e dot dot dot
a mostly about the Internet blog by

May 2019
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Several Pro And College Sports Teams Suspended From Twitter Over Mystery DMCA Notices

Furnished content.

We've had many long discussions here, and have replicated those discussions through more official channels, as to how there are severe problems with the DMCA when it comes to its collision with free speech. One of the core issues is the way the DMCA sets up a system in which service providers feel forced to proactively take down the speech of others based on accusation in the form of a DMCA notice, rather than this working the way it does in nearly every other aspect of American law in which an accusation does not result in a penalty. And penalty truly is the right word, as the American system recognizes that speech is among the most fundamental of freedoms. And, yet, when service providers like Twitter get sent DMCA notices over copyright claims, they are heavily incentivized to take down the content and take action against the account holder -- or face potentially massive liability.Such as the Twitter account for the Houston Rockets, which found itself suspended over a series of DMCA notices for old tweets that apparently contained some unlicensed music. The Rockets also weren't alone.

On Monday, the Houston Rockets Twitter account found itself among a handful of official sports team accounts, most of which were college team Twitters. The accounts were temporarily shut down due to DMCA complaints against them for the use of copyrighted music without obtaining those rights. The Rockets were joined by Auburn football, Rutgers football, Iowa State football, and Iowa football and gymnastics as prominent official accounts to be shut down either this weekend or on Monday.“Our Twitter account has been temporarily suspended due to a few prior social media posts with copyrighted music,” the Rockets said in a statement. “We are working to correct the issue now.”
To my immense frustration, nobody appears to have any details as to what the tweets in question were, what music they contained, or who issued the DMCA notices. That is, frankly, fairly strange. It's also worth noting that the Rockets at one point had something of a rogue managing their Twitter account, and even fired that individual for behavior unrelated to copyright.Still, it's instructive to witness what happened here. Twitter gets DMCA notices claiming infringement on the part of a rather marquis account for the Houston Rockets, does whatever review of the tweets in question it does, and then shuts down the account, ostensibly over the volume of tweets contained in the DMCA notice. In case it isn't obvious: that's crazy. Think of all the speech that got shut down that wasn't infringing when that occurred. And, yes, you might not be terribly concerned with the speech emanating from the account of an NBA team, but its more than 2 million followers did.And it's also terribly frustrating that this system is set up in a way that shrouds all of this from the public, as though a matter of public speech should be treated like some kind of mystery of national security proportions. The public has an interest in the deletion or suspension of speech, and an interest in the fact that the DMCA is written in a way, and enforced in a way, that not only encourages service providers to take this proactive heavy-handed action, but also leaves those issuing DMCA notices when they shouldn't without punishment.Today that was a bunch of sport team accounts. Tomorrow it could be speech you might care about.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read more here

posted at: 12:00am on 25-May-2019
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)

0 comments, click here to add the first

One Year Into The GDPR: Can We Declare It A Total Failure Yet?

Furnished content.

Tomorrow will represent a full year since the GDPR went into effect. In the run-up to the GDPR, we called out many of the problems with the regulation which, while well-intended, did not seem to deal well with the nature of the internet, speech, or what privacy actually means. In the year since, we've posted numerous stories highlighting the negative consequences of this poorly considered law.Whenever we do that, however, many of the law's defenders insist that these unintended consequences are a small price to pay for either protecting our privacy or reining in the internet giants. So, it does seem worth investigating whether or not the GDPR has done either of those things. And, so far, the evidence is sorely lacking. Indeed, on the question of dominance, we pointed out late last year that the early returns suggested that the GDPR had only made Google more dominant, which hardly seems like a way to punish the company.And now that we have more results, it seems more and more people are realizing that the GDPR has been an utter failure. As CNBC notes in its evaluation of the law, it's hard to see how the GDPR has resulted in any benefits to the public. Instead, it's just created a big mess:

...one year later, GDPR hasn't lived up to its potential.Among some consumers, GDPR is perhaps best known as a bothersome series of rapid-fire, pop-up privacy notices. Those astronomical fines have failed to materialize. The law has created new bureaucracies within corporations, and with those, tension and confusion. And it's unclear if the EU data authority that oversees the law is adequately staffed to handle its demands.
In short, from the user side especially, all the GDPR has done is made people constantly need to click on annoying privacy and cookie notices that they don't read and don't find useful at all. This shouldn't have been a surprise. We've pointed out for many years that the entire concept of a privacy policy is backwards. It creates a situation where no one actually reads it, and it doesn't do much to protect anyone's privacy. I head someone recently note that they should really be called "data exploitation policies," and that, at least, would be a bit more accurate. But still wouldn't get anyone to read them or better protect anyone's privacy.And, as Politico has pointed out, it appears that not only has the GDPR made the big tech companies more dominant, it's now laid out the rules of the road by which they can introduce even more privacy-destroying offerings:
New forms of data collection, including Facebook's reintroduction of its facial recognition technology in Europe and Google's efforts to harvest information on third-party websites, have been given new leases on life under Europe's General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR.Smaller firms whose fortunes were of special concern to the framers of the region's privacy revamp also have suffered from the relatively high compliance costs and the perception, at least among some investors, that they can't compete with Silicon Valley's biggest names.Big companies like Facebook are 10 steps ahead of everyone else, and 100 steps ahead of regulators, declared Paul-Olivier Dehaye, a privacy expert who helped uncover Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal. There are very big questions about what they're doing.
This entire approach is backwards and silly. If we want to have better control over our privacy we're not going to do it through demanding better privacy policies, or confusing data protection laws. We need to create the incentives to put the actual control of the data back into the hands of the users. And that doesn't just mean a right to download your info. It means that you have full control over your data and get to control what apps and services can access it and for what reasons. That's not the world we have today, and nothing in the GDPR gets us any closer to it.And the answer is not "more enforcement." That just locks in the big companies even more and continues to present the roadmap to "follow" the rules, or to work the refs. Instead, if we moved to a system of protocols instead of platforms we could decouple the data from the service, putting real control of the data back in the hands of end users. Then things like privacy policies and GDPR enforces wouldn't matter so much, because we'd have direct control over our data.Instead, all we have is a massive law that has harmed startups, entrentched big companies, failed to protect privacy and just served to annoy most users.
The reality is that many people, in order to save time, simply click OK on the never-ending stream of pop-ups and most everyone I spoke to confess that they just move on when unable to access the desired website. Or, as one Twitter user told expressed, I read a lot fewer articles in US papers/magazines.
And, sure, there have been a few fines of internet companies, but as recent GDPR complaints show, there does not appear to be any way to actually fully comply with the GDPR, which makes it a particularly useless law. If you can't actually comply, if it's not actually protecting privacy, and it's just annoying users and creating more bureaucracy, what good is it?Meanwhile, Alec Stapp has collected a ton of stories and examples of the GDPR's negative impact. It notes much of the stuff above, but also highlights just how damaging it's been to innovation on the whole:
  • Startups: One study estimated that venture capital invested in EU startups fell by as much as 50 percent due to GDPR implementation. (NBER)
  • Mergers and acquisitions: 55% of respondents said they had worked on deals that fell apart because of concerns about a target company's data protection policies and compliance with GDPR (WSJ)
  • Scientific research: [B]iomedical researchers fear that the EU's new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will make it harder to share information across borders or outside their original research context. (POLITICO)
  • So now that we've had a year, can we admit that the GDPR has been a total failure by almost every possible measure? Supporters of the law will say to give it more time, or to say we need to "improve" the rules, but it should be obvious by now that the entire approach is the problem, not the implementation.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

    Read more here

    posted at: 12:00am on 25-May-2019
    path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)

    0 comments, click here to add the first

    May 2019
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

    RSS (site)  RSS (path)

    ATOM (site)  ATOM (path)

     - blog home

     - Announcements  (2)
     - Annoyances  (0)
     - Career_Advice  (1)
     - Domains  (0)
     - Downloads  (4)
     - Ecommerce  (2368)
     - Fitness  (0)
     - Home_and_Garden  (0)
         - Cooking  (0)
         - Tools  (0)
     - Humor  (1)
     - Notices  (0)
     - Observations  (1)
     - Oddities  (2)
     - Online_Marketing  (145)
         - Affiliates  (1)
         - Merchants  (1)
     - Policy  (1612)
     - Programming  (0)
         - Browsers  (1)
         - DHTML  (0)
         - Javascript  (536)
         - PHP  (0)
         - PayPal  (1)
         - Perl  (37)
              - blosxom  (0)
         - Unidata_Universe  (22)
     - Random_Advice  (1)
     - Reading  (0)
         - Books  (0)
         - Ebooks  (1)
         - Magazines  (0)
         - Online_Articles  (4)
     - Resume_or_CV  (1)
     - Reviews  (1)
     - Rhode_Island_USA  (0)
         - Providence  (1)
     - Shop  (0)
     - Sports  (0)
         - Football  (1)
              - Cowboys  (0)
              - Patriots  (0)
         - Futbol  (1)
              - The_Rest  (0)
              - USA  (1)
     - Woodworking  (1)

     -2019  December  (18)
     -2019  November  (52)
     -2019  October  (49)
     -2019  September  (46)
     -2019  August  (52)
     -2019  July  (55)
     -2019  June  (49)
     -2019  May  (49)
     -2019  April  (81)
     -2019  March  (94)
     -2019  February  (91)
     -2019  January  (15)

    My Sites

     - Millennium3Publishing.com

     - SponsorWorks.net

     - ListBug.com

     - TextEx.net

     - FindAdsHere.com

     - VisitLater.com