Policy

fcc-bans-cable-tv-industry’s-favorite-trick-for-hiding-full-cost-of-service

FCC bans cable TV industry’s favorite trick for hiding full cost of service

cable tv, fcc cable prices, Policy / /
A person's hand aiming a cable TV remote control at a TV screen

Getty Images | stefanamer

Cable and satellite TV companies must start advertising “all-in” prices instead of using hidden fees to conceal the full cost of video service, the Federal Communications Commission said in new rules adopted last week.

The FCC voted to adopt the rules on March 14, and the final text of the order was released yesterday. The rules are aimed in particular at the Broadcast TV and Regional Sports Network fees charged by Comcast and other companies.

For years, TV providers have advertised artificially low prices that don’t include such fees. The actual bills received by subscribers thus have prices much higher than the advertised rates.

“The record indicates that approximately 24 to 33 percent of a consumer’s bill is attributable to company-imposed fees such as ‘Broadcast TV Fees,’ ‘Regional Sports Surcharges,’ ‘HD Technology Fees,’ and others, and that the ‘dollar amount of company-imposed fees has skyrocketed,'” the FCC order said.

Cable and satellite companies say the Broadcast TV and Regional Sports fees reflect the ever-rising price of acquiring content from programmers. But acquiring programming is the cost of doing business as a TV provider—with no channels to offer, there would be no reason for consumers to buy the service.

Cable lobby mad about “micromanagement”

One of the new rules states that cable and satellite TV “providers that communicate a price for video programming in promotional materials shall state the aggregate price for the video programming in a clear, easy-to-understand, and accurate manner.”

A similar rule will apply to customer bills, requiring an aggregate price in a single line item. In both advertisements and customer bills, the operator must state whether the price is a promotional rate and what the full price will be after the promotion expires.

Cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association claimed that the commission’s “micromanagement of advertising in today’s hyper-competitive marketplace will force operators to either clutter their ads with confusing disclosures or leave pricing information out entirely.” The NCTA previously disputed the FCC’s legal authority to issue the rules, which indicates that the industry may sue the commission in an attempt to block the order.

The TV all-in pricing rules won’t take effect immediately. Because they include information-collection requirements, they are subject to a Paperwork Reduction Act review by the US Office of Management and Budget. The rules will take effect after that review or after nine months, whichever is later.

The FCC previously adopted rules requiring broadband providers to list all of their monthly fees and other information in a format modeled after nutrition labels. The broadband label rules take effect next month.

“Beginning April 10, 2024, consumers should look for broadband labels at any point of sale, including online and in stores,” the FCC says. “The labels must disclose important information about broadband prices, introductory rates, data allowances, and broadband speeds. They also include links to information about network management practices and privacy policies.”

FCC bans cable TV industry’s favorite trick for hiding full cost of service Read More »

supreme-court-skeptical-about-restricting-biden-contacts-with-social-networks

Supreme Court skeptical about restricting Biden contacts with social networks

Policy / /

Government pressure —

Louisiana lawyer faced tough questions from liberal and conservative justices.

–

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wearing their robes as they arrive for the State of the Union address.

Enlarge / Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor arrive for President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address on March 7, 2024, in Washington, DC.

Getty Images | Win McNamee

Supreme Court justices yesterday expressed skepticism about whether federal government officials should face limits on their communications with social media networks like Facebook.

The Supreme Court previously stayed a lower-court injunction that would prevent the Biden administration from pressuring social media firms to take down content and yesterday heard oral arguments in the case brought against the US government by the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general.

Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga faced skepticism from both liberal and conservative justices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a hypothetical in which Louisiana state officials are doxed and targeted by threats made on social media.

“The FBI sees these posts and calls the social media outlet, like X, Facebook, whatever, and says, ‘we really encourage you to take these down because these are significantly threatening and we see some people may be responding to them.’ That’s a problem?” Barrett asked.

Aguiñaga said that “the FBI absolutely can identify certain troubling situations like that for the platforms and let the platforms take action,” but said the specifics of each hypothetical “are very important.”

Barrett replied, “but that’s just kind of falling back on, ‘well, this case is different, this case is different, and so a different legal standard should apply.’ But, you know, what we say in this case matters for other cases, too.”

“Epidemic” of broad injunctions

In this case, an injunction against US officials said they “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch said the Supreme Court has seen “an epidemic” of what he called “universal injunctions” that affect people who aren’t directly involved in the case at hand. “Normally, our remedies are tailored to those who are actually complaining before us and not to those who aren’t,” Gorsuch said.

Aguiñaga said he wouldn’t object to the injunction being narrowed to just the specific platforms and plaintiffs involved in the case as long as the Supreme Court says “something in our favor on the merits. The government can’t just run rampant pressuring the platforms to censor private speech.”

Missouri and Louisiana alleged that the US government violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks “to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content.” The content included posts about vaccine side effects, pandemic lockdowns, the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, allegations of election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. There were several individual plaintiffs in addition to the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general.

The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the White House and FBI likely violated the First Amendment by coercing social media platforms into moderating content and changing their moderation policies. The case had gone to the 5th Circuit appeals after a US District judge issued a sweeping injunction ordering the administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies.

The 5th Circuit narrowed that injunction, throwing out most of it but maintaining the previously mentioned provision that says officials may not “coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies.”

Debate about terrorist speech

The Biden administration has argued that its attempts to influence content moderation were persuasion, not coercion. Government officials were “urging platforms to remove COVID-19 misinformation, highlighting the risk of disinformation from foreign actors, and responding to the platforms’ inquiries about matters of public health,” the Biden administration has stated.

Yesterday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized a brief filed by Louisiana. “I have such a problem with your brief, counselor,” Sotomayor said. “You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims. You attribute things to people who it didn’t happen to. At least in one of the defendants, it was her brother that something happened to, not her. I don’t know what to make of all this because… I’m not sure how we get to prove direct injury in any way.”

Justice Elena Kagan discussed how law enforcement officials might contact a social media company about terrorists posting on their platform. A law enforcement agency might tell the platform, “you are hosting a lot of terrorist speech, which is going to increase the chances that there’s going to be some terrible harm that’s going to take place, and we want to give you this information, we want to try to persuade you to take it down,” Kagan said.

Aguiñaga responded, “the government can absolutely do that, Justice Kagan.” He said that terrorist activity and criminal activity “is not protected speech.”

Kagan countered, “Well, that might be protected speech. I mean, terrorists engage in, you know, things that come under the First Amendment. Let’s say they’re just recruiting people for their organizations.” Kagan also said that “decades ago, it happened all the time, which is somebody from the White House got in touch with somebody from The Washington Post and said, ‘this will just harm national security,’ and The Washington Post said, ‘okay, whatever you say.'”

Supreme Court skeptical about restricting Biden contacts with social networks Read More »

facebook,-instagram-may-cut-fees-by-nearly-50%-in-scramble-for-dma-compliance

Facebook, Instagram may cut fees by nearly 50% in scramble for DMA compliance

Digital Markets Act, dma, European Union, facebook, Facebook marketplace, facebook messenger, gdpr, General Data Protection Regulation, Instagram, Meta, Online Privacy, Policy / /
Facebook, Instagram may cut fees by nearly 50% in scramble for DMA compliance

Meta is considering cutting monthly subscription fees for Facebook and Instagram users in the European Union nearly in half to comply with the Digital Market Act (DMA), Reuters reported.

During a day-long public workshop on Meta’s DMA compliance, Meta’s competition and regulatory director, Tim Lamb, told the European Commission (EC) that individual subscriber fees could be slashed from 9.99 euros to 5.99 euros. Meta is hoping that reducing fees will help to speed up the EC’s process for resolving Meta’s compliance issues. If Meta’s offer is accepted, any additional accounts would then cost 4 euros instead of 6 euros.

Lamb said that these prices are “by far the lowest end of the range that any reasonable person should be paying for services of these quality,” calling it a “serious offer.”

The DMA requires that Meta’s users of Facebook, Instagram, Facebook Messenger, and Facebook Marketplace “freely” give consent to share data used for ad targeting without losing access to the platform if they’d prefer not to share data. That means services must provide an acceptable alternative for users who don’t consent to data sharing.

“Gatekeepers should enable end users to freely choose to opt-in to such data processing and sign-in practices by offering a less personalized but equivalent alternative, and without making the use of the core platform service or certain functionalities thereof conditional upon the end user’s consent,” the DMA says.

Designated gatekeepers like Meta have debated what it means for a user to “freely” give consent, suggesting that offering a paid subscription for users who decline to share data would be one route for Meta to continue offering high-quality services without routinely hoovering up data on all its users.

But EU privacy advocates like NOYB have protested Meta’s plan to offer a subscription model instead of consenting to data sharing, calling it a “pay or OK model” that forces Meta users who cannot pay the fee to consent to invasive data sharing they would otherwise decline. In a statement shared with Ars, NOYB chair Max Schrems said that even if Meta reduced its fees to 1.99 euros, it would be forcing consent from 99.9 percent of users.

“We know from all research that even a fee of just 1.99 euros or less leads to a shift in consent from 3–10 percent that genuinely want advertisement to 99.9 percent that still click yes,” Schrems said.

In the EU, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) “requires that consent must be ‘freely’ given,” Schrems said. “In reality, it is not about the amount of money—it is about the ‘pay or OK’ approach as a whole. The entire purpose of ‘pay or OK’, is to get users to click on OK, even if this is not their free and genuine choice. We do not think the mere change of the amount makes this approach legal.”

Where EU stands on subscription models

Meta expects that a subscription model is a legal alternative under the DMA. The tech giant said it was launching EU subscriptions last November after the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) “endorsed the subscriptions model as a way for people to consent to data processing for personalized advertising.”

It’s unclear how popular the subscriptions have been at the current higher cost. Right now in the EU, monthly Facebook and Instagram subscriptions cost 9.99 euros per month on the web or 12.99 euros per month on iOS and Android, with additional fees of 6 euros per month on the web and 8 euros per month on iOS and Android for each additional account. Meta declined to comment on how many EU users have subscribed, noting to Ars that it has no obligation to do so.

In the CJEU case, the court was reviewing Meta’s GDPR compliance, which Schrems noted is less strict than the DMA. The CJEU specifically said that under the GDPR, “users must be free to refuse individually”—”in the context of” signing up for services— “to give their consent to particular data processing operations not necessary” for Meta to provide such services “without being obliged to refrain entirely from using the service.”

Facebook, Instagram may cut fees by nearly 50% in scramble for DMA compliance Read More »

dell-tells-remote-workers-that-they-won’t-be-eligible-for-promotion

Dell tells remote workers that they won’t be eligible for promotion

Biz & IT, dell, Policy, remote work, return-to-office, work from home / /

Decisions, decisions —

Report highlights big turnaround from Dell’s previous pro-WFH stance.

–

A woman in a bright yellow jacket is sitting in front of a laptop in emotional tension.

Starting in May, Dell employees who are fully remote will not be eligible for promotion, Business Insider (BI) reported Saturday. The upcoming policy update represents a dramatic reversal from Dell’s prior stance on work from home (WFH), which included CEO Michael Dell saying: “If you are counting on forced hours spent in a traditional office to create collaboration and provide a feeling of belonging within your organization, you’re doing it wrong.”

Dell employees will mostly all be considered “remote” or “hybrid” starting in May, BI reported. Hybrid workers have to come into the office at least 39 days per quarter, Dell confirmed to Ars Technica, which equates to approximately three times a week. Those who would prefer to never commute to an office will not “be considered for promotion, or be able to change roles,” BI reported.

“For remote team members, it is important to understand the trade-offs: Career advancement, including applying to new roles in the company, will require a team member to reclassify as hybrid onsite,” Dell’s memo to workers said, per BI.

Dell didn’t respond to specific questions Ars Technica sent about the changes but sent a statement saying: “In today’s global technology revolution, we believe in-person connections paired with a flexible approach are critical to drive innovation and value differentiation.”

BI said it saw a promotion offer that a remote worker received that said that accepting the position would require coming into an “approved” office, which would mean that the employee would need to move out of their state.

Dell used to be pro-WFH

Dell’s history with remote workers started before the COVID-19 pandemic, over 10 years ago. Before 2020, 65 percent of Dell workers were already working remotely at least one day per week, per a blog that CEO Michael Dell penned via LinkedIn in September 2022. An anonymous Dell worker who reportedly has been remote for over 10 years and that BI spoke with estimated that 10 to 15 percent “of every team was remote” at Dell.

Michael Dell used to be a WFH advocate. In his 2022 blog post, he addressed the question of whether working in an office created “an advantage when it comes to promotion, performance, engagement or rewards,” determining:

At Dell, we found no meaningful differences for team members working remotely or office-based even before the pandemic forced everyone home. And when we asked our team members again this year, 90 percent of them said everyone has the opportunity to develop and learn new skills in our organization. The perception of unequal opportunity is just one of the myths of hybrid work …

At the time, Dell’s chief described the company as “committed to allow team members around the globe to choose the work style that best fits their lifestyle—whether that is remote or in an office or a blend of the two.” But the upcoming limitations for fully remote workers could be interpreted as Dell discouraging workers from working from home.

“We’re being forced into a position where either we’re going to be staying as the low man on the totem pole, first on the chopping block when it comes to workforce reduction, or we can be hybrid and go in multiple days a week, which really affects a lot of us,” an anonymous employee told BI.

Dell’s new WFH policy follows the February 2023 layoffs of about 6,650 workers, or around 5 percent of employees. Unnamed employees that BI spoke with showed concerns that the upcoming policy is an attempt to get people to quit so that Dell can save money on human resources without the severance costs of layoffs. Others are concerned that the rule changes will disproportionately affect women.

Meanwhile, the idea of return-to-office mandates helping businesses is being challenged. For example, a study by University of Pittsburgh researchers of some S&P 500 businesses found that return-to-office directives hurt employee morale and do not boost company finances.

Dell tells remote workers that they won’t be eligible for promotion Read More »

tesla-settles-with-black-worker-after-$3.2-million-verdict-in-racism-lawsuit

Tesla settles with Black worker after $3.2 million verdict in racism lawsuit

Policy, tesla owen diaz, tesla racism / /

Owen Diaz v. Tesla —

Tesla and Owen Diaz both appealed $3.2 million verdict before deciding to settle.

–

Aerial view of Tesla cars in a parking lot at a Tesla facility.

Enlarge / Tesla cars sit in a parking lot at the company’s factory in Fremont, California on October 19, 2022.

Getty Images | Justin Sullivan

Tesla has settled with a Black former factory worker who won a $3.2 million judgment in a racial discrimination case, a court filing on Friday said.

Both sides were challenging the $3.2 million verdict in a federal appeals court but agreed to dismiss the case in the Friday filing. The joint stipulation for dismissal said that “the Parties have executed a final, binding settlement agreement that fully resolves all claims.”

Tesla presumably agreed to pay Owen Diaz some amount less than $3.2 million, ending a case in which Diaz was once slated to receive $137 million. As we’ve previously written, a jury in US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Tesla should pay $137 million to Diaz in October 2021.

In April 2022, US District Judge William Orrick reduced the award to $15 million, saying that was the highest amount supported by the evidence and law. Diaz rejected the $15 million award and sought a new damages trial, but a new jury awarded him $3.2 million in April 2023.

Diaz’s attorney, Lawrence Organ of the California Civil Rights Law Group, told CNBC that the parties “reached an amicable resolution of their disputes.” The settlement terms are confidential, he said.

“It took immense courage for Owen Diaz to stand up to a company the size of Tesla,” Organ said. The California Civil Rights Law Group is separately representing thousands of Black workers in a class action alleging that they faced discrimination and harassment while working at Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California.

“Tesla factory was saturated with racism”

Diaz operated a freight elevator at Tesla’s Fremont factory for less than a year beginning in June 2015. “In May 2016, he was ‘separated’ from Tesla without prior warning,” Orrick wrote in the April 2022 ruling that awarded Diaz $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $13.5 million in punitive damages.

“The evidence was disturbing,” Orrick wrote. “The jury heard that the Tesla factory was saturated with racism. Diaz faced frequent racial abuse, including the N-word and other slurs. Other employees harassed him. His supervisors and Tesla’s broader management structure did little or nothing to respond. And supervisors even joined in on the abuse, one going so far as to threaten Diaz and draw a racist caricature near his workstation.”

A Tesla filing in March 2023 argued that “no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could award any punitive damages against Tesla on the record here.” Tesla said it “enforced a policy prohibiting racially hostile conduct,” that it “took concrete and significant steps to remedy each and every racial incident Mr. Diaz reported,” and “likewise took concrete and significant steps to remedy other racially inappropriate conduct of which it was aware.”

Tesla is also facing lawsuits from the California Civil Rights Department and the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over alleged discrimination and harassment.

Tesla settles with Black worker after $3.2 million verdict in racism lawsuit Read More »

security-footage-of-boeing-repair-before-door-plug-blowout-was-overwritten

Security footage of Boeing repair before door-plug blowout was overwritten

boeing 737 max 9, boeing door plug, boeing ntsb, Policy / /

737 Max door-plug blowout —

NTSB: Boeing “unable to find the records documenting” repair work on 737 Max 9.

–

NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy sitting in front of a microphone while testifying at a Senate hearing.

Enlarge / National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy testifies about the Boeing door-plug investigation before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on March 6, 2024, in Washington, DC.

Getty Images | Kevin Dietsch

A government investigation into a Boeing 737 Max 9 plane’s door-plug blowout has been hampered by a lack of repair records and security camera footage, the National Transportation Safety Board’s chair told US senators. Boeing was “unable to find the records” and told the NTSB that the security camera footage was overwritten.

“To date, we still do not know who performed the work to open, reinstall, and close the door plug on the accident aircraft,” NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy wrote Wednesday in a letter to leaders of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. “Boeing has informed us that they are unable to find the records documenting this work. A verbal request was made by our investigators for security camera footage to help obtain this information; however, they were informed the footage was overwritten. The absence of those records will complicate the NTSB’s investigation moving forward.”

A Boeing spokesperson told Ars today that under the company’s standard practice, “video recordings are maintained on a rolling 30-day basis” before being overwritten. The NTSB’s preliminary report on the investigation said the airplane was delivered to Alaska Airlines on October 31, 2023, after a repair in a Boeing factory. On January 5, the plane was forced to return to Portland International Airport in Oregon when a passenger door plug blew off the aircraft during flight.

The NTSB’s preliminary report found that four bolts were missing from the door plug, which can be used instead of an emergency exit door. There was “no evidence” that the door plug “was opened after leaving Boeing’s facility,” indicating that the bolts were not re-installed at the factory. The plane was serviced at Boeing’s Renton, Washington, facility to replace five damaged rivets in a job that required opening the door plug.

“We will continue supporting this investigation in the transparent and proactive fashion we have supported all regulatory inquiries into this accident,” Boeing said in a statement provided to Ars. “We have worked hard to honor the rules about the release of investigative information in an environment of intense interest from our employees, customers, and other stakeholders, and we will continue our efforts to do so.”

Chair called Boeing CEO to seek employee names

Homendy’s letter to Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-Texas) responded to questions raised at a committee hearing last week. The questions were related to “whether Boeing has provided documentation on the work to open, reinstall, and close the door plug,” and the identities of door crew employees, the letter noted.

“NTSB investigators first requested documents that would have contained this information from Boeing on January 9, 2024,” the letter said. “Shortly thereafter, we identified the door crew manager and were advised that he was out on medical leave. We requested status updates on February 15, 2024, and February 22, 2024, after which we were advised by his attorney that he would not be able to provide a statement or interview to NTSB due to medical issues.”

Boeing provided the names of some people who were familiar with the door-plug work, but the NTSB said it wanted a more exhaustive list to prepare for investigative interviews. On March 2, NTSB investigators asked Boeing for the names of all employees who reported to the door crew manager at the time of the repair in September 2023. Boeing provided the list but “did not identify which personnel conducted the door plug work,” the letter said.

“After NTSB received this list, I called Boeing Chief Executive Officer David Calhoun and asked for the names of the people who performed the work,” Homendy wrote. “He stated he was unable to provide that information and maintained that Boeing has no records of the work being performed.”

NTSB seeks info on Boeing quality-assurance and safety

Homendy told senators that the agency is not seeking the names for punitive purposes. “We want to speak with them to learn about Boeing’s quality-assurance processes and safety culture. Our only intent is to identify deficiencies and recommend safety improvements so accidents like this never happen again,” she wrote.

Homendy wrote that she is “increasingly concerned that the focus on the names of individual front-line workers will negatively impact our investigation and discourage such Boeing employees from providing NTSB with information relevant to this investigation.” To counter those fears, Homendy “instructed NTSB to utilize our authority to protect the identities of the door crew and other front-line employees who come forward with information relevant to the investigation.”

Homendy also sent a letter to Boeing on Wednesday reminding the company that until the investigation concludes, “only appropriate NTSB personnel are authorized to publicly disclose investigative information and, even then, the disclosure is limited to factual information verified during the course of the investigation.”

“For the public to perceive the investigation as credible, the investigation should speak with one voice—that being the voice of the independent agency conducting it,” Homendy told Boeing in the letter.

Security footage of Boeing repair before door-plug blowout was overwritten Read More »

public-officials-can-block-haters—but-only-sometimes,-scotus-rules

Public officials can block haters—but only sometimes, SCOTUS rules

facebook, Policy, SCOTUS, Social Media, Twitter, X / /
Public officials can block haters—but only sometimes, SCOTUS rules

There are some circumstances where government officials are allowed to block people from commenting on their social media pages, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.

According to the Supreme Court, the key question is whether officials are speaking as private individuals or on behalf of the state when posting online. Issuing two opinions, the Supreme Court declined to set a clear standard for when personal social media use constitutes state speech, leaving each unique case to be decided by lower courts.

Instead, SCOTUS provided a test for courts to decide first if someone is or isn’t speaking on behalf of the state on their social media pages, and then if they actually have authority to act on what they post online.

The ruling suggests that government officials can block people from commenting on personal social media pages where they discuss official business when that speech cannot be attributed to the state and merely reflects personal remarks. This means that blocking is acceptable when the official has no authority to speak for the state or exercise that authority when speaking on their page.

That authority empowering officials to speak for the state could be granted by a written law. It could also be granted informally if officials have long used social media to speak on behalf of the state to the point where their power to do so is considered “well-settled,” one SCOTUS ruling said.

SCOTUS broke it down like this: An official might be viewed as speaking for the state if the social media page is managed by the official’s office, if a city employee posts on their behalf to their personal page, or if the page is handed down from one official to another when terms in office end.

Posting on a personal page might also be considered speaking for the state if the information shared has not already been shared elsewhere.

Examples of officials clearly speaking on behalf of the state include a mayor holding a city council meeting online or an official using their personal page as an official channel for comments on proposed regulations.

Because SCOTUS did not set a clear standard, officials risk liability when blocking followers on so-called “mixed use” social media pages, SCOTUS cautioned. That liability could be diminished by keeping personal pages entirely separate or by posting a disclaimer stating that posts represent only officials’ personal views and not efforts to speak on behalf of the state. But any official using a personal page to make official comments could expose themselves to liability, even with a disclaimer.

SCOTUS test for when blocking is OK

These clarifications came in two SCOTUS opinions addressing conflicting outcomes in two separate complaints about officials in California and Michigan who blocked followers heavily criticizing them on Facebook and X. The lower courts’ decisions have been vacated, and courts must now apply the Supreme Court’s test to issue new decisions in each case.

One opinion was brief and unsigned, discussing a case where California parents sued school district board members who blocked them from commenting on public Twitter pages used for campaigning and discussing board issues. The board members claimed they blocked their followers after the parents left dozens and sometimes hundreds of the same exact comments on tweets.

In the second—which was unanimous, with no dissenting opinions—Justice Amy Coney Barrett responded at length to a case from a Facebook user named Kevin Lindke. This opinion provides varied guidance that courts can apply when considering whether blocking is appropriate or violating constituents’ First Amendment rights.

Lindke was blocked by a Michigan city manager, James Freed, after leaving comments criticizing the city’s response to COVID-19 on a page that Freed created as a college student, sometime before 2008. Among these comments, Lindke called the city’s pandemic response “abysmal” and told Freed that “the city deserves better.” On a post showing Freed picking up a takeout order, Lindke complained that residents were “suffering,” while Freed ate at expensive restaurants.

After Freed hit 5,000 followers, he converted the page to reflect his public figure status. But while he primarily still used the page for personal posts about his family and always managed the page himself, the page went into murkier territory when he also shared updates about his job as city manager. Those updates included sharing updates on city efforts, posting screenshots of city press releases, and soliciting public feedback, like sharing links to city surveys.

Public officials can block haters—but only sometimes, SCOTUS rules Read More »

pornhub-blocks-all-of-texas-to-protest-state-law—paxton-says-“good-riddance”

Pornhub blocks all of Texas to protest state law—Paxton says “good riddance”

Policy, pornhub texas, texas porn law / /

Pornhub protest —

Pornhub went dark in Texas and other states requiring age verification for porn.

–

Large signs that say

Enlarge / Signs displayed at the Pornhub booth at the 2024 AVN Adult Entertainment Expo at Resorts World Las Vegas on January 25, 2024 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Getty Images | Ethan Miller /

Pornhub has disabled its website in Texas following a court ruling that upheld a state law requiring age-verification systems on porn websites. Visitors to pornhub.com in Texas are now greeted with a message calling the Texas law “ineffective, haphazard, and dangerous.”

“As you may know, your elected officials in Texas are requiring us to verify your age before allowing you access to our website. Not only does this impinge on the rights of adults to access protected speech, it fails strict scrutiny by employing the least effective and yet also most restrictive means of accomplishing Texas’s stated purpose of allegedly protecting minors,” Pornhub’s message said.

Pornhub said it has “made the difficult decision to completely disable access to our website in Texas. In doing so, we are complying with the law, as we always do, but hope that governments around the world will implement laws that actually protect the safety and security of users.”

The same message was posted on other sites owned by the same company, including RedTube, YouPorn, and Brazzers. Pornhub has also blocked its website in Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia in protest of similar laws. VPN services can be used to evade the blocks and to test out which states have been blocked by Pornhub.

Texas AG sued Pornhub, says “good riddance”

The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the Texas law in a 2–1 decision last week. The 5th Circuit appeals court had previously issued a temporary stay that allowed the law to take effect in September 2023.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last month sued Pornhub owner Aylo (formerly MindGeek) for violating the law. Paxton’s complaint in Travis County District Court sought civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each day since the law took effect on September 19, 2023.

“Sites like Pornhub are on the run because Texas has a law that aims to prevent them from showing harmful, obscene material to children,” Paxton wrote yesterday. “We recently secured a major victory against PornHub and other sites that sought to block this law from taking effect. In Texas, companies cannot get away with showing porn to children. If they don’t want to comply, good riddance.”

The 5th Circuit panel majority held that the Texas porn-site law should be reviewed on the “rational-basis” standard and not under strict scrutiny. In a dissent, Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote that the law should face strict scrutiny because it “limits access to materials that may be denied to minors but remain constitutionally protected speech for adults.”

“[T]he Supreme Court has unswervingly applied strict scrutiny to content-based regulations that limit adults’ access to protected speech,” Higginbotham wrote.

Pornhub wants device-based age verification instead

Pornhub’s message to Texas users argued that “providing identification every time you want to visit an adult platform is not an effective solution for protecting users online, and in fact, will put minors and your privacy at risk.” Pornhub said that in other states with age-verification laws, “such bills have failed to protect minors, by driving users from those few websites which comply, to the thousands of websites, with far fewer safety measures in place, which do not comply.”

Pornhub’s message advocated for a device-based approach to age verification in which “personal information that is used to verify the user’s age is either shared in-person at an authorized retailer, inputted locally into the user’s device, or stored on a network controlled by the device manufacturer or the supplier of the device’s operating system.”

Pornhub says this could be used to prevent underage users from accessing age-restricted content without requiring websites to verify ages themselves. “To come to fruition, such an approach requires the cooperation of manufacturers and operating-system providers,” Pornhub wrote.

The age-verification question could eventually go to the Supreme Court. “This opinion will be appealed to the Supreme Court, alongside other cases over statutes imposing mandatory age authentication,” Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman wrote.

The 5th Circuit panel majority’s analysis relied on Ginsberg v. New York, a 1968 Supreme Court ruling about the sale of “girlie” magazines to a 16-year-old at a lunch counter. Goldman criticized the 5th Circuit for relying on Ginsburg “instead of the squarely on-point 1997 Reno v. ACLU and 2004 Ashcroft v. ACLU opinions, both of which dealt with the Internet.” Goldman argued that decisions upholding laws like the Texas one could open the door to “rampant government censorship.”

The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-industry lobby group that sued Texas over its law, said it “disagree[s] strenuously with the analysis of the Court majority. As the dissenting opinion by Judge Higginbotham makes clear, this ruling violates decades of precedent from the Supreme Court.” The group is considering its “next steps in regard to both this lawsuit and others.”

Pornhub blocks all of Texas to protest state law—Paxton says “good riddance” Read More »

us-government-agencies-demand-fixable-ice-cream-machines

US government agencies demand fixable ice cream machines

copyright, department of justice, DMCA, DoJ, federal trade commission, ftc, ice cream, kytch, Policy, repair, right to repair, Section 1201, taylor / /

I scream, you scream, we all scream for 1201(c)3 exemptions —

McFlurries are a notable part of petition for commercial and industrial repairs.

–

Taylor ice cream machine, with churning spindle removed by hand.

Enlarge / Taylor’s C709 Soft Serve Freezer isn’t so much mechanically complicated as it is a software and diagnostic trap for anyone without authorized access.

Many devices have been made difficult or financially nonviable to repair, whether by design or because of a lack of parts, manuals, or specialty tools. Machines that make ice cream, however, seem to have a special place in the hearts of lawmakers. Those machines are often broken and locked down for only the most profitable repairs.

The Federal Trade Commission and the antitrust division of the Department of Justice have asked the US Copyright Office (PDF) to exempt “commercial soft serve machines” from the anti-circumvention rules of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The governing bodies also submitted proprietary diagnostic kits, programmable logic controllers, and enterprise IT devices for DMCA exemptions.

“In each case, an exemption would give users more choices for third-party and self-repair and would likely lead to cost savings and a better return on investment in commercial and industrial equipment,” the joint comment states. Those markets would also see greater competition in the repair market, and companies would be prevented from using DMCA laws to enforce monopolies on repair, according to the comment.

The joint comment builds upon a petition filed by repair vendor and advocate iFixit and interest group Public Knowledge, which advocated for broad reforms while keeping a relatable, ingestible example at its center. McDonald’s soft serve ice cream machines, which are famously frequently broken, are supplied by industrial vendor Taylor. Taylor’s C709 Soft Serve Freezer requires lengthy, finicky warm-up and cleaning cycles, produces obtuse error codes, and, perhaps not coincidentally, costs $350 per 15 minutes of service for a Taylor technician to fix. iFixit tore down such a machine, confirming the lengthy process between plugging in and soft serving.

After one company built a Raspberry Pi-powered device, the Kytch, that could provide better diagnostics and insights, Taylor moved to ban franchisees from installing the device, then offered up its own competing product. Kytch has sued Taylor for $900 million in a case that is still pending.

Beyond ice cream, the petitions to the Copyright Office would provide more broad exemptions for industrial and commercial repairs that require some kind of workaround, decryption, or other software tinkering. Going past technological protection measures (TPMs) was made illegal by the 1998 DMCA, which was put in place largely because of the concerns of media firms facing what they considered rampant piracy.

Every three years, the Copyright Office allows for petitions to exempt certain exceptions to DMCA violations (and renew prior exemptions). Repair advocates have won exemptions for farm equipment repair, video game consoles, cars, and certain medical gear. The exemption is often granted for device fixing if a repair person can work past its locks, but not for the distribution of tools that would make such a repair far easier. The esoteric nature of such “release valve” offerings has led groups like the EFF to push for the DMCA’s abolishment.

DMCA exemptions occur on a parallel track to state right-to-repair bills and broader federal action. President Biden issued an executive order that included a push for repair reforms. The FTC has issued studies that call out unnecessary repair restrictions and has taken action against firms like Harley-Davidson, Westinghouse, and grill maker Weber for tying warranties to an authorized repair service.

Disclosure: Kevin Purdy previously worked for iFixit. He has no financial ties to the company.

US government agencies demand fixable ice cream machines Read More »

“overwhelming-evidence”-shows-craig-wright-did-not-create-bitcoin,-judge-says

“Overwhelming evidence” shows Craig Wright did not create bitcoin, judge says

Bitcoin, bitcoin creator, chatgpt, Craig Wright, Cryptocurrency, fraud, perjury, Policy, satoshi nakamoto, UK high court / /

Debate closed —

Jack Dorsey posted a “W,” as judge halts Wright’s suits against developers.

–

Dr. Craig Wright arrives at the Rolls Building, part of the Royal Courts of Justice, on February 06, 2024, in London, England.

Enlarge / Dr. Craig Wright arrives at the Rolls Building, part of the Royal Courts of Justice, on February 06, 2024, in London, England.

“Overwhelming evidence” shows that Australian computer scientist Craig Wright is not bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto, a UK judge declared Thursday.

In what Wired described as a “surprise ruling” at the closing of Wright’s six-week trial, Justice James Mellor abruptly ended years of speculation by saying:

“Dr. Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin white paper. Dr. Wright is not the person that operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Dr. Wright is not the person that created the Bitcoin system. Nor is Dr. Wright the author of the Bitcoin software.”

Wright was not in the courtroom for this explosive moment, Wired reported.

In 2016, Wright had claimed that he did not have the “courage” to prove that he was the creator of bitcoin, shortly after claiming that he had “extraordinary proof.” As debate swirled around his claims, Wright began filing lawsuits, alleging that many had violated his intellectual property rights.

A nonprofit called the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) sued to stop Wright from filing any more lawsuits that it alleged were based on fabricated evidence, Wired reported. They submitted hundreds of alleged instances of forgery or tampering, Wired reported, asking the UK High Court for a permanent injunction to block Wright from ever making the claim again.

As a result of Mellor’s ruling, CoinDesk reported that Wright’s lawsuits against Coinbase and Twitter founder Jack Dorsey’s Block would be halted. COPA’s lawyer, Jonathan Hough, told CoinDesk that Wright’s conduct should be considered “deadly serious.”

“On the basis of his dishonest claim to be Satoshi, he has pursued claims he puts at hundreds of billions of dollars, including against numerous private individuals,” Hough said.

On Thursday, Dorsey posted a “W” on X (formerly Twitter), marking the win and quoting Mellor’s statements clearly rejecting Wright’s claims as false. COPA similarly celebrated the victory.

“This decision is a win for developers, for the entire open source community, and for the truth,” a COPA spokesperson told CoinDesk. “For over eight years, Dr. Wright and his financial backers have lied about his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto and used that lie to bully and intimidate developers in the bitcoin community. That ends today with the court’s ruling that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.”

Wright’s counsel, Lord Anthony Grabiner, had argued that Mellor granting an injunction would infringe Wright’s freedom of speech. Grabiner noted that “such a prohibition is unprecedented in the UK and would prevent Wright from even casually going to the park and declaring he’s Satoshi without incurring fines or going to prison,” CoinDesk reported.

COPA thinks the injunction is necessary, though.

“We are seeking to enjoin Dr. Wright from ever claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto again and in doing so avoid further litigation terror campaigns,” COPA’s spokesperson told Wired.

And that’s not all that COPA wants. COPA has also petitioned for Wright’s alleged forgeries—some of which Reuters reported were allegedly produced using ChatGPT—to be review by UK criminal courts, where he could face fines and/or prison time. Hough alleged at trial that Wright “has committed fraud upon the court,” Wired reported, asking Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service to consider prosecuting Wright for “perjury and perverting the course of justice,” CoinDesk reported.

Wright’s counsel argued that COPA would need more evidence to back such a claim, CoinDesk reported.

Mellor won’t issue his final judgment for a month or more, Wired reported, so it’s not clear yet if Wright will be enjoined from claiming he is bitcoin’s creator. The judgement will “be ready when it’s ready and not before,” Mellor said.

“Overwhelming evidence” shows Craig Wright did not create bitcoin, judge says Read More »

epic-asks-court-to-block-apple’s-27%-commission-on-website-purchases

Epic asks court to block Apple’s 27% commission on website purchases

Apple, Apple App Store, epic games apple, Policy / /
iPhones on display at an Apple Store

Getty Images | Justin Sullivan

Epic Games yesterday urged a federal court to sanction Apple for alleged violations of an injunction that imposed restrictions on the iOS App Store. Epic cited a 27 percent commission charged by Apple on purchases completed outside the usual in-app payment system and other limits imposed on developers.

“Apple is in blatant violation of this Court’s injunction,” Epic wrote in a filing in US District Court for the Northern District of California. “Its new App Store policies continue to impose prohibitions on developers that this Court found unlawful and enjoined. Moreover, Apple’s new policies introduce new restrictions and burdens that frustrate and effectively nullify the relief the Court ordered.”

The permanent injunction issued by the court in September 2021 said that Apple may not prohibit app developers from including external links to alternate sales channels “or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms” that aren’t Apple’s in-app purchasing system. The injunction also said that Apple may not prohibit developers from “communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.”

Epic pointed out that the iPhone maker requires developers to “pay Apple a new fee of 27% on any purchases users make outside the app up to one week after clicking a Link.” The fee alone “is enough to frustrate the very purpose of the Injunction; if Apple is allowed to tax out-of-app purchases, those purchases could never constrain Apple’s pricing of IAP [in-app purchases], and developers and consumers would not have any reason to use these alternative transacting options,” Epic said.

The case began in August 2020 when Fortnite maker Epic filed a lawsuit claiming that Apple monopolizes the iOS app distribution and in-app payment markets and was guilty of anti-competitive conduct. A federal judge determined after trial that Apple violated California’s competition laws and “that Apple’s anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice.”

An appeals court upheld the injunction in April 2023, and the Supreme Court decided not to take up the case. The injunction applies nationwide.

Apple: We’re complying

Apple said in a January 2024 filing that it is complying with the 2021 injunction. Apple said it now “expressly permits developers with apps on the iOS or iPadOS App Store US storefronts to include buttons or external links with calls to action within their apps that direct users to alternative, out-of-app purchasing mechanisms.” Apple also said it “does not limit developers’ ability to send out-of-app communications to users regarding alternative purchasing methods.”

Regarding the 27 percent commission, Apple said the charge “complies with the Injunction’s plain terms” and is “consistent with the Court’s rationale for upholding Apple’s other App Store policies.” Apple’s website says the commission applies to proceeds for sales “on your website after a link out.”

Epic argues that “Apple’s new scheme so pervasively taxes, regulates, restricts and burdens in-app links directing users to alternative purchasing mechanisms on a developer’s website (‘External Links’ or ‘Links’) as to make them entirely useless. Moreover, Apple continues to completely prohibit the use of ‘buttons… or other calls to action’ in direct contravention of this Court’s Injunction.”

Epic argues that the “plain button style” required by Apple “is not a button at all.” Epic provided this illustration, saying the only allowed button types are the ones in the green box:

The original version of that illustration comes from Apple’s website. On another page, Apple says that external purchase links must use the plain button style.

“With these new policies, Apple continues to charge unjustified fees and intentionally prevent the ‘open flow of information,'” Epic said. “Apple’s goal is clear: to prevent purchasing alternatives from constraining the supracompetitive fees it collects on purchases of digital goods and services. Apple’s so-called compliance is a sham.”

Epic asks court to block Apple’s 27% commission on website purchases Read More »

amid-paralyzing-ransomware-attack,-feds-probe-unitedhealth’s-hipaa-compliance

Amid paralyzing ransomware attack, feds probe UnitedHealth’s HIPAA compliance

Change Healthcare, cyberattack, health, HHS, HIPAA, Policy, ransomware, Science, unitedhealth / /

most significant and consequential incident —

UnitedHealth said it will cooperate with the probe as it works to restore services.

–

Multistory glass-and-brick building with UnitedHealthcare logo on exterior.

As health systems around the US are still grappling with an unprecedented ransomware attack on the country’s largest health care payment processor, the US Department of Health and Human Services is opening an investigation into whether that processor and its parent company, UnitedHealthcare Group, complied with federal rules to protect private patient data.

The attack targeted Change Healthcare, a unit of UnitedHealthcare Group (UHG) that provides financial services to tens of thousands of health care providers around the country, including doctors, dentists, hospitals, and pharmacies. According to an antitrust lawsuit brought against UHG by the Department of Justice in 2022, 50 percent of all medical claims in the US pass through Change Healthcare’s electronic data interchange clearinghouse. (The DOJ lost its case to prevent UHG’s acquisition of Change Healthcare and last year abandoned plans for an appeal.)

As Ars reported previously, the attack was disclosed on February 21 by UHG’s subsidiary, Optum, which now runs Change Healthcare. On February 29, UHG accused the notorious Russian-speaking ransomware gang known both as AlphV and BlackCat of being responsible. According to The Washington Post, the attack involved stealing patient data, encrypting company files, and demanding money to unlock them. The result is a paralysis of claims processing and payments, causing hospitals to run out of cash for payroll and services and preventing patients from getting care and prescriptions. Additionally, the attack is believed to have exposed the health data of millions of US patients.

Earlier this month, Rick Pollack, the president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, called the ransomware attack on Change Healthcare “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind against the US health care system in history.”

Now, three weeks into the attack, many health systems are still struggling. On Tuesday, members of the Biden administration met with UHG CEO Andrew Witty and other health industry leaders at the White House to demand they do more to stabilize the situation for health care providers and services and provide financial assistance. Some improvements may be in sight; on Wednesday, UHG posted an update saying that “all major pharmacy and payment systems are up and more than 99 percent of pre-incident claim volume is flowing.”

HIPAA compliance

Still, the data breach leaves big questions about the extent of the damage to patient privacy, and the adequacy of protections moving forward. In an additional development Wednesday, the health department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it is opening an investigation into UHG and Change Healthcare over the incident. It noted that such an investigation was warranted “given the unprecedented magnitude of this cyberattack, and in the best interest of patients and health care providers.”

In a “Dear Colleague” letter dated Wednesday, the OCR explained that the investigation “will focus on whether a breach of protected health information occurred and Change Healthcare’s and UHG’s compliance with the HIPAA Rules.” HIPAA is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which establishes privacy and security requirements for protected health information, as well as breach notification requirements.

In a statement to the press, UHG said it would cooperate with the investigation. “Our immediate focus is to restore our systems, protect data and support those whose data may have been impacted,” the statement read. “We are working with law enforcement to investigate the extent of impacted data.”

The Post notes that the federal government does have a history of investigating and penalizing health care organizations for failing to implement adequate safeguards to prevent data breaches. For instance, health insurance provider Anthem paid a $16 million settlement in 2020 over a 2015 data breach that exposed the private data of almost 79 million people. The exposed data included names, Social Security numbers, medical identification numbers, addresses, dates of birth, email addresses, and employment information. The OCR investigation into the breach discovered that the attack began with spear phishing emails that at least one employee of an Anthem subsidiary fell for, opening the door to further intrusions that went undetected between December 2, 2014, and January 27, 2015.

“Unfortunately, Anthem failed to implement appropriate measures for detecting hackers who had gained access to their system to harvest passwords and steal people’s private information,” OCR Director Roger Severino said at the time. “We know that large health care entities are attractive targets for hackers, which is why they are expected to have strong password policies and to monitor and respond to security incidents in a timely fashion or risk enforcement by OCR.”

Amid paralyzing ransomware attack, feds probe UnitedHealth’s HIPAA compliance Read More »