirating and selling of law textbooks on the Ghanaian markets. They further state they are particularly bothered because the textbooks involved are authored by Ghanaian lawyers, judges and academics and their original versions are widely available on the Ghanaian markets.

“Lawyers, law students, the entire legal community and the general public are advised to desist from any form of involvement in such criminal activity including patronage of such books under rule 9 of the legal profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 1969 (L613)”, the Council warned.

They further state in the statement that offenders caught face disbarment or disqualification if they do not put a stop to the act.

“Criminal convictions for such offence may result in disbarment or disqualification from a call to the bar as the case may be”.

The council has urged members of the legal profession to patronize the original versions of law books available on the Ghanaian market rather than buying the pirated ones.
https://www.modernghana.com/news/877...ing-law-b.html





Honeypot Pornography Lawyer Pleads Guilty
BBC

A US lawyer could be jailed for up to 10 years for helping to upload porn films to file-sharing sites and then sue people who downloaded them.

Paul Hansmeier has pleaded guilty to charges of wire fraud and money laundering for his part in the Prenda Law piracy scheme.

Prenda is believed to have made about $3m (£2.3m) from the scheme.

His guilty plea is part of an agreement that will ensure he does not receive a sentence longer than 150 months.

Cash refunds

Court documents released on Friday reveal that Hansmeier and colleague John Steele set up Prenda Law in 2010 and initially acted for pornographic film-makers keen to stop their films being pirated online.

The firm took legal action to uncover pirates' names and addresses and asked them to pay up to $3,000 (£2,700) to avoid legal action over the illegal downloading.

In 2011, the firm started to upload films itself to file-sharing sites and then sue people who took copies.

Later on, it made its own pornographic films and put these on pirate sites so it could gather more cash.

The documents suggest Prenda set up shell companies to gather the "settlement" fees and hide its involvement.

The settlement scheme was uncovered by an investigation into Prenda Law, which saw both Hansmeier and Steele charged with fraud in 2016.

Steele pleaded guilty in early 2017 to seven charges including mail and wire fraud. He also agreed to help prosecutors investigating the case.

Hansmeier was due to be tried on 5 September for his involvement in Prenda but the plea agreement means that trial will not now go ahead. Instead, a judge will decide his sentence.

The agreement will also end investigation into other potential crimes that Hansmeier has been accused of.

It also includes clauses that will see cash gathered by Prenda, and potentially more in damages, returned to the people who paid up.

Hansmeier is currently challenging an earlier legal decision that threw out his call to dismiss all charges against him. If that claim is upheld, the plea agreement will no longer be binding.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45246713





Out-of-Control Censorship Machines Removed My Article Warning of Out-of-Control Censorship Machines
Julia Reda

A few days ago, about a dozen articles and campaign sites criticising EU plans for copyright censorship machines silently vanished from the world’s most popular search engine. Proving their point in the most blatant possible way, the sites were removed by exactly what they were warning of: Copyright censorship machines.

Among the websites that were made impossible to find: A blog post of mine in which I inform Europeans about where their governments stand on online censorship in the name of copyright and a campaign site warning of copyright law that favors corporations over free speech.

Was this a brazen attack on open, democratic debate by someone in the media industry, abusing copyright enforcement tools in an attempt to silence those opposing their lobbying interests – or was it an unbelievably coincidental technical mistake?

One thing’s for certain: This incident gives us a chilling taste of what we’re in for if the European Parliament passes the upload filter law currently under consideration. It’s a call to arms to continue fighting against automated copyright filters. We know now better than ever: They invariably lead to censorship. Join the Europe-wide protests on August 26!

Today’s “copyright censorship light” is bad enough

Under current US law, Google allows a number of companies to directly and without oversight remove sites from its search index, based purely on the claim that copyrights are being infringed. In effect, a handful of media companies have control over what we can – and can’t – find online.

One of them is Symphonic Distribution, who offer a service called “Topple Track” . This service sent a notice to Google on July 22 falsely claiming that my blog post and a number of other sites were somehow infringing on the copyright of an Australian TV starlet. Automated systems at Google honored the claim and delisted the pages, sight unseen.

If humans had been involved at any point in this process, the absurdity – or maliciousness – of this request would have immediately been spotted. But they weren’t. There are no checks and balances in place. Copyright enforcement has been automated, and no system either at services like Topple Track or at platforms like Google is able to prevent even such blatant mistakes – or such blatant abuse.

Topple Track boasts that they’ve removed over 7 million links from search engines for their music industry clients, and that 99% of their removal requests were honored. With their service now exposed to be so obviously dysfunctional, it’s unknowable how many more of these takedowns were fraudulent, and how many more articles are wrongly “shadowbanned” from the internet without their authors even being aware.

After the EFF uncovered further fraudulent removals by Topple Track and TorrentFreak covered the story, Google reportedly terminated its trusted partnership with the company. But still, as of this writing, my blog post remains unlisted on Google Search. Incredibly, not even when a company is exposed for issuing abusive takedowns are the websites they’ve previously ordered removed reinstated. Each individual author must actively put up a fight to restore the findability of their free speech. (Update: The page seems to be back in the Google index now.)

EU plans would make this much worse

On September 12, the EU Parliament will vote (one more time) on whether to force internet platforms to install upload filters.

With upload filters, platforms won’t even wait for complaints by media companies to remove your posts. Instead, your expression won’t even go online in the first place unless it passes a check against databases submitted by media companies. And you can be sure that these databases will be just as filled with junk and fraud.

Upload filters would give media companies even more direct control over the internet. All of us who post and upload content will be considered guilty until proven innocent, while media companies will continue to face no consequences for abusing the system. There’s no doubt what they would lead to: Even more censorship.

EU lawmakers must learn from this incident – and from the countless other documented failures of automated filtering: Automated copyright enforcement doesn’t work. Upload filters severely threaten our freedom of speech. They must be rejected.

You can help make that happen:
https://juliareda.eu/2018/08/censors...-gonna-censor/





Twenty-Two States Ask U.S. Appeals Court to Reinstate 'Net Neutrality' Rules
David Shepardson

A group of 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia late Monday asked a U.S. appeals court to reinstate the Obama administration’s 2015 landmark net neutrality rules and reject the Trump administration’s efforts to preempt states from imposing their own rules guaranteeing an open internet.

The states, led by New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, filed a lawsuit in January after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in December along party lines to reverse rules that barred internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic or offering paid fast lanes, also known as paid prioritization.

Several internet companies filed a separate legal challenge on Monday to overturn the FCC ruling, including Mozilla Corp, Vimeo Inc, Etsy Inc, and numerous media and technology advocacy groups.

The FCC handed sweeping new powers to internet providers to recast how Americans use the internet — as long as they disclose any changes. The new rules took effect in early June but major providers have made no changes in internet access.

The states argue the FCC reversal will harm consumers.

The states also suggested the FCC failed to identify any “valid authority” for preempting state and local laws that would protect net neutrality.

Governors in six states have signed executive orders on net neutrality, while three states have enacted net neutrality legislation.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has repeatedly said he believes the rules will be upheld and will encourage additional investment by providers. A spokesman for Pai did not immediately comment late Monday.

The revised rules were a win for internet service providers, like Comcast Corp, AT&T Inc and Verizon Communications Inc, whose practices faced significant government oversight and FCC investigations under the 2015 order, but the rules were opposed by internet firms like Facebook Inc, Amazon.com Inc and Alphabet Inc.

The FCC failed to offer a “meaningful defense of its decision to uncritically accept industry promises that are untethered to any enforcement mechanism,” the states said.

The U.S. Senate voted in May to keep the Obama-era internet rules, but the measure is unlikely to be approved by the House of Representatives or the White House.

The state attorney generals suing represent states with 165 million people — more than half the United States population — and include California, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

The states argue the FCC action could harm public safety, citing electrical grids as an example. They argue “the absence of open internet rules jeopardizes the ability to reduce load in times of extreme energy grid stress. Consequently, the order threatens the reliability of the electric grid.”

Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Lisa Shumaker
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1L605W





California's 'Gold Standard' Net Neutrality Bill Clears Key Hurdle

It's come back from being gutted to winning approval in an assembly committee meeting.
Roger Cheng

California seems poised to throw net neutrality a lifeline.

The State Assembly Committee on Communications and Conveyance voted 8-2 Wednesday to move forward with Senate Bill 822, which offers the strongest protections yet guarding net neutrality. A second bill, SB 460, which additionally restricts companies that violate the first bill from working with the state, likewise won approval.

There still needs to be a broader vote, but Wednesday's move is a key step toward making the proposed regulation into law.

California is just one of the states looking to enact its own rules governing an open internet, after the Federal Communications Commission, under Chairman Ajit Pai, rolled back the Obama-era net neutrality rules in June. States like Washington have pushed through a net neutrality law, while others are considering it. The vote comes just a day after the attorneys general of 22 states and the District of Columbia filed their brief to a US Appeals Court to reverse the FCC's move. Companies like Firefox and trade groups also filed their arguments.

Net neutrality, the principle that all internet traffic is treated fairly, has been one of the hottest topics of debate over the last several years. Consumers, tech companies and Democrats have pushed for stricter regulations prohibiting the prioritization of traffic, which resulted in the Obama-era rules put in place by the previous FCC. But the Trump-era FCC has agreed with the internet service providers and Republicans who fear the regulations are too onerous and hurt capital investment.

This bill almost didn't survive in its current form. It was initially hailed as the "gold standard" of net neutrality regulation because it went beyond even the Obama-era rules, but the same California assembly committee in late June gutted the bill, which was introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener from San Francisco. At the time, Wiener said the amendments made it "a fake net neutrality bill."

The initial bill included rules that went beyond restrictions on how traffic is treated, including rules against a practice called zero-rating, which lets a carrier offer a video or site to you without it eating into your data plan. A company like AT&T could theoretically offer you video service that wouldn't count against your data, putting it at an unfair advantage over rival services that would eat your data limit.

Wiener's bill is also designed to ensure that broadband providers adhere to net neutrality principles at so-called interconnection points, where traffic from companies like Netflix flow onto broadband networks to be delivered to consumers.

The move to weaken the bill was seen as a major blow to Democrats in Congress and in state houses across the country, which were looking to California to set a high standard as they push to reinstate strong net neutrality protections to replace the rules the Republican-led FCC voted to eliminate.

It also angered supporters of the movement, who have accused Democratic Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, who serves as the chair of the committee, of being a shill for big broadband companies, like AT&T, which has contributed thousands of dollars to his campaigns.

Wiener and Santiago have worked to negotiate a fix to the bill to bring back some of the protections that were weeded out in the committee process.

Zero-rating up for debate

The biggest issue up for debate is the restriction on zero-rating, which ISPs have argued actually saves consumers money because it spares them from losing out on their data allotment.

Bill Devine, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T, voiced his objection to the bill's inclusion of rules and warned it would ultimately hurt consumers.

"We believe it's anticompetitive and anticonsumer." he said in the committee meeting. "It will drive up your constituencies' bill."

Members of the committee also expressed their concern. "We're prohibiting a practice that takes money out of consumers' pocket," said Jay Obernolte, a Republican assemblyman from Big Bear Lake.

Wiener, however, argued zero-rating actually hurts consumers in the long run because it gives the ISP an unfair advantage and reduces competition, leading to higher prices down the line.

"It's free data that's not really free," Wiener said.
https://www.cnet.com/news/california...rs-key-hurdle/





Verizon Throttled Fire Department’s “Unlimited” Data During Calif. Wildfire

Fire dep't had to pay twice as much to lift throttling during wildfire response.
Jon Brodkin

Verizon Wireless' throttling of a fire department that uses its data services has been submitted as evidence in a lawsuit that seeks to reinstate federal net neutrality rules.

"County Fire has experienced throttling by its ISP, Verizon," Santa Clara County Fire Chief Anthony Bowden wrote in a declaration. "This throttling has had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services. Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services."

Bowden's declaration was submitted in an addendum to a brief filed by 22 state attorneys general, the District of Columbia, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, and the California Public Utilities Commission. The government agencies are seeking to overturn the recent repeal of net neutrality rules in a lawsuit they filed against the Federal Communications Commission in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Throttling affected response to wildfire

"The Internet has become an essential tool in providing fire and emergency response, particularly for events like large fires which require the rapid deployment and organization of thousands of personnel and hundreds of fire engines, aircraft, and bulldozers," Bowden wrote.

Santa Clara Fire paid Verizon for "unlimited" data but suffered from heavy throttling until the department paid Verizon more, according to Bowden's declaration and emails between the fire department and Verizon that were submitted as evidence.

The throttling recently affected "OES 5262," a fire department vehicle that is "deployed to large incidents as a command and control resource" and is used to "track, organize, and prioritize routing of resources from around the state and country to the sites where they are most needed," Bowden wrote.

"OES 5262 also coordinates all local government resources deployed to the Mendocino Complex Fire," an ongoing wildfire that is the largest in California's history, Bowden wrote.

The vehicle has a device that uses a Verizon SIM card for Internet access.

"In the midst of our response to the Mendocino Complex Fire, County Fire discovered the data connection for OES 5262 was being throttled by Verizon, and data rates had been reduced to 1/200, or less, than the previous speeds," Bowden wrote. "These reduced speeds severely interfered with the OES 5262's ability to function effectively. My Information Technology staff communicated directly with Verizon via email about the throttling, requesting it be immediately lifted for public safety purposes."

Verizon did not immediately restore full speeds to the device, however.

"Verizon representatives confirmed the throttling, but rather than restoring us to an essential data transfer speed, they indicated that County Fire would have to switch to a new data plan at more than twice the cost, and they would only remove throttling after we contacted the Department that handles billing and switched to the new data plan," Bowden wrote.

Verizon “risking harm to public safety”

Because the throttling continued until the department was able to upgrade its subscription, "County Fire personnel were forced to use other agencies' Internet Service Providers and their own personal devices to provide the necessary connectivity and data transfer capability required by OES 5262," Bowden wrote.

Verizon throttling also affected the department in a response to previous fires in December and June, emails show.

Bowden argued that Verizon is likely to keep taking advantage of emergencies in order to push public safety agencies onto more expensive plans.

"In light of our experience, County Fire believes it is likely that Verizon will continue to use the exigent nature of public safety emergencies and catastrophic events to coerce public agencies into higher-cost plans, ultimately paying significantly more for mission-critical service—even if that means risking harm to public safety during negotiations," Bowden wrote.

UPDATE: In a statement to Ars three hours after this article was published, Verizon acknowledged that it shouldn't have continued throttling the fire department's data service after the department asked Verizon to lift the throttling restrictions.

"Regardless of the plan emergency responders choose, we have a practice to remove data speed restrictions when contacted in emergency situations," Verizon's statement said. "We have done that many times, including for emergency personnel responding to these tragic fires. In this situation, we should have lifted the speed restriction when our customer reached out to us. This was a customer support mistake. We are reviewing the situation and will fix any issues going forward."

Verizon also noted that the fire department purchased a data service plan that is slowed down after a data usage threshold is reached. But Verizon said it "made a mistake" in communicating with the department about the terms of the plan.

"We made a mistake in how we communicated with our customer about the terms of its plan," Verizon said. "Like all customers, fire departments choose service plans that are best for them. This customer purchased a government contract plan for a high-speed wireless data allotment at a set monthly cost. Under this plan, users get an unlimited amount of data but speeds are reduced when they exceed their allotment until the next billing cycle."

Verizon also said that the Santa Clara "situation has nothing to do with net neutrality or the current proceeding in court."
Throttling happened after net neutrality repeal

Verizon's throttling was described in fire department emails beginning June 29 of this year, just weeks after the FCC's repeal of net neutrality rules took effect.

Even when net neutrality rules were in place, all major carriers imposed some form of throttling on unlimited plans when customers used more than a certain amount of data. They argued that it was allowed under the rules' exception for "reasonable network management." But while such throttling is generally applied only during times of network congestion, the Santa Clara Fire Department says it was throttled at all times once the device in question went over a 25GB monthly threshold.

Even if Verizon's throttling didn't technically violate the no-throttling rule, Santa Clara could have complained to the FCC under the now-removed net neutrality system, which allowed Internet users to file complaints about any unjust or unreasonable prices and practices. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's decision to deregulate the broadband industry eliminated that complaint option and also limited consumers' rights to sue Internet providers over unjust or unreasonable behavior.

Emails between fire department and Verizon

On June 29, Fire Captain Justin Stockman wrote an email to Verizon, noting that download speeds for an essential device used during large disasters had been throttled from 50Mbps to about 30kbps.

A Verizon government accounts manager named Silas Buss responded, saying that the fire department would have to move from a $37.99 plan to a $39.99 plan "to get the data speeds restored on this device." Later, Buss suggested that the department switch to a plan that cost at least $99.99 a month.

Stockman didn't have authority to upgrade the plan, so he sent an email to Deputy Chief Steve Prziborowski that same day. Stockman wrote:

Verizon is currently throttling OES 5262 so severely that it's hampering operations for the assigned crew. This is not the first time we have had this issue. In December of 2017 while deployed to the Prado Mobilization Center supporting a series of large wildfires, we had the same device with the same SIM card also throttled. I was able to work through [Fire Department IT executive] Eric Prosser at the time to have service to the device restored, and Eric communicated that Verizon had properly re-categorized the device as truly "unlimited".

Prziborowski expressed concern about the throttling in an email to Buss. "Before I give you my approval to do the $2.00 a month upgrade, the bigger question is why our public safety data usage is getting throttled down?" Prziborowski wrote. "Our understanding from Eric Prosser, our former Information Technology Officer, was that he had received approval from Verizon that public safety should never be gated down because of our critical infrastructure need for these devices."

While fire department personnel thought they were already paying for "truly" unlimited data, Verizon said they weren't.

"The short of it is, public safety customers have access to plans that do not have data throughput limitations," Buss told Prziborowski. "However, the current plan set for all of SCCFD's lines does have data throttling limitations. We will need to talk about making some plan changes to all lines or a selection of lines to address the data throttling limitation of the current plan."

The emails started up again on July 5 and 6. "Can confirm that after using 25GB of data, our service drops to zero. This is unacceptable and needs to be fixed," fire department IT officer Daniel Farrelly wrote.

Buss clarified that "data throughput is limited to 200Kbps or 600Kbps" after 25GB of use. Buss also told fire officials that all Verizon plans have some sort of throttling and that the department would have to pay by the gigabyte to avoid throttling entirely.

Buss wrote:

Verizon has always reserved the right to limit data throughput on unlimited plans. All unlimited data plans offered by Verizon have some sort of data throttling built-in, including the $39.99 plan. Verizon does offer plans with no data throughput limitations; these plans require that the customer pay by the GB for use beyond a certain set allotment.

The Mendocino fire began on July 27. On the night of Sunday, July 29, Stockman sent an email to Bowden:

OES 5262 is deployed again, now to the Mendocino Complex, and is still experiencing the same throttling. As I understood it from our previous exchange regarding this device, the billing cycle was set to end July 23, which should have alleviated the throttling. In a side-by-side comparison, a crew member's personal phone using Verizon was seeing speeds of 20Mbps/7Mbps. The department Verizon device is experiencing speeds of 0.2Mbps/0.6Mbps, meaning it has no meaningful functionality.

Farrelly wrote a brief email to Buss that night, telling him to "Remove any data throttling on OES5262 effective immediately." Farrelly emailed Buss again the next morning, saying, "Please work with us. All we need is a plan that does not offer throttling or caps of any kind."

Buss responded that afternoon, suggesting a plan that costs $99.99 for the first 20GB and $8 per gigabyte thereafter. "To get the plan changed immediately, I would suggest calling in the plan change to our customer service team," Buss wrote.

That was the last email submitted in the court exhibit.

Santa Clara apparently switched to the $99.99 plan, more than doubling its bill. "While Verizon ultimately did lift the throttling, it was only after County Fire subscribed to a new, more expensive plan," Bowden wrote in his declaration.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...alif-wildfire/





Comcast/Charter Lobby Asks FTC to Preempt State Broadband Regulations

As FTC reexamines enforcement, broadband lobby asks for hands-off approach.
Jon Brodkin

Having succeeded in killing federal net neutrality rules, broadband lobby groups are now asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to avoid imposing stricter regulations on the industry.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai claimed that his net neutrality repeal won't hurt consumers because the FTC will fill the gap left by the FCC's deregulation of broadband. But as things stand today, the FTC can only punish ISPs if they make net neutrality promises and then fail to keep them—ISPs could avoid FTC punishment simply by not making net neutrality promises.

ISPs want to keep it that way. In comments filed this week, cable industry lobby group NCTA told the FTC that "there is plainly no reasonable basis in today's marketplace for singling out ISPs for unique regulatory burdens." The FTC should let "market forces" prevent bad behavior and avoid specific net neutrality or privacy regulation for the broadband industry, the lobby group said.

The FTC should also try to preempt state and local rules, the lobby group argued.

The comments were filed in an FTC proceeding titled "Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century." The FTC is planning to hold hearings on the communications industry, the FTC's enforcement processes, and other competition and consumer protection topics.

"The FTC should ensure that the Internet is subject to uniform, consistent federal regulations, including by issuing guidance explicitly setting forth that inconsistent state and local requirements are preempted," the NCTA wrote.

The FCC is already trying to preempt state net neutrality laws at the urging of industry groups, and courts might ultimately have to decide whether federal agencies can preempt such rules.

"The FTC should endorse and reinforce the FCC's ruling by issuing guidance to state attorneys general and consumer protection authorities reaffirming that they are bound by FCC and FTC precedent in this arena," NCTA argued.

NCTA's filing focused mostly on potential privacy regulation, saying that the FCC should continue its "technology-neutral approach to privacy and data security." Net neutrality concerns are best addressed by existing antitrust laws, the filing said. (For more background on FTC enforcement, see our previous story, "'Unenforceable:' How voluntary net neutrality lets ISPs call the shots."

NCTA points to competition from DSL, mobile

ISPs claim they face so much competition that market forces will prevent bad behavior. Cable TV faces competition from online video services like Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon, NCTA noted. But notably, the NCTA filing includes a graphic listing "competitors" that doesn't include any broadband providers:

That's because cable companies face little serious competition for providing home Internet service. The top cable companies such as Comcast and Charter rarely compete against each other, and they have far more Internet customers than DSL and fiber providers.

Comcast is the only choice for 30 million Americans when it comes to broadband speeds of at least 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream, and Charter is the only choice for 38 million Americans, a recent study based on FCC data found.

NCTA still tried to argue that cable companies face significant broadband competition, pointing to a 2014 survey that found 17.6 percent of consumers had switched broadband providers in the previous 12 months. However, that Comcast-commissioned study (see Exhibit 1 in this Comcast filing) included DSL services (which are much slower than cable) and mobile broadband services (which have stricter data limitations and less reliability than cable). The survey also excluded respondents who did not confirm having access to wireless broadband.

The NCTA also pointed to FCC data that shows "98 percent of developed census blocks had at least two providers offering broadband service capable of delivering download speeds of 10Mbps or greater and upload speeds of 1Mbps or greater and that 82 percent had at least three such providers."

But the FCC has been using a higher 25Mbps/3Mbps threshold to measure broadband deployment progress since 2015. By focusing instead on the 10Mbps/1Mbps threshold, the NCTA is portraying slower DSL networks as formidable competitors to cable.

NTCA argued that ISPs are less of a threat to Internet users than large Internet platform providers such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Netflix.

"[R]ecent experience suggests that large Internet platform providers pose a greater risk to Internet openness and consumer privacy than ISPs," NCTA wrote. "Any such risks can best be addressed through a combination of market forces and an evenhanded application of the FTC's well-established authority to pursue case-by-case enforcement where necessary to prevent deceptive or unfair business practices or anticompetitive conduct."

AT&T/Verizon lobby says the same

The FTC also heard from USTelecom, which represents telcos such as AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, and Frontier. USTelecom's filing said:

“Broadband Internet access provider industry practices—namely, innovation and infrastructure investment—coupled with light-touch regulation have brought about the increased competition and availability of services Americans now enjoy. For more than a decade, we have seen steady, measurable changes in the broadband market in terms of speed, availability, and access.”

Like NCTA, USTelecom said that mobile services should be considered competitors to wired broadband because mobile "is widely used and in many cases can achieve speeds comparable to some fixed offerings."

In order to keep the broadband market "vibrant and competitive," USTelecom said that "America's world-leading Internet growth [should] not be stifled by unnecessary and overly burdensome regulation."

Despite this free market argument, USTelecom also recently argued that broadband providers are like utilities and should therefore be subsidized by the government. In short, ISPs play up the supposedly competitive nature of broadband when they're trying to avoid consumer protection regulations and stress the failures of the US broadband market when they ask the government to subsidize their network construction.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...d-regulations/





Superfast Broadband 'Boosts UK Business by £9bn'

Faster broadband has driven a £9bn surge in turnover for businesses, according to new government figures.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) says superfast broadband has now reached almost five million homes and businesses.

They say the move has delivered £12.28 benefit for firms for every £1 invested by central and local authorities.

Digital Minister Margot James said the target was to ensure access for all to fast and affordable broadband by 2020.

The findings come in a report The Evaluation of the Economic Impact and Public Value of the Superfast Broadband Programme, covering 2012 to 2016.

The report also claimed the broadband rollout had led to a reduction of almost 9,000 jobseekers allowance claims as well as the creation of 49,000 local jobs.

Last month, Openreach, the firm that runs much of the UK's telecoms infrastructure, reduced the wholesale price of broadband in an attempt to boost the number of homes and businesses using fast services.

For firms such as Sky and TalkTalk it means the cost of using the network would be reduced if they can increase the number of customers on it.

'Higher take-up'

Commenting on the DCMs's report, Openreach chief executive Clive Selley said the superfast broadband rollout was a great engineering achievement.

"It is great to see businesses across the UK reaping the benefits of faster broadband speeds," he said.

"We've also recently introduced a raft of lower wholesale prices to help drive higher take-up of faster fibre services which will help to further fuel the boost to the UK economy."

So far about 10 million households and businesses have upgraded to superfast broadband - speeds of 24 megabits per second and above.

Currently, the highest rate of superfast broadband availability is in North East England (97.19%), followed by South East England (97.07%) and the West Midlands (96.56%).

The lowest coverage level is in Northern Ireland (87.74%), followed by South West England (93.34%) and Scotland (93.53%).

The UK government wants to see all of the UK on full-fibre broadband - rather than rely on broadband delivered over copper networks - by 2033.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45238452





Americans Own Less Stuff, and That’s Reason to Be Nervous

What happens when a nation built on the concept of individual property ownership starts to give that up?
Tyler Cowen

Some social problems are blatantly obvious in daily life, while others are longer-term, more corrosive and perhaps mostly invisible. Lately I’ve been worrying about a problem of the latter kind: the erosion of personal ownership and what that will mean for our loyalties to traditional American concepts of capitalism and private property.

The main culprits for the change are software and the internet. For instance, Amazon’s Kindle and other methods of online reading have revolutionized how Americans consume text. Fifteen years ago, people typically owned the books and magazines they were reading. Much less so now. If you look at the fine print, it turns out that you do not own the books on your Kindle. Amazon.com Inc. does.

I do not consider this much of a practical problem. Although Amazon could obliterate the books on my Kindle, this has happened only in a very small number of cases, typically involving account abuse. Still, this licensing of e-books, instead of stacking books on a shelf, has altered our psychological sense of how we connect to what we read – it is no longer truly “ours.”

The change in our relationship with physical objects does not stop there. We used to buy DVDs or video cassettes; now viewers stream movies or TV shows with Netflix. Even the company’s disc-mailing service is falling out of favor. Music lovers used to buy compact discs; now Spotify and YouTube are more commonly used to hear our favorite tunes.

The great American teenage dream used to be to own your own car. That is dwindling in favor of urban living, greater reliance on mass transit, cycling, walking and, of course, ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft.

Each of these changes is beneficial, yet I worry that Americans are, slowly but surely, losing their connection to the idea of private ownership. The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. It set Americans apart from feudal peasants, taught us how property rights and incentives operate, and was a kind of training for future entrepreneurship. Do we not, as parents, often give our children pets or other valuable possessions to teach them basic lessons of life and stewardship?

We’re hardly at a point where American property has been abolished, but I am still nervous that we are finding ownership to be so inconvenient. The notion of “possessive individualism” is sometimes mocked, but in fact it is a significant source of autonomy and initiative. Perhaps we are becoming more communal and caring in positive ways, but it also seems to be more conformist and to generate fewer empire builders and entrepreneurs.

What about your iPhone, that all-essential life device? Surely you own that? Well, sort of. When Apple Inc. decides to change the operating software, sooner or later you have to go along with what they have selected. Gmail is due to change its overall look and functionality, maybe for the better, but again eventually this choice will not be yours either: It’s Google’s. The very economics of software encourage standardization, and changes over time, so de facto you rent much of what you use rather than owning it. I typed the draft of this column using Microsoft Word, and sooner or later my contract to use it will expire and I will have to renew.

Imagine the “internet of things” penetrating our homes more and more, through services like Amazon’s Alexa. We’ll have ovens and thermostats that you set with your voice, and a toilet and bathroom that periodically give you the equivalent of a medical check-up. Yes, you will still own the title to your physical house, but most of the value in that home you will in essence rent from outside companies or, in the case of municipal utilities, the government.

As for that iPhone, it is already clear that you do not have a full legal right to repair it, and indeed more and more devices are sold to consumers without giving them corresponding rights to fix or alter those goods and services. John Deere tractors are sold to farmers with plenty of software, and farmers have to hack into the tractor if they wish to fix it themselves. There is now a small but burgeoning “right to repair” political movement.

Does that sound like something our largely agrarian Founding Fathers might have been happy about? The libertarian political theorist might tell you that arrangement is simply freedom of contract in action. But the more commonsensical, broad libertarian intuitions of the American public encapsulate a more brutish and direct sense that some things we simply own and hold the rights to.

Those are intuitions which are growing increasingly disconnected from reality, and no one knows what lies on the other side of this social experiment.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...soviet-feeling





EU Aims to Abolish Planned Obsolescence
Yoni Van Looveren

The European Parliament accepted a resolution to lengthen consumer goods and software’s longevity, a counter to the alleged planned obsolescence process built into a lot of products.
Indication of minimal life expectancy

The European Parliament now wants the European Commission to create a clear definition of the term “planned obsolescence" and to develop a system to track that aging process. It also wants longer warranty periods and criteria to measure a product’s strength. Each and every device should also have a mention of its minimal life expectancy.

Devices should also be easier to repair: batteries and other components should be freely accessible for replacement, unless safety dictates otherwise. Manufacturers will also need to give other companies access to their components so that consumers can visit those companies for repairs.

The resolution should prevent situations like Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7 fiasco. The battery proved to be an explosion hazard and seeing how it could not be replaced, the South Korean company was forced to recall every single device.

The European Parliament also hopes the resolution will also stimulate job creation, because it should result in more independent repair services. The second-hand market should also benefit from the resolution, because products will get a new lease on life.
https://www.retaildetail.eu/en/news/...d-obsolescence





Apple’s Amsterdam Store Evacuated after iPad Battery Explodes
Michael Potuck

Apple’s Amsterdam store has been evacuated and temporarily closed after an iPad battery exploded and released potentially harmful substances into the air.

As reported by iCulture, Apple employees secured the iPad and punctured battery in a container of sand after it exploded. Fortunately, there was no fire or smoke, or major injuries. However, three employees who experienced trouble breathing were treated by first responders.

Due to the chemicals potentially released, the store has been closed as firefighters work to ventilate the space and clear out any harmful vapors.

Although not related with this iPad battery explosion, as Apple started its iPhone battery replacement program we’ve seen a few more incidents like this over the past months. Apple stores in both Switzerland and Spain were evacuated this year after thermal events with iPhone batteries. Like today’s incident, fortunately those also didn’t see any major injuries, but Apple employees did sustain minor burns.

As always, don’t attempt to replace a swollen battery. Head in to an Apple store or nearest authorized Apple service provider as soon as possible.

Flinke chaos en paniek na ontruiming Apple Store Leidseplein #Amsterdam Noord-Holland Ongeval https://t.co/4dLjLzEMlx pic.twitter.com/CuDC2e8Sdt

— AS Media (@asmedianl) August 19, 2018
https://9to5mac.com/2018/08/19/apple...tery-explodes/





Lawsuit Says Google Tracks Phone Users Regardless of Privacy Settings
Jonathan Stempel

Google has been accused in a lawsuit of illegally tracking the movements of millions of iPhone and Android phone users even when they use a privacy setting to prevent it.

According to a complaint filed late Friday, Google falsely assures people they won’t be tracked if they turn the “Location History” feature on their phones to “off,” and instead violates their privacy by monitoring and storing their movements.

“Google represented that a user ‘can turn off Location History at any time. With Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored.’ This simply was not true,” the complaint filed in San Francisco federal court said.

The plaintiff, Napoleon Patacsil of San Diego, is seeking class-action status on behalf of U.S. users of Android phones and Apple iPhones who turned the tracking feature off.

He is seeking unspecified damages for Google’s alleged intentional violations of California privacy laws, and intrusion into people’s private affairs.

The alleged tracking by the unit of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet Inc was described in an Aug. 13 Associated Press article, which said it was confirmed by computer science researchers at Princeton University.

Google did not immediately respond on Monday to requests for comment. Michael Sobol, a partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein representing Patacsil, did not immediately respond to similar requests.

Patacsil claimed that Google illegally tracked him on his Android phone and later on his iPhone, where he had downloaded some Google apps.

He said Google’s “principal goal” was to “surreptitiously monitor” phone users and let third parties do the same.

The help section of Google’s website now says that turning Location History off “does not affect other location services” in phones, and that some location data may be saved through other services, such as Search and Maps.

The case is Patacsil v Google Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 18-05062.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by David Gregorio
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-al...-idUKKCN1L51LV





Australians Who Won’t Unlock their Phones could Face 10 Years in Jail
Danny Bradbury

The Australian government wants to force companies to help it get at suspected criminals’ data. If they can’t, it would jail people for up to a decade if they refuse to unlock their phones.

The country’s Assistance and Access Bill, introduced this week for public consultation, strengthens the penalties for people who refuse to unlock their phones for the police. Under Australia’s existing Crimes Act, judges could jail a person for two years for not handing over their data. The proposed Bill extends that to up to ten years, arguing that the existing penalty wasn’t strong enough.

The Bill takes a multi-pronged approach to accessing a suspect’s data by co-opting third parties to help the authorities. New rules apply to “communication service providers”, which is a definition with a broad scope. It covers not only telcos, but also device vendors and application publishers, as long as they have “a nexus to Australia”.

These companies would be subject to two kinds of government order that would compel them to help retrieve a suspect’s information.

The first of these is a ‘technical assistance notice’ that requires telcos to hand over any decryption keys they hold. This notice would help the government in end-to-end encryption cases where the target lets a service provider hold their own encryption keys.

But what if the suspect stores the keys themselves? In that case, the government would pull out the big guns with a second kind of order called a technical capability notice. It forces communications providers to build new capabilities that would help the government access a target’s information where possible.

In short, the government asks companies whether they can access the data. If they can’t, then the second order asks them to figure out a way. Here’s a flowchart explaining how it works.

No backdoors

The government’s explanatory note says that the Bill could force a manufacturer to hand over detailed specs of a device, install government software on it, help agencies develop their own “systems and capabilities”, and notify agencies of major changes to their systems. In short, it would force communications providers to work extensively with the government to gain access to a target’s data where it was in their power to do so, and it would also compel them to keep all of this secret.

What if the communications provider doesn’t want to help? Then they could face penalties from the government, or “injunctions or enforceable undertakings”.

There are a few things that the Bill doesn’t allow. The government can’t force a company to build weaknesses into a product, or stop it from fixing those that it finds. That rules out encryption backdoors, then. Neither can it access information without a warrant.

However, the proposed legislation also creates a new class of access warrant that lets police officers get evidence from devices in secret before the device encrypts it, including intercepting communications and using other computers to access the data. It also amends existing search and seizure warrants, allowing the cops to access data remotely, including online accounts.

The backdoor war

In proposing this legislation, Australia joins a complex and heated debate about the role of encryption in the tech business. The Bill effectively rules out the inclusion of encryption backdoors, but seeks help from as many people as possible to get at the data, using a variety of loosely-defined methods.

Many services such as Snapchat don’t use end-to-end encryption, meaning that a government could use legislation like this to make it hand over a user’s encryption keys.

In this sense, it mirrors the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act, which asks telecommunications companies to remove electronic protections where possible. It also parrots FBI officials, who have said that they aren’t asking for encryption backdoors but that they do want vendors and service providers to break it where necessary.

The tensions over forced decryption have played out across the globe. In the US, Apple has tussled with the FBI in court over its unwillingness to help the feds break into its devices.

On the other side of the world, Russia blocked privacy-focused messaging company Telegram after it failed to hand over encryption keys that protect its cloud-based chats. However, Telegram also offers ‘secret chats’ for the extra-paranoid, which support end-to-end encryption, and the company couldn’t hand over those keys even if it wanted to.

There are two sides to the encryption argument. Security advocates including Sophos argue against the use of encryption backdoors, warning that criminals could discover and use them. Privacy advocates like Telegram founder Pavel Durov don’t like backdoors or forced decryption because they don’t want the authorities overstepping their bounds.

On the other hand, the authorities want to get at encrypted data somehow because they want it to stop criminals such as child abusers and terrorists. The latter have been known to use the Telegram service to plan their attacks.

The flurry of legislation around the world addressing this issue is a product of that complex debate. It also highlights the disparity between the legal system, which moves at a snail’s pace, and the technology world, which moves at the speed of light. One thing is for sure – it is a debate that is far from over yet.
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/201...years-in-jail/





Spyware Company Leaves ‘Terabytes’ of Selfies, Text Messages, and Location Data Exposed Online

A company that sells surveillance software to parents and employers left “terabytes of data” including photos, audio recordings, text messages and web history, exposed in a poorly-protected Amazon S3 bucket.
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai

A company that markets cell phone spyware to parents and employers left the data of thousands of its customers—and the information of the people they were monitoring—unprotected online.

The data exposed included selfies, text messages, audio recordings, contacts, location, hashed passwords and logins, Facebook messages, among others, according to a security researcher who asked to remain anonymous for fear of legal repercussions.

Last week, the researcher found the data on an Amazon S3 bucket owned by Spyfone, one of many companies that sell software that is designed to intercept text messages, calls, emails, and track locations of a monitored device.

Motherboard was able to verify that the researcher had access to Spyfone’s monitored devices’ data by creating a trial account, installing the spyware on a phone, and taking some pictures. Hours later, the researcher sent back one of those pictures.

The researcher said that the exposed data contained several terabytes of “unencrypted camera photos.”

“There's at least 2,208 current ‘customers’ and hundreds or thousands of photos and audio in each folder,” he told Motherboard in an online chat. “There is currently 3,666 tracked phones.”

The exposed data also included 44,109 unique email addresses, according to Troy Hunt, who maintains the data breach website Have I Been Pwned, and who analyzed some of the data after the researcher shared it with him.

The company’s backend services were also left wide open, not requiring a password to log into them, according to the researcher, who said he was able to create admin accounts and see customer data.

Spyfone also left one of it’s APIs completely unprotected online, allowing anyone who guesses the URL to read what appears to be an up-to-date and constantly updating list of customers. The site shows first and last names, email and IP addresses. As of Thursday, there were more than 11,000 unique email addresses in the database, according to a Motherboard analysis.

“Spyfone appears to be a magical combination of shady, irresponsible, and incompetent,” Eva Galperin, the director of cybersecurity at digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Motherboard.

Steve McBroom, a Spyfone representative, told Motherboard on Monday that the company is investigating the leak, and expressed relief that the person who found it had good intentions.

“Thank god it is a researcher, someone good trying to protect,” McBroom said in a phone call.

On Wednesday, McBroom confirmed the data leak “that affected approximately 2,200 of our customers.”

“We have partnered with leading data security firms to assist in our investigation, and continue to coordinate with law enforcement authorities about this situation. Every day our team takes great strides to enhance our site’s security and we certainly anticipate that this recent data breach is the last,” McBroom said. “Communications about the breach and the investigation have gone out to our customers.”

This is the latest in a seemingly endless series of data breaches and leaks of consumer spyware companies. In the last 18 months, Motherboard has reported hacks on FlexiSpy, two separate ones on Retina-X, Spy Master Pro, Mobistealth, and SpyHuman. The common element among all these appears to be the companies’ poor—if not irresponsible—approach to security, especially regarding their most sensitive data: that of people monitored, some of whom are children.

Joseph Cox contributed reporting.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...ed-online-leak





Netflix Tests Promotional Videos but Users See ‘Commercials’
Sandra E. Garcia

It’s easy for a Netflix subscriber to watch one episode after another of a favorite show: A viewer makes a selection and lets them keep on coming.

Netflix might interrupt a binge after several hours of inactivity by asking “Are you still watching?” and a user has to respond to keep the episodes rolling.

But now subscribers face a different interruption: promotional videos, which can last from 10 to 20 seconds. Almost like a commercial, they appear between episodes, reminding viewers not to miss a different show on Netflix.

Netflix users were not happy.

WHYYY AM I SEEING COMMERCIALS FOR SHOWS I DONT WANNA WATCH IN BETWEEN EPISODES OF A SHOW I DO WANNA WATCH?? @netflix
— xenia 🕊 (@velascoxenia) August 19, 2018

Netflix users complained they could neither skip nor mute the videos.

But Netflix said on Sunday the company was not adding commercials but merely testing promotional videos, which can in fact be skipped.

“We have been looking at ways to insert rich video into our experiences for several years,” said Smita Saran, a company spokeswoman.

“These video promos are actually personalized recommendations for titles we think a member may enjoy watching,” Ms. Saran said. “In this particular case, we are testing whether surfacing recommendations between episodes helps members discover stories they will enjoy faster.”

It was not clear how many subscribers were seeing the videos. Ms. Saran said that the company does not comment on where such tests are conducted but that they are customarily done globally.

Netflix, which has over 100 million subscribers, reported last month that it signed up 674,000 new subscribers after forecasting that it would add 1.2 million. In the crowded market of streaming services, there’s an imperative for it to keep its subscribers from straying.

Netflix runs hundreds of tests and some are incorporated into the service as features that subscribers can use, while others are invisible. For example, Netflix experimented with movie previews in which a trailer played after users hovered over a title. That became a permanent feature after being tested for years.

The promotional videos being tested have been in the works for several years. The tests have to be successful with customers worldwide before they become permanent.

Netflix said that it was interested in hearing from customers about its experiments but that it would ultimately be “looking at their behavior within the service.”

For now, users can skip the promotional videos or watch them and be nudged toward a new series. Either way, Netflix will be making note.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/b...ideos-ads.html





Antenna Sales are Rising, in Another Sign of Churn in TV Watching

But the number of local installers is shrinking.
John Ewoldt

The lowly, unsightly TV antenna, consigned to garages or forgotten altogether when people switched to cable and satellite services for TV, is rising again.

Once known as “rabbit ears” because of their shape, antennas pull in actual broadcast signals to TVs, something that was once everyday knowledge but got lost as people for more than a generation came to rely on cable and satellite providers.

In the Twin Cities and much of Minnesota, antenna users can receive 10 to 60 TV channels, often in high-definition quality, over the air at no expense. Local antenna installers say business has been rising about 20 percent to 25 percent annually for several years.

Tom McGlynn, owner of St. Paul-based Mr. HDTV Man, noticed the change about three years ago. “It wasn’t just the traditional cost-cutter upset over the latest cable bill who was calling,” McGlynn said. “I started getting calls from affluent clientele in the western suburbs, seniors who have long resisted change, and millennials who wanted local channels to add to their streaming of Netflix and Sling.”

Twenty percent of homes in the U.S. use a digital antenna to access live TV, up from 16 percent just two years ago, according to Parks Associates market research in Texas. The Twin Cities has an even higher antenna percentage. It’s the eighth largest broadcast-only market in the country, with more than 22 percent of homes using antennas to get local TV, according to TVb.org, a local broadcast trade association.

Duane Wawrzyniak, owner of Electronic Servicing in Silver Lake, Minn., near Hutchinson, said his antenna business has doubled in the past five years. “When Dish and DirecTV came out to the rural areas in 2000 to 2005, it was a big deal. Our antenna business went away,” he said. “But people got tired of having a $100 TV bill every month for channels they never watch.”

Yet even as sales rise, the number of antenna installers in the Twin Cities is shrinking.

Installations can be dangerous work, especially on homes with steep roofs, Wawrzyniak said. He sometimes asks himself what he’s doing on a roof at age 59. “I don’t see a lot of younger people getting into the business,” he said. “They can do commercial or industrial electrical and make more money.”

Dave Fazendin, co-owner of Johnny’s TV in Stillwater, said he and his guys don’t want to get on roofs anymore. “We’d rather do home theater, “ he said. “It’s more lucrative.”

Most TV viewers can use a simple indoor antenna, priced as low as $20, that is easy to set up themselves. Others encounter problems due to trees, tall buildings or low-lying areas and will pay $300 to $400 for a professional installer.

“You’ll pay for the cost of installation in five or six months compared to the average cable bill,” said Mike Ness of Ness Electronics, an antenna supplier in Burnsville.

Some local installers such as Mr. HDTV Man and Cable Alternatives reassure skeptical customers by guaranteeing reception or they won’t charge for the visit. “If we can’t get reception on the 28 channels from the Shoreview towers, we won’t put the antenna up,” McGlynn said, referring to the sites in the northeastern suburb from which all the local TV stations transmit their signal.

Shaymein Ewer tried an antenna at his home in Richfield but couldn’t get KARE 11 and returned to a cable subscription. After moving to Crystal recently, he wondered if the reception would improve. He purchased a new antenna online, tried again and is happy so far.

“Why should I pay an extra $10 a month for HD channels when I can get them free over the air with an antenna?” Ewer asked. He pays extra for streaming services that offer most of what he wants. “Even paying $35 a month for streaming, I’m still saving money over cable,” he said.

John Brillhart, who started Cable Alternatives in Fridley four years ago, is the rare newbie in the biz. He’s optimistic considering that the number of households with antennas is increasing about 1 percent per year. That’s about 10,000 households per year in this market, he said.

Cable companies, such as Twin Cities market leader Comcast, have evolved to face the challenge by wrapping internet streaming services and cable channels without the need to switch inputs or change remotes. For the budget-conscious, it offers the relatively unknown Limited Basic package (about 30 channels including local) for $25 or Digital Economy (about 50 channels including a dozen cable) for $40 plus fees, according to Comcast.

Some consumers wonder if the price of streaming services will eventually rise to cost as much as cable or satellite service. DirecTV Now, PlayStation Vue and YouTube TV each increased their cost this year by $5 a month.

Brillhart thinks streaming companies will still have an advantage because of their pricing transparency. “The frustration of many cable customers is knowing that everyone can pay a different price based on introductory specials, negotiating, not negotiating or bundling,” he said.

Streaming services also allow customers to cancel at any time without penalty. “Hopefully, that keeps them competitive,” Brillhart said.
http://www.startribune.com/antenna-s...ing/491230121/





BitTorrent Founder Bram Cohen has Left the Company

Bram Cohen, a co-founder of BitTorrent, the company which oversees the development of eponymous P2P protocol, has left its board, he told TorrentFreak. The revelation comes weeks after the file-sharing service provider said it had been acquired by blockchain startup Tron. It remains unclear exactly when Cohen, who also served as a lead engineer at the firm for years, made the decision to part ways with the company. He hinted to TechCrunch last year that, as of August, he was no longer involved in the day-to-day operations of the company.

The departure of Cohen underscores BitTorrent's long battle to find a lucrative business model. The company, the services of which are used by more than 100 million customers, has long struggled to find new applications of its platform and avenues to bring home some cash. In 2016, the company announced a mobile music and video streaming service BitTorrent Now, which it abruptly shut down months later while also firing its co-CEOs. Last year, the company shut down its much hyped live streaming service BitTorrent Live, which Variety described as a brainchild of Cohen.

An outspoken personality, Cohen has expressed interest in cryptocurrency in the recent years. Late last year, he announced Chia Network, a startup which would focus on fixing some core issues with bitcoin, namely the centralization problem (miners with the cheapest access to electricity having an advantage over those who do not) and the environmental impact of bitcoin mining. In a talk at a blockchain conference, Cohen shared more about his new startup.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/19/1...ft-the-company





Internet Relay Chat Turns Thirty

IRC (Internet Relay Chat) was born at the Department of Information Processing Science of the University of Oulu 30 years ago. Jarkko Oikarinen developed the internet chat system back in 1988 in addition to his summer job. Today, people are still using IRC.

Computer Science student Atte Jauhiainen uses IRC every day. Mostly he chats about everyday topics and occurrences, like lunch dates and news of the day. “There’s a tremendous amount of channels on IRC, and it’s easy to create more. For example events and hobbies can have their own channels,” says Jauhiainen.

Jauhiainen likes to use IRC because it’s a versatile media of communication and can be customized. “IRC is not dependent on any device. You can use it on your phone, computer or even video game console, if you like. Of course also tradition has it’s effect,” he says.

The Guild of Computer Science students (OTiT) uses IRC for everyday communication. “Freshmen will have a compulsory IRC training during autumn semester. I hadn’t used IRC before my studies, but IRC can be useful in our field. Using IRC makes you familiar with the command line of Linux,” Jauhiainen hints.
http://www.oulu.fi/university/node/54247

















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

August 18th, August 11th, August 4th, July 28th

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 02:47 PM.


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)