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 14-08-19, 07:14 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 17th, ’19

Since 2002



































August 17th, 2019




Federal Court Awards Compensation to Rogers in File Sharing Case
Ian Burns

The long journey of a number of film production companies in seeking compensation from alleged copyright infringers has taken yet another step after the Federal Court has finally awarded costs to Rogers Communications for finding the information the companies were seeking, at a level far above what they thought the communications giant was entitled to.

The companies, known collectively as Voltage Pictures, are alleging copyright infringement as a result of their films being posted on the Internet using peer-to-peer file sharing networks such as torrent sites. Voltage sued one person, initially identified as “John Doe” but later revealed to be one Robert Salna, alleging breach of copyright; the ultimate goal is to have the case certified as a so-called “reverse” class action against approximately 55,000 people who have also allegedly infringed their copyrights.

Justice Keith Boswell of the Federal Court issued a Norwich third-party disclosure order compelling Rogers Communications Inc. to provide the contact and personal information of Salna. In September 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that Rogers and other ISPs are entitled to be reimbursed for their “reasonable costs” in supplying the names and addresses of alleged illegal downloaders to copyright holders, and sent the case back to Justice Boswell to determine costs (Rogers Communications Inc. v. Voltage Pictures, LLC 2018 SCC 38).

Voltage suggested Rogers should not be entitled to any compensation because they felt the company’s evidence was deficient, but also suggested a compensation range of $3.50 to $5 if Rogers’ evidence is used by the court. Rogers contended it was entitled to be compensated for all the steps it took to comply with the order at a fee of $100 per hour.

But Justice Boswell set Rogers’ compensation at $67.23. He concluded a reasonable hourly fee for Rogers’ compliance with the Norwich order is $35, and the evidence showed, on average, it takes 24 minutes for Rogers to look up the customer name and address information for an IP address with two time stamps (or 12 minutes per time stamp). Time stamps are a sequence of characters or information which identify when an event occurred; the Norwich order required Rogers to identify information at five time stamps.

“In view of my finding above that it would have taken Rogers a total of 115.25 minutes to identify the customer information associated with the five IP addresses in the Norwich order, Rogers is entitled to compensation of $67.23, plus HST, for searching and disclosing the customer name and address information [associated with the Norwich order],” Justice Boswell wrote in Voltage v. Doe 2019 FC 1047, which was released Aug. 6.

Andrew Bernstein of Torys LLP, who represented Rogers, said the company “obviously believes the amount that it was asking for reflects the actual cost associated with doing the work that Voltage has asked it to do.”

“Considering Voltage’s position throughout was that Rogers was entitled to nothing, or very little, I was pleased to see the court didn’t agree and give Rogers a decent amount of compensation,” he said. “I could quibble a little about the details, but all in all, it is certainly a better result than what Voltage was asking for.”

Bernstein said the decision could be a benchmark in deciding compensation levels in finding IP addresses for other possible file sharing cases, but noted costs are very fact-specific.

“A different ISP might say we have a different cost structure than Rogers has, and therefore we should get more or less than what Justice Boswell ordered in this case,” he said. “I think from a principled basis, the decision on what an ISP is entitled to be compensated for is quite useful, but in terms of the actual specific number probably not that precedential for other ISPs.”

Graham Honsa, a technology lawyer with Toronto’s Wilson Lue LLP, agreed the case was very fact-specific in that each ISP has a different process for finding information, but added the decision “does sort of set the field for what a potential reasonable cost for compliance would be.”

“Last year we had some idea the ultimate number was going to end up somewhere between zero and $100, but we didn’t know exactly where it would be,” he said. “And the higher that number the harder these cases are to fight for the plaintiffs, and that’s probably why this has gone on for so long and why the stakes have been so high.”

Honsa added he was concerned about the impact the decision would have on individuals seeking to bring actions on file sharing. He added it was not clear to him from the decision whether it takes 24 minutes to look up one IP address with two time stamps, or 12 minutes per time stamp.

“At the agreed rate of $35 per hour, a single IP address with two time stamps costs either $14 or $28. If it is $14 for two time stamps and you have a thousand defendants, that’s not very significant and is probably not going to stop anyone from bringing an action. But if you start getting to $28, and certainly at $67, it is fairly high,” he said. “This might make it a little harder for plaintiffs who struggle to raise the upfront funds to deal with one of these cases. But better-funded plaintiffs might not be put off — on a case with a thousand defendants, the upfront cost using these numbers would be between $14,000 and $28,000, which may not be a lot of money for a plaintiff that expects to recover $500,000 or more.”

Bernstein noted, when a company is going after multiple copyright infringers, there are “a lot of people you have to pay.”

“You have to pay your lawyer and your investigator, for example,” he said. “Rogers isn’t looking to make any money off of this. They just want to be compensated for their costs.”

Ken Clark of Aird & Berlis LLP, who represented Voltage, declined comment.
https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/artic...e-sharing-case





Judges May Be Reaching Limit with Copyright Profiteering by Pornography Sellers
Susan Decker and Christopher Yasiejko

Pornography producers and sellers account for the lion’s share of copyright-infringement lawsuits in the U.S. — and judges may have seen enough.

The courts are cracking down on porn vendors that file thousands of lawsuits against people for downloading and trading racy films on home computers, using tactics a judge called a “high tech shakedown.” In one case, two men were jailed in a scheme that netted $6 million in settlements.

The pornography companies have “a business model that seeks to profit from litigation and threats of litigation rather than profiting from creative works,” said Mitch Stoltz, a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco group that has waged a campaign against companies it thinks abuse the copyright system.

Two companies that make and sell porn are responsible for almost half of the 3,404 copyright lawsuits filed in the U.S. in the first seven months of this year, according to an analysis by Bloomberg Law’s Tommy Shen. Malibu Media LLC, which distributes such titles as “Stunning Sexy Shower,” has filed some 8,000 lawsuits nationwide since 2012. Strike 3 Holdings LLC, operator of such sites as “Tushy” and “Vixen,” has filed about 3,500 lawsuits in just the past two years, according to Bloomberg Law dockets.

The companies say they are protecting their movies from piracy and infringement under U.S. copyright law, as major movie studios have done for decades, and suggest that the content of their films is the reason for the wrath of the judges. But some of the tactics used in their infringement suits to identify targets and force settlements have critics — and some jurists — up in arms and may require congressional actions to fix.

The suits don’t initially name names. They identify the Internet Protocol addresses using peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent to download or distribute the movies and then file suits against “John Does” and ask the courts to order internet service providers, like Verizon Communications Inc. or Comcast Corp., to identify the account subscribers. Those people are then contacted by the porn company lawyers.

The companies “don’t take any measures to try to stem the tide of piracy; instead, they try to profit from the piracy,” said Leonard French, a lawyer in Allentown, Pennsylvania, who’s represented 800 people sued by Malibu Media. He said the defendants, mostly men, run the gamut — business executives, retired military officers, authors, engineers and even law students.

Wealthy Areas

The companies target users in wealthier areas and tend to go after any adult male in the house “since they assume that only men view and download porn,” said lawyer Leslie Farber of Montclair, New Jersey, who has handled about 150 cases filed by the two companies.

Judges grant such requests in thousands of copyright-infringement lawsuits each year. Last December, though, District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington balked at Strike 3’s request for an order, saying he “will not accept the risk of misidentification” and that the flood of lawsuits smacks of “extortion.”

Strike 3 “treats this court not as a citadel of justice, but as an ATM,” Lamberth said. “Its feigned desire for legal process masks what it really seeks: for the court to oversee a high-tech shakedown. This court declines.”

Strike 3 said Lamberth’s ruling was swayed by “an extraordinarily blatant disapproval of the purported content of Strike 3’s works.” While the company said it’s willing to take steps to protect identities of its targets, it will continue pressing its rights under the U.S. Constitution and Copyright Act.

Lamberth’s December ruling is already having a ripple effect. A federal judge in New Jersey on July 9 granted Malibu Media’s request to identify the user, but refused to enter a judgment against the man, citing Lamberth’s “scathing opinion” and concern for the privacy of the individual when only an internet address is known.

Malibu Media and Strike 3 have nothing on the actions of two lawyers, who sometimes worked under the name Prenda Law. They would upload the movies themselves to peer-to-peer sites, use shell companies to sue anyone who took the bait, and made up elaborate tales to hide their actions. Between 2011 and 2014, they collected some $6 million based on settlements of $3,000 or less, according to federal prosecutors.

One lawyer, who cooperated with prosecutors, was sentenced in July to five years for mail fraud and money laundering in what a federal judge called a “vile” scheme; the other is appealing his 14-year federal prison sentence.

Malibu Media and Strike 3 say they have no choice but to sue — both reported a drop-off in their subscription services because of the illegal downloads. Strike 3 said it filed suits only against “the most egregious of these infringers.”

Patrick Cerillo, a Flemington, New Jersey-based lawyer who represented Malibu Media in the New Jersey case, said the lawsuits are having a deterrent effect. The number of downloads that investigators are finding in any given case has dropped, from as many as 120 films at a time to an average of 8 to 15, he said in an interview. The idea that Malibu Media is using shame to coerce settlements is “a bunch of malarkey.”

“You can’t look at the content of these plaintiffs and say that they don’t deserve the same rights as a musician or an author to protect their copyrights because it’s seedy, it’s not mainstream, it’s deviant,” Cerillo said. “People lose sight of the fact that this is a law that protects the creativity of individuals and companies. And that creativity can be stifled if you can’t protect it.”

Recording Industry

The “John Doe” lawsuits came into being around 2004, after Verizon successfully argued that the recording industry, which was engaged in a controversial campaign to sue people who downloaded music, couldn’t just demand the identity of a subscriber without a court order. The goal was to protect the privacy of their customers and curb abuses.

It’s a technique used by owners of more mainstream flicks, like the owners of the 2015 Adam Sandler film “The Cobbler” who filed more than 200 lawsuits in 2015 and 2016, or the owners of the Oscar-winning “Dallas Buyers Club” who lodged some 300 cases.

No one reaches the numbers of the porn companies, though.

“They are used to filing thousands of lawsuits without much research or investigation into the individuals that they are suing,” said David Lin, a copyright lawyer whose Brooklyn-based firm has defended against about 100 such lawsuits. “They can’t just file a lawsuit against grandma just because grandma is the name on the internet account.”

Congress is considering legislation to create a sort of small claims court in the Library of Congress, with potential damages limited and lower costs to file. Keith Kupferschmid, chief executive of the Copyright Alliance, said the proposal is designed to deter high-volume litigants and will help independent photographers or other artists.

The beef shouldn’t be with copyright owners filing lawsuits to protect their property, but the “coercive tactics” to settle by the porn companies, Kupferschmid said, who blames the internet companies for not making it harder to distributed pirated works.

Critics of the plan, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, say they worry it would encourage more porn download cases.

Cerillo said that it would be up to Congress to change the law regarding copyright-infringement — with the warning that any attempt to derail the porn companies would affect all movie companies and copyright owners. French said Congress or the courts could require more than just an IP address to go after someone.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/busin...ges-seeing-red





Megaupload's Kim Dotcom Hopes to Mobilize Former Users Against Joe Biden's Presidential Campaign
Tatiana Cirisano

"Watch me in 2020."

Seven years since U.S. authorities shut down the file-sharing platform, Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom is hoping to use a database of former users' emails to influence the 2020 presidential election.

In a series of tweets this morning (Aug. 12), Dotcom suggested that he plans to encourage former users of the long-defunct site to oppose the presidential ambitions of former U.S. vice president Joe Biden, whom Dotcom has long blamed for instigating the site's downfall.

"Still waiting to get access to your Megaupload files? I will email 30 million former US Megaupload users a video link in 2020 explaining how @JoeBiden destroyed your favorite website," Dotcom tweeted. "Most of you were teenagers or students then but now you’re voters. Let’s retire Biden together."

"Those of you who followed me long enough understand my role in preventing Hillary," he added in a separate tweet. "But @JoeBiden will be my biggest pleasure. Like @HillaryClinton he’s corrupt to the core and can never become US President. Watch me in 2020."

Founded in 2005, Megaupload allowed users to download copyrighted songs, television series and movies. The U.S. Department of Justice charged Dotcom and his associates with conspiracy, racketeering and money laundering in 2012, shutting down the site; Dotcom was arrested the same year and incarcerated for a month before being released on bail.

Currently, U.S. authorities are trying to extradite Dotcom from New Zealand.

Still waiting to get access to your Megaupload files? I will email 30 million former US Megaupload users a video link in 2020 explaining how @JoeBiden destroyed your favorite website. Most of you were teenagers or students then but now you’re voters. Let’s retire Biden together.
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) August 11, 2019

Indeed. Everyone who ever uploaded a file to Megaupload from a US IP address will receive this video link about how @JoeBiden abused his power to destroy Megaupload, incl. commentary from an insider and Biden bragging to a lawyer we planted at a fundraiser that HE destroyed MU. https://t.co/AgYIo73NXY
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) August 11, 2019

Those of you who followed me long enough understand my role in preventing Hillary. But @JoeBiden will be my biggest pleasure. Like @HillaryClinton he’s corrupt to the core and can never become US President. Watch me in 2020.
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) August 12, 2019
https://www.billboard.com/articles/b...inst-joe-biden





Ban Websites Pirating Movies: Delhi High Court Orders Internet Providers

In his interim order, Delhi High Court's Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the ISPs to block access to all the URLs and IP addresses of these websites.
Press Trust of India

The Delhi High Court has directed internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to websites like tamilrockers, eztv, katmovies and limetorrents which are allegedly engaged in unauthorised streaming and distribution of movies and television series of production houses like Warner Bros, Universal and Netflix.

In his interim order, Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the ISPs to block access to all the URLs and IP addresses of these websites.

Uniform resource locators (URLs) are address of a resource, like websites, on the internet.

The court also issued directions to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Information Technology to suspend the domain name registration of the websites infringing the copyright of production houses and to issue requisite notifications asking internet and telecom service providers to block such online sites.

The interim directions came on the plea of US-based entertainment company Warner Bros which contended that these sites were hosting, streaming and making available to the public its original content, as well as that of others like UTV, Star, Paramount, Universal and Netflix, without any authorisation.

The court also restrained the websites from "hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or communicating to the public, or facilitating the same, in any manner, on their websites, through the internet any cinematograph work/content/programme/ show in relation to which plaintiff (Warner Bros) has copyright".

After hearing Warner Bros, the court said a prima facie case was made out that if an interim order was not passed, irreparable harm or injury would be caused to the company.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ban-...viders-2084225





Disney Fights Streaming Account Sharing with Help from Cable Industry

Deal with Charter aims to stop account sharing on Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+.
Jon Brodkin

Disney and Charter Communications are teaming up to fight account sharing in an attempt to prevent multiple people from using a single account to access streaming video services.

The battle against account sharing was announced as Disney and the nation's second-biggest cable company struck a new distribution agreement involving Disney's Hulu, ESPN+, and the forthcoming Disney+. Customers could still buy those online services directly from Disney, but the new deal would also let them make those purchases through Charter's Spectrum TV service.

If you buy a Disney service through Charter, be aware that the companies will work together to prevent you from sharing a login with friends. Disney and Charter said in their announcement yesterday that they have "agreed to work together on piracy mitigation. The two companies will work together to implement business rules and techniques to address such issues as unauthorized access and password sharing."

In addition to streaming services, the deal will let Charter continue carrying Disney-owned TV channels on its cable service. That includes ABC, the various Disney and ESPN channels, FX, National Geographic, and more.

"This agreement will allow Spectrum to continue delivering to its customers popular Disney content, makes possible future distribution by Spectrum of Disney streaming services, and will begin an important collaborative effort to address the significant issue of piracy mitigation," Charter Executive VP Tom Montemagno said.

The announcement didn't say exactly how the companies will fight account sharing. We asked Charter for technical details on how it'll work and about whether this will result in more personal customer data being shared between Charter and Disney. Charter did not answer any of our questions, saying, "we don't have details to share at this time."

We sent the same questions to Disney and will update this article if we get any answers.

Charter CEO complained about account sharing

The crackdown could target people who use Charter TV account logins to sign into Disney services online. Charter CEO Tom Rutledge has complained about account sharing several times over the past few years while criticizing TV networks for not fully locking down their content.

"There's lots of extra streams, there's lots of extra passwords, there's lots of people who could get free service," Rutledge said at an industry conference in 2017. He argues that password sharing has helped people avoid buying cable TV. ESPN has also complained about account sharing, calling it piracy.

Another possibility is that Charter could monitor usage of its broadband network to help Disney fight account sharing. For example, Disney could track the IP addresses of users signing in to its services, and Charter could match those IP addresses to those of its broadband customers. Charter has plenty of leeway to share its customers' private browsing data because the Republican-controlled Congress eliminated broadband privacy rules in 2017.

Customers could use VPN services to attempt to avoid detection, though.

Charter has 15.8 million residential TV customers nationwide, making it the second-biggest cable TV service after Comcast. But it lost 400,000 video customers in the past year. Charter's broadband service has gone in the other direction, rising from 23.1 million to 24.2 million residential customers in the past year.

Netflix and HBO take less strict approach

In contrast to Charter and Disney, Netflix and HBO haven't cared as much about account sharing.

Sharing a Netflix account "with individuals beyond your household" does violate Netflix's terms of use, but the restriction isn't heavily enforced. "Password sharing is something you have to learn to live with, because there's so much legitimate password sharing, like you sharing with your spouse, with your kids," Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said in 2016.

Now-former HBO CEO Richard Plepler once said that password sharing is a "terrific marketing vehicle for the next generation of viewers" and that "we're in the business of creating addicts." (Plepler left HBO in February, less than a year after AT&T bought HBO owner Time Warner.)

Netflix, HBO, and the Disney-owned Hulu all limit the number of concurrent streams on each account, however. That doesn't prevent account sharing entirely, but such a policy can make it inconvenient to share an account with a bunch of friends.
https://arstechnica.com/information-...able-industry/





GoldTV Will Serve as a ‘Test Case’ for IPTV Blocking in Canada
Bill Toulas

• Bell Media and Rogers Media ready to test the willingness of ISPs to block an IPTV service website.
• This will reportedly take place next month, following a relevant order by the Federal Court.
• Some internet service providers may object the order, and this could cause problems for the copyright holders.

Bell and Rogers have submitted a lawsuit against GoldTV, which is considered by legal insiders to be a “test case” for pirate site blocking in the country, and especially pirate IPTV providers. Already, Bell and Rogers, two large broadcasting and communication entities in Canada have obtained an interim injunction against GoldTV, and will soon request a court to move forward with the site blocking. The last time Rogers Media and Bell Media collaborated in the legal space, they managed to take down SOLO IPTV, WaveTVBox, Infinity TV, ITVbox.net, MTLFreeTV, and many other pirating TV box sellers.

Canadian broadcasters have repeatedly asked the government to create pirate blocking agencies, criminalize piracy, and stop illegal streaming in every way possible, but so far, they have had mixed responses to these suggestions. Either due to a lack of jurisdiction or due to the asymmetric extent of the proposed response to copyright infringement offenses, many of the Bell and Rogers requests have been rebuffed by the authorities. However, this hasn’t stopped the broadcasters from trying to establish a beneficial environment for themselves, mainly by lobbying during the formulation procedures for Canada’s new Copyright Act.

Right now, GoldTV is forbidden from continuing their operation, including the promotion of their services. However, the website of the IPTV provider is up and running in the time of writing this, so it looks like the Federal Court injunction hasn’t affected the GoldTV owners so far. Moreover, it is apparent that they don’t feel they’re infringing any copyrights through their website anyway, as their disclaimer clearly points out that all laws are adhered to, no content is hosted or archived there, and they merely act as an advertising agency for others who wish to offer their services to the people.


With the website continuing to promote GoldTV IPTV services, Bell and Rogers will ask the court to issue an order to ISPs Bell Media, Eastlink, Cogeco, Fido, Shaw Communications, TekSavvy Solutions, Telus Corp. and Videotron, so virtually all internet providers in Canada will be called to block the GoldTV website. The reason why this is considered a “test case” for pirate IPTV blocks in Canada is that the number of the ISP providers who may object to this order is currently unknown. Rumors claim that Tech savvy could oppose such an order, and this would cause disruption and possibly massive migration of subscribers to them. That said, this will be a market test as well, as there are business strategy elements involved in the decision of each ISP’s stance on the matter. Still, many of the ISPs are owned by the copyright holders who are driving this case, and this is worth noting.
https://www.technadu.com/goldtv-test...-canada/76647/





How Netflix Is Using Its Muscle to Push Filmmaking Technology Boundaries

From editing software to actual cameras, the streamer is driving manufacturers to innovate  — or risk losing its vast business.
Carolyn Giardina

Arguably the most popular camera among Hollywood cinematographers is the ARRI Alexa, made by the century-old ARRI camera company. But as recently as six months ago, Netflix would not permit DPs to use this camera (other than the large-format Alexa 65) for its original programming because the standard model employed a 3.2K resolution sensor instead of the streamer's required 4K. Many Alexa fans argued that the difference between a 3.2K and 4K sensor doesn't create a noticeable difference in the footage and say the camera's dynamic range and other image characteristics make it a more pleasing choice. But Netflix stood firm on its decision: "The ARRI Alexa and Amira are fantastic cameras, and we stream plenty of content that was captured with these cameras. However, since these cameras do not have true 4K sensors, we cannot accept them for our 4K original productions," Netflix said in a statement. "For those who pay a premium for our UHD 4K service, we only deliver content that was shot and delivered at a true UHD 4K resolution."

The result is some frustrated cinematographers. At November's Camerimage Festival in Poland, where Netflix execs said its requirement was designed to "protect your creative intent," things got a little heated. "This isn't about quality, this is about marketing," argued one DP in the audience.

This past winter, ARRI released a new model with a 4.5K sensor, which some referred to as "the Netflix camera," acknowledging a key reason for its development. In the end, Netflix won.

If you have used the "Netflix calibrated mode" on your Sony or Panasonic TV or seen the "Netflix Recommended TV" logo in a consumer electronics display, you've had a glimpse of how the streaming giant has exercised its clout to become the most influential entertainment company in the technology field, pushing boundaries (and occasionally ruffling feathers). Netflix's size has allowed it to touch and influence everything from hardware and software development to industry display standards.

Many welcome the enthusiasm with which the streamer is focusing on quality and workflows. "Netflix is in a class all its own right now," says Larry Chernoff, CEO of MTI Film, which develops postproduction technology and offers post services. "Netflix has hired some of the top industry engineers out of the top postproduction houses in Hollywood and beyond. I don't know any other company that has reached out more and demonstrated more respect for the post community than Netflix … It has had a profound influence on everything we do."

Case in point: Netflix wanted its original content to be delivered in 4K resolution with the Dolby Vision brand of high dynamic range (Netflix now offers about 1,000 hours of HDR across its catalog) and Dolby Atmos brand of immersive sound. Broadcasters are still entrenched in 2K, and many acknowledge that, if not for Netflix, adoption of the advanced formats might have stagnated.

To make sure its content is being produced how it wants, the streamer in September launched a Netflix Post Technology Alliance with MTI, Adobe, Sony and others. It shares its roadmap with these companies, and if these firms develop tools — from cameras to editing systems — that meet its requirements, they are permitted to use the "Netflix Post Technology Alliance" logo. The logo has been visible in the past year at industry trade shows — a literal sign of growing influence.

Netflix also is involved in industry standardization and development efforts. For instance, it recently joined the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' Academy Software Foundation, a forum for open source software developers.

While Netflix is involved in collaborations, the company also maintains robust engineering efforts in-house — beyond the teams working on its secret distribution algorithms. It is pioneering new interactive content, such as Bandersnatch, which was made incorporating Branch Manager, a software system developed in-house. Other homegrown advances include Netflix's scheduling software and its work to bring more automation to audio dubbing through artificial intelligence.

There's likely much more in the works that Netflix does not share with the public. But one thing is certain: The company is having a penetrating impact not only on which content is made and how it is distributed and consumed, but also on the very tech that creates it.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/be...daries-1229620





Netflix’s Biggest Bingers Get Hit with Higher Internet Costs
Gerry Smith

James Wright had never worried about staying under his data cap.

Then he bought a 4K TV set and started binge-watching Netflix in ultra-high definition. The picture quality was impressive, but it gobbled up so much bandwidth that his internet service provider, Comcast Corp., warned that he had exceeded his monthly data limit and would need to pay more.

“The first month I blew through the cap like it was nothing,” said Wright, 50, who lives with his wife in Memphis, Tenn. With a 4K TV, he said, “It’s not as hard to go through as you’d think.”

All that bingeing and ultra-HD video can carry a high price tag. As online viewing grows, more subscribers are having to pay up for faster speeds. Even then, they can run into data limits and overage fees. Some opt for an unlimited plan that can double the average $52-a-month internet bill.

Wright is what the cable industry calls a power user — someone who chews through 1 terabyte of data or more each month. Though still rare, the number of power users has doubled in the past year as more families stream TV shows, movies and video games online. They should continue to grow as new video services from Walt Disney Co., AT&T Inc., Apple Inc. and NBCUniversal arrive in coming months.

In the first quarter of this year, about 4% of internet subscribers consumed at least 1 terabyte of data — the limit imposed by companies such as Comcast, AT&T and Cox Communications Inc. That’s up from 2% a year ago, according to OpenVault, which tracks internet data usage among cable subscribers in the United States and Europe.

“The percentage of subscribers exceeding this level will continue to grow rapidly,” OpenVault founder Mark Trudeau said.

Cellphone plan subscribers are familiar with data limits, but those limits are less understood — and more controversial — in the cable industry. A decade ago, Time Warner Cable dropped a plan to limit customers’ internet use after a public outcry. Charter Communications Inc., which sells internet under the Spectrum brand, agreed in 2016 not to implement limits for at least seven years; it made that promise so it could get regulatory approval to buy Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.

Cable executives prefer not to call them caps, referring instead to “data plans” and saying it’s a matter of fairness. People who use more bandwidth should pay more, they say, especially since capacity isn’t unlimited. Either way, it has added up to good news for cable providers and helped counter the loss of pay-TV revenue from cord-cutting.

“Our customers’ demand for speed and data usage keeps increasing,” Comcast Chief Executive Brian Roberts said on an earnings call in April. The same month, Charter CEO Tom Rutledge said data use was “rising rapidly,” especially among TV cord cutters.

Last month, Altice USA CEO Dexter Goei said customers were “consistently taking higher broadband speeds, and using more and more data.”

The top 10% of Altice USA subscribers consumed close to 1 terabyte of data per month and had an average of 30 devices connected to the internet, Goei said, calling that “just incredible.”

Cable executives boast about all that usage in part to convince Wall Street that ultra-fast 5G wireless services on the way from AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc. aren’t a threat, said Craig Moffett, an analyst at MoffettNathanson LLC.

5G wireless has been touted as being as fast as cable service. Verizon plans to have 5G in more than 30 cities by the end of the year. AT&T said it will have nationwide service by the middle of next year.

For now, people who get their broadband from cable companies are getting the better deal, Moffett said. Though they spend about the same for both services, cable customers use more than 250 gigabytes of data a month, while wireless subscribers consume about 13 gigabytes, he said.

“As long as usage is 20 times higher for the wired connection, people aren’t going to substitute it for wireless,” Moffett said.

So far, the number of cable consumers who choose to pay for higher data limits is relatively small. Cable One Inc., a smaller operator serving 21 states, says about 10% of customers pay for unlimited data, which costs $40 more each month.

Cox, the third-largest U.S. cable operator, said 2% of internet customers choose unlimited data.

“It’s a nice source of additional ARPU,” Moffett said, using the industry term for “average revenue per user.”

Comcast, the largest cable provider, gives customers who go over the limit two months free before charging $10 for added blocks of data. Subscribers can also buy unlimited internet for an extra $50 a month.

Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas said only a “very small percentage” of customers go over the limit, which the company raised to 1 terabyte from 300 gigabytes in 2016.

On its website, Netflix Inc. advises people that they can adjust their settings to limit bandwidth use. Google has told potential customers of Stadia, its online video-game service that launches this fall, that they can lower the picture resolution to limit data use.

Wright — who was paying $120 a month for internet, TV and a landline phone — tried adjusting his viewing to stay under the cap and avoid the $50 charge for unlimited data. He stayed offline more and rented DVDs from Redbox instead of streaming movies. He also canceled his Hulu subscription and called Comcast to complain.

“I’ve argued that their bandwidth option is obsolete,” he said.

Ultimately he accepted the new fee.
https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...internet-costs





CT Cable Company Offers Guaranteed ‘Price for Life’
Alexander Soule

It is the recurring frustration for cable customers — the annual rate hike — that has many wondering each year whether to seek a split and find a new provider.

One major Connecticut carrier wants your business for life, for $65 a month and nothing more — unless you factor in extra fees for broadcast TV, sports stations and equipment that have seen a succession of bumps the past several years.

Altice USA has quietly begun marketing a “Price for Life package” with a rate set in stone for the duration a residential customer chooses to stay with the company, at $65 priced $10 above the company’s current promotional rate.

Altice’s Connecticut territories include coastal Fairfield County and a handful of towns just inland; and Torrington and a cluster of Litchfield County towns. The company is the fourth-largest traditional cable carrier in the nation after Comcast, Charter Communications and Cox, also trailing Verizon Communications and its FiOS TV service carried on fiber optic cable.

Altice USA is now in the process of rolling out its own fiber optic service in Connecticut. Spokeswoman Janet Meahan told Hearst Connecticut Media the offer will apply to both Altice Fiber Gigabit and Optimum’s coaxial cable services.

“Customers can lock into their introductory pricing, meaning they won’t roll off to higher pricing after a certain period of time, like one would with a one- or two-year promotion,” Meahan said. “Price for Life is a compelling new promotion for consumers looking for TV, phone and internet services.”

Altice USA’s Price for Life includes broadband Internet, Optimum Core TV and access to streaming video services, as well as the Altice One system that acts as a wireless hub in the home with password protection, beaming as well a public signal that other Optimum subscribers can tap for internet service.

Those devices are a key element of an Altice Mobile service the New York-based company is expected to roll out generally in the next few weeks, with Altice having designed a mobile system that can funnel calls through Sprint’s network of cell transmitters as well as through its extensive network of Optimum WiFi hubs in homes and businesses throughout the New York City region and other territories nationally.

Philadelphia-based Comcast and Stamford-based Charter have generated early traction with mobile services they offer, with Cox having experimented with its own service years ago but discontinuing it.

For households considering the promotion, the key question is how Altice will treat fees outside the scope of the base offer. In May, Altice pushed through another round of rate inflation, tacking $1 more to the monthly rate for its set-top box, as well as to the surcharges for its regional sports networks for customers of its Optimum Core package and broadcast TV for Optimum Basic accounts.

Customers on the basic tier of Optimum TV also absorbed varying increases, to $25 a month from prior rates as low as $14.

Earlier this year, state Rep. Michelle Cook, D-Torrington, floated the idea of reintroducing regulation of cable TV rates, without making public any draft bill for Connecticut General Assembly lawmakers to consider.
https://www.ctinsider.com/business/n...r-14301822.php





Courts Again Shoot Down FCC For Ignoring The Law, Making Up Stuff

From the ill-communication dept
Karl Bode

As the FCC has rushed to kiss up to telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon, it has enjoyed a fairly casual relationship with both the truth and the law. The agency's repeal of net neutrality, for example, was hinged largely on the idea that the modest rules devastated sector investment, something that data repeatedly disproved. Other Pai FCC policies have equally leaned on flimsy and manufactured data plucked directly from the mouths of sector lobbyists. And while this casual relationship to the truth may play well to Pai's allies, just making things up doesn't work quite as well when it comes time to defend these policies in the courts.

Case in point: earlier this year the FCC tried to take away a modest $25 per month broadband stipend for tribal residents (you know, for freedom or whatever), while also banning smaller companies from receiving broadband subsidies (giants like AT&T and Verizon surely appreciated that). But while Pai's office claimed screwing tribal residents would somehow massively spur broadband deployment, the courts shot that ruling down for being "arbitrary and capricious," noting that Pai's FCC failed completely to follow the law or to justify its policy with actual facts.

Fast forward to last week, and the FCC found itself again slapped down for playing fast and loose with factual reality. This time, the courts shot down a sizeable chunk of a recent proposal that gutted most state and local authority over the placement of cellular towers (and so-called "small cells," which are smaller antenna usually affixed to city street lights to extend wireless coverage). While the FCC claimed that doing so would speed up broadband deployment, a coalition of local leaders stated the plan was little more than a giveaway to giants like AT&T and Verizon, who don't like having to deal with pesky things like environmental reviews for cell tower placement.

And (and tell me if you're noticing a trend here), the courts were quick to point out (pdf) that the Pai FCC proposal (again) ignored the law and didn't justify the plan with, you know, facts.

Here's the court's comment on the FCC's attempt to exclude towns and cities from having a say where small cells are placed on city infrastructure, for example:

"The Commission failed to justify its determination that it is not in the public interest to require review of small cell deployments. We therefore grant the petitions in part because the Order’s deregulation of small cells is arbitrary and capricious. The Commission did not adequately address the harms of deregulation or justify its portrayal of those harms as negligible. In light of its mischaracterization of small cells’ footprint, the scale of the deployment it anticipates, the many expedients already in place for low-impact wireless construction, and the Commission’s decades-long history of carefully tailored review, the FCC’s characterization of the Order as consistent with its longstanding policy was not “logical and rational."

That's a polite way of saying the FCC didn't support its arguments with evidence, or adhere to FCC policy or the law. The FCC keeps claiming that rubber stamping AT&T and Verizon's every policy desire will somehow result in a massive boost in sector investment, but again, the data does not support those claims in any capacity:

"But FCC changes haven't had the impact that Carr claims. Another FCC order last year eliminated $2 billion worth of local fees charged to carriers for deployment of small cells on public rights-of-way. Carr had claimed that this decision was needed to boost 5G construction, but Verizon said that the FCC decision did nothing to speed up its deployment. Cities are suing the FCC to overturn that order."

Given the FCC keeps running into the same problem in the courts, all eyes are now on the ongoing lawsuit by 23 state AGs against the FCC for repealing net neutrality. A ruling in that case is expected any day now, and given the FCC's tendency toward fantasy, many sector watchers are left feeling somewhat optimistic the repeal may not hold.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...up-stuff.shtml





Senator Pushes Bill To Curb 'Exploitative And Addictive' Social Media Practices
Tim Mak

A new legislative proposal by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., would ban elements of social media he views as addictive.

As Americans are spending more and more time glued to social media apps like Instagram, Facebook and YouTube, concerns with technological addiction are merging with rising political anger against Big Tech.

And it's leading to some out-of-the-box thinking.

"Their business model is increasingly exploitative in nature and I think that these are companies that are trying to evade accountability," Hawley told NPR.

The freshman Missouri senator drafted a bill that would require social media companies to tell users every 30 minutes how long they've been on a platform each day.

Further, the legislation would make illegal the concept of "infinite scroll," which endlessly populates apps with additional content. It would also prohibit the auto-play of video and audio.

"The big tech platforms have adopted a business model that takes our private information without telling us, sells it without our consent, and then it tries to use exploitative and addictive practices in order to get us to spend more time on their platform, so they can take more stuff from us," he said.

Hawley's proposal strikes at the heart of how social media companies make money.

"Their business model is based on user engagement and time spent on the platform. ... Certainly they're using sophisticated psychological measures like the auto-play feature and others to keep people on the platform," said Lindsay Gorman, a fellow for emerging technologies at the German Marshall Fund, explaining just how crucial these sorts of features are to the big tech companies.

Hawley's legislation isn't likely to pass — so far he doesn't have any co-sponsors in the Senate. But the openness with which this legislation has been greeted illustrates something deeper about the mood in Washington.

The lack of regulations on social media companies, as compared to their power, is nudging conservatives to go against their general principle — a hands-off approach to business.

Hawley's bill would have government micromanage which features these tech companies can use, but Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, a champion of free markets, seems at least open to it.

"Nobody wants to see a federal speech police. But at the same time allowing a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires to be the censors of all political speech in America is a terrible outcome. And so I think Sen. Hawley's bill is a positive step in the right direction," Cruz said.

Democrats have also increasingly turned against big tech — but for different reasons. Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he sees elements of Hawley's proposal that he could support.

"Like in any business there are already prohibitions about deceptive practices — basic consumer protections," Warner said. "We don't have any of that in the social media world. ... the rub comes in how you define those practices."

All of this is to say that Hawley's proposal is more than a long-shot bill.

His proposal represents the changing nature of the conversation around technology in Washington, D.C. — and a converging frustration about Big Tech that is bringing lawmakers out of their comfort zones to propose unorthodox solutions.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/14/75058...edia-practices





The Capital One Breach Proved We Must Rethink Cloud Security
Justin Fier

Justin Fier is the director of cyberintelligence and analytics at Darktrace, a leading AI cybersecurity company.

By all accounts, Capital One defended its customers’ data with the imposing array of cybersecurity tools that you’d expect from one of the largest banks in the United States. And yet a lone hacker managed to bypass those tools and obtain the sensitive personal information of more than 100 million people, a breach that will likely cost the bank well more than $100-million when all is said and done.

The hacker – a former employee of Amazon Web Services, which hosted the compromised database – gained access to the AWS server by exploiting a misconfiguration in one of Capital One’s application firewalls. Such misconfigurations along the customer’s interface with the cloud have become a favourite target for cybercriminals, accounting for the vast majority of cloud security failures. And as organizations of all kinds continue to adopt ever more cloud and SaaS services, the task of safeguarding them is insurmountable for human beings alone.

The fundamental flaw

At a time when virtually all enterprises have adopted cloud infrastructures that expand and evolve as needed, configuring firewalls and other endpoint protections to remain properly positioned can be a daunting challenge. These conventional security tools are designed to defend the digital perimeter – an antiquated strategy given today’s borderless networks.

Moreover, modern developers now have the ability to spin up a virtual server in minutes, without having to consult their firm’s security team. As a consequence, such teams are losing visibility – and, by extension, control – over their own cloud environments.

While nearly half of organizations don’t even bother looking for malware on the cloud, Capital One had a relatively mature cloud security posture – at least by traditional standards. It is therefore all the more alarming that the bank didn’t become aware of the breach until more than three months after the fact, when it received a tip from an outsider who’d stumbled upon the stolen data. That a major financial institution was blind to this level of compromise further demonstrates the urgency of rethinking cloud security.

Of course, there is no silver bullet when it comes to cyberdefence – and that goes double for the cloud. Motivated attackers will inevitably find a way inside the nebulous perimeters of IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) and SaaS (Software as a Service) environments, whether using insider knowledge, critical misconfigurations, personalized phishing e-mails, or mechanisms that have yet to be seen. The path forward, then, is to use artificial intelligence to understand how users behave within those perimeter walls, an understanding that shines a light on the subtle behavioural shifts indicative of a threat.

Demystifying the cloud

Compared with traditional, on-premises networks, modern cloud and hybrid infrastructures introduce a number of complicating variables of which AI is uniquely equipped to make sense. For one, AI tools need not delineate and secure the cloud’s intrinsically nebulous perimeter. Rather, the latest such tools take an inside-out approach: analyzing what goes on inside a given cloud environment in real time to keep pace with ever-evolving users and architectures. As the environment changes, in other words, so, too, does the AI’s understanding of normalcy.

This adaptable nature of artificial intelligence is also pivotal given the unpredictable nature of cloud attacks. With thousands of new cloud services being developed, released and updated around the world, identifying security vulnerabilities before they are exploited is a tall order, especially since different users interact with each service in different ways. Indeed, the risks inherent to IaaS and SaaS are highly user-dependent – the same activity associated with, say, a subtle insider attack when carried out by one employee might well be benign when done by another. AI’s capability to uncover hidden patterns, connections and anomalies is ideal for complex problems like these.

By employing AI systems, we can gain the necessary knowledge of bespoke cloud environments to catch threats in their nascent stages – before they escalate into crises. Ultimately, the cloud promises to unlock new heights of efficiency and new forms of collaboration, so long as we’re willing to look after it with equally innovative cybersecurity. Because while there may never be a silver bullet for safeguarding cloud services, AI does offer hope for a silver lining.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...loud-security/





These Legit-Looking iPhone Lightning Cables Will Hijack Your Computer

It looks like an Apple lightning cable. It works like an Apple lightning cable. But it will give an attacker a way to remotely tap into your computer.
Joseph Cox

I plugged the Apple lightning cable into my iPod and connected it to my Mac, just as I normally would. My iPod started charging, iTunes detected the device, and my iPod produced the pop-up asking if I wanted to trust this computer. All expected behaviour.
But this cable was hiding a secret. A short while later, a hacker remotely opened a terminal on my Mac's screen, letting them run commands on my computer as they saw fit. This is because this wasn't a regular cable. Instead, it had been modified to include an implant; extra components placed inside the cable letting the hacker remotely connect to the computer.

"It looks like a legitimate cable and works just like one. Not even your computer will notice a difference. Until I, as an attacker, wirelessly take control of the cable," the security researcher known as MG who made these cables told Motherboard after he showed me how it works at the annual Def Con hacking conference.

One idea is to take this malicious tool, dubbed O.MG Cable, and swap it for a target's legitimate one. MG suggested you may even give the malicious version as a gift to the target—the cables even come with some of the correct little pieces of packaging holding them together.

MG typed in the IP address of the fake cable on his own phone's browser, and was presented with a list of options, such as opening a terminal on my Mac. From here, a hacker can run all sorts of tools on the victim's computer.

"It’s like being able to sit at the keyboard and mouse of the victim but without actually being there," MG said.

The cable comes with various payloads, or scripts and commands that an attacker can run on the victim's machine. A hacker can also remotely "kill" the USB implant, hopefully hiding some evidence of its use or existence.

MG made the cables by hand, painstakingly modifying real Apple cables to include the implant.

"In the end, I was able to create 100 percent of the implant in my kitchen and then integrate it into a cable. And these prototypes at Def con were mostly done the same way," he said. MG did point to other researchers who worked on the implant and graphical user interface. He is selling the cables for $200 each.

In the test with Motherboard, MG connected his phone to a wifi hotspot emanating out of the malicious cable in order to start messing with the target Mac itself.

"I’m currently seeing up to 300 feet with a smartphone when connecting directly," he said, when asked how close an attacker needs to be to take advantage of the cable once a victim has plugged it into their machine. A hacker could use a stronger antenna to reach further if necessary, "But the cable can be configured to act as a client to a nearby wireless network. And if that wireless network has an internet connection, the distance basically becomes unlimited." he added.

Now MG wants to get the cables produced as a legitimate security tool; he said the company Hak5 is onboard with making that happen. These cables would be made from scratch rather than modified Apple ones, MG said.

MG added, "Apple cables are simply the most difficult to do this to, so if I can successfully implant one of these, then I can usually do it to other cables."
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/e...-your-computer





Trump Administration Asks Congress to Reauthorize N.S.A.’s Deactivated Call Records Program

The White House is seeking reauthorization of a law that lets the N.S.A. gain access to logs of Americans’ phone and text records — while acknowledging that the program has been indefinitely halted.
Charlie Savage

Breaking a long silence about a high-profile National Security Agency program that sifts records of Americans’ telephone calls and text messages in search of terrorists, the Trump administration on Thursday acknowledged for the first time that the system has been indefinitely shut down — but asked Congress to extend its legal basis anyway.

In a letter to Congress delivered on Thursday and obtained by The New York Times, the administration urged lawmakers to make permanent the legal authority for the National Security Agency to gain access to logs of Americans’ domestic communications, the USA Freedom Act. The law, enacted after the intelligence contractor Edward J. Snowden revealed the existence of the program in 2013, is set to expire in December, but the Trump administration wants it made permanent.

The unclassified letter, signed on Wednesday by Dan Coats in one of his last acts as the director of National Intelligence, also conceded that the N.S.A. has indefinitely shut down that program after recurring technical difficulties repeatedly caused it to collect more records than it had legal authority to gather. That fact has previously been reported, but the administration had refused to officially confirm its status.

“The National Security Agency has suspended the call detail records program that uses this authority and deleted the call detail records acquired under this authority,” Mr. Coats wrote. “This decision was made after balancing the program’s relative intelligence value, associated costs, and compliance and data integrity concerns caused by the unique complexities of using these company-generated business records for intelligence purposes.”

Complicating matters, three other surveillance authorities primarily used by the F.B.I. are also set to expire in mid-December. They include provisions that let investigators get court orders to collect business records relevant to a national security investigation, wiretap “lone wolf” terrorists without links to a foreign power, and keep wiretapping someone suspected of being a spy or a terrorist who switches phone lines in an effort to evade surveillance.

Mr. Coats’s letter said the administration supported making those three provisions permanent as well, rather than merely subjecting them to another extension of several years, as Congress has previously done.

The executive branch had been internally divided over whether to push for an extension of the part of the Freedom Act that authorizes the phone records program. Months ago, the N.S.A. presented a bleak assessment of the program to the White House, saying it carried high costs and few benefits, but some officials argued that it made sense to keep the legal authority in case technical solutions emerged to make it work better, according to officials familiar with internal deliberations.

Mr. Coats’s letter adopted the latter argument, saying the administration supports permanently reauthorizing the provision even though the system was dysfunctional. He noted that “as technology changes, our adversaries’ tradecraft and communications habits will continue to evolve and adapt,” suggesting that such a system might become more useful.

While extending the three other provisions is less disputed, their fate will now be caught up in a broader debate about the phone records law. Privacy advocates, including Patrick Toomey of the American Civil Liberties Union, called for Congress to instead let the phone records program die.

“It’s long past time that this surveillance program was shuttered once and for all,” Mr. Toomey said. “The NSA has been vacuuming up hundreds of millions of Americans’ call records as part of a program that is hopelessly complex and lacks any discernible evidence of its value. We should not leave such a sweeping, unaccountable power in the hands of our spy agencies.”

The Times reported last month that the House Judiciary Committee has already started drafting a bill to extend the three expiring F.B.I. tools, but without extending the N.S.A. phone records program.

The N.S.A.’s ability to gain access to and analyze Americans’ domestic calling records traces back to the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when the Bush administration set up its then-secret Stellarwind program. It was a basket of surveillance and bulk data collection activities that relied on a raw claim of executive power to bypass legal constraints.

One component of the program collected customer calling records from large telecoms like AT&T and MCI, which later became Verizon. The N.S.A. used the metadata — logs showing who contacted whom, but not what was said — as a social map, scrutinizing indirect links between people as it hunted for hidden associates of known terrorism suspects.

In 2006, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court began issuing secret orders requiring the companies to participate in the program.

The orders were based on a creative and disputed interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which said the F.B.I. may obtain business records “relevant” to a terrorism investigation. The spy court decided that all records could be seen as “relevant” — a theory that a federal appeals court would later reject as stretching the law too far.

But the bulk phone records program clearly came into public view only in June 2013 when The Guardian published the first revelation from the trove of classified files leaked by Mr. Snowden, the former intelligence contractor. It was a top-secret surveillance court order to Verizon requiring it to give the N.S.A. a copy of all customer calling records.

In the ensuing debate, intelligence officials could not point to any specific attack the program had thwarted. But they defended it as a useful tool when new terrorism-linked phone numbers were identified, and suggested that had it been in place before Sept. 11, it might have helped uncover Al Qaeda’s plot. Critics rejected the Sept. 11 argument as exaggerated and portrayed the program as ripe for abuse and as a legally dubious invasion of privacy.

Eventually, the Obama administration and Congress agreed on a reform law that would end the N.S.A.’s bulk collection of domestic calling data, but preserve its ability to swiftly gain access to records held by telecoms when a judge agreed that a specific number had terrorism links. The idea was to reduce the risk of abuse while preserving the analytical capability.

That law — the USA Freedom Act of 2015 — permitted the N.S.A. to build a system linking up with the telecoms under which the agency could retrieve logs of phone calls and texts for a specific suspect, as well as the logs of communications by everyone who had ever been in contact with that suspect — even when they were customers of different phone companies.

Under the old program, the N.S.A. had been vacuuming up billions of logs about Americans’ communications every day. Under the replacement Freedom Act system, that number dropped significantly, although its scale remained large in absolute terms. In 2016, the agency obtained orders to target 42 suspects and collected 151 million records. In 2017, it obtained orders to target 40 suspects and collected 534 million records.

But public signs of trouble with the Freedom Act system began to emerge in June 2018, when the N.S.A. announced that it had discovered “technical irregularities” that caused it to collect more phone records than it had legal authority to gather.

The agency has been coy about the details, saying they are classified, but in broad strokes has said that for various reasons telecoms were returning both accurate and inaccurate numbers in the list of accounts a suspect had been in contact with. When the N.S.A. fed those numbers back into the system to get the “second hop” of calling data from the suspect’s contacts, it compounded the problem.

Unable to separate the good data from the bad, the agency deleted its entire collection of Americans’ phone records — hundreds of millions of communications logs — and started over. But in October 2018, it discovered that the problem was happening again, and, once again, had to purge the data, according to a recently declassified inspector general report.

The recurring headaches, including the inability of the N.S.A. to verify whether the data returned from the phone companies was accurate and the relatively low value of the intelligence that was being gleaned from it, contributed to an intelligence community decision in late 2018 to start winding the program down, officials familiar with the matter have said.

A slightly garbled sign of that move first came to light in March, when a senior Republican congressional aide said in a national security podcast interview, with what was apparently overstatement in terms of the timing, that the N.S.A. had not been using the program “for the past six months.” But for months, the government had refused to say what its status was.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/u...s-program.html





A Novel Concept: Silent Book Clubs Offer Introverts A Space To Socialize
Josh Axelrod

The air tingles with prose. Patrons perch atop bar stools, but they aren't drinking. Individuals congregate together as a group, but they aren't talking.

Paperbacks adorn a table stained by water rings, and tote bags dangle over the backs of chairs. Classic rock is blaring from the speakers, but at this table, silence rings out.

A Silent Book Club is meeting.

The concept is simple yet revolutionary: Members meet up at a bar, a library, a bookstore or any venue that will host them. Once the bell rings, silent reading time commences. After an hour, the bell rings again.

Other than that, there are no rules.

Liberated from the orthodoxy of traditional book clubs, participants can bring whatever they'd like to read and chat about anything, before and after the designated reading time.

The idea began with two friends reading together at a bar in San Francisco, annoyed by the assigned reading of a demanding book club.

"I wished that I had a book club where basically there was no assigned reading but you could just show up, hang out with your friends, talk about what you were reading and then just sort of read your book with no pressure to prepare snacks or vacuum your house or do any of the things that normal, traditional book club hosting entails," says Guinevere de la Mare, who co-founded the organization with Laura Gluhanich in 2012.

"And Laura was like, 'That sounds amazing. Let's do it.' And so we did."

Today, Silent Book Club has over 70 chapters for what de la Mare calls Introvert Happy Hour. Locations dot the globe, with congregants meeting monthly in Pakistan, Hong Kong, the Netherlands and many other cities and countries.

The founders help interested individuals create new chapters by offering logistical assistance and social media suggestions. From there, de la Mare says, she lets each group do as it pleases, with the goal of creating spaces "where people can connect with like-minded individuals, even if all that they have in common is a love of reading."

Many clubs share book recommendations, or members go around in a circle to talk about what they're reading. Others exchange scholasticism for schmoozing, order drinks and become part of the barroom din that once pierced their silent reading time.

"Some people choose to talk about their book. Some people choose to talk about how they felt about the experience. Some people don't talk at all," says Ana Maria Panait, who started a chapter in Johannesburg, South Africa.

The space is especially attractive to introverts who might have trouble energizing themselves to socialize and meet up with new people.

The designated silent time and built-in conversation topic make for a safe space in which introverted individuals can feel comfortable.

"It just relieves this ton of pressure around that horrible awkward small talk which I think is a big hurdle to a lot of people who don't want to go to parties," de la Mare says.

Mandy Shunnarah began her own chapter in Columbus, Ohio, which averages between 25 and 50 attendees each month.

"I would say that I'm an introvert who's really good at pretending to be an extrovert for small amounts of time," she says. "What I like about Silent Book Club is you get the community of a book club but without the homework. So there's less pressure to contribute to one single conversation or to make insightful comments about one particular book. I think it's more of a low-pressure social situation."

As chapters continue to pop up, silent bibliophiles are carving out spaces for introverts to find joy, comfort and camaraderie.

Socializing might not come naturally to all participants, but with books in tow, what follows is often organic.

Says Shunnarah: "We stay until the library kicks us out."
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/12/74089...e-to-socialize

















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

August 10th, August 3rd, July 27th, July 20th

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 01:31 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)