(Originally posted at The Washington Spectator.)
My name is Murat Kurnaz. I am twenty-seven years old. I was born and raised in Germany. Recently, I got married to a kind young woman from a good family, which makes me happy. We rented a nice flat in the Turkish section of my hometown of [...]
The Supreme Court today declined to reconsider a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that Cablevision’s “remote storage digital video recorder” would not infringe copyright. CDT and a number of others had argued to the 2nd Circuit that a finding of copyright infringement had the potential to chill innovation in a wide range of emerging products that use the Internet to provide storage and computing functions from remote locations. The Supreme Court’s action effectively ends the significant threat posed by a lower court’s 2007 ruling of infringement.
As turmoil over the disputed election in Iran continues, many techs are trying to find ways to help Iranian citizens safely communicate and receive information despite the barriers being established by Iranian authorities. One tactic that even moderately tech-savvy Internet users can employ is to set up a Tor relay or a Tor bridge.
More sophisticated users can skip this paragraph, but for the rest, here’s the basic outline. Tor (an acronym of “The Onion Router”) is free and open source software that helps users remain anonymous on the Internet. Normally, when accessing websites, your computer asks for and receives a webpage out in the open, a process that exposes your IP address, the URL of the website, and the contents of the site, among other information to third parties. When accessing websites while using Tor, your computer essentially whispers its requests for a website, to another computer, which passes the request on to another computer, which passes it on to another computer, which passes it onto the computer where the website is hosted; the reply returns in the same, chain-message manner. The whispers are encrypted, so that neither outside authorities, nor the computers in the middle of the chain, can tell what is being said, and to whom. And the website itself does not have your IP address either.
Internet users in Iran are using Tor to both (a) circumvent censorship systems and (b) remain anonymous while reading and writing on the Internet. Both are critically important to the safety of protesters, many of whom fear retaliation from the government. Preliminary reports indicate that use of the Tor client in Iran has increased in the days after the contested election.
However, Tor’s design relies on a robust network of “volunteer computers” (a.k.a. relays) to pass messages back and forth. This means that the speed and quality of a Tor users’ browsing experience relies extensively on the number of volunteer computers there are to pass messages along. This is where volunteers can make a difference — setting up additional relays improves access for dissident Iranians and other users of the Tor network. The more people who help out, the better and more quickly the network runs. If you’re interested in helping out, find and follow instructions for configuring a Tor relay on the Tor website.
Those looking to help fight censorship should also consider providing a Tor bridge. Bridges come into play when an ISP decides to try blocking users’ access to the Tor network. (For now, there seems to only be anecdotal evidence of Iran attempting to block the use of Tor. However, Iran has recntly been practicing reactive and centralized blocking, which makes any effective block of Tor far more likely.) The Tor bridge configuration differs from a relay in that your computer does not appear in the public Tor network. Instead, users looking for access to the Internet through Tor can receive your Tor routing information through more private channels, then configure their Tor client to transmit requests through your computer. By not appearing in the public Tor network, your Tor routing information is less likely to end up on an ISP filter and can provide help for a longer period of time — but recognize that the network needs both relays and bridges.
Tor provides strong protections for its users, but if you plan to use it to access the Net, take time to fully understand its limitations. Check the Tor “Warning” section for more information. You should also consider any limitations that may exist in your arrangement with your ISP.
If you have other questions about setting up a Tor bridge or relay, please check the Running a Tor relay FAQ page. For other concerns, The Onion Router Wiki may help.
For understanding the technical conditions of the Iranian Internet, we have found the Open Network Initiative’s ongoing research, Arbor Network’s network analyses, and the Tor Project’s own blog status reports to be informative.
Late this afternoon, Marc Garneau, the Liberal Industry critic, contacted me to respond to my post today on the Liberal dissenting recommendation to introduce copyright legislation and ratify the WIPO Internet treaties in the Industry Committee report on the Canadian economy. The following notes on the call are posted with his permission. Garneau advised that the committee offered all parties the opportunity to raise recommendations but only those with unanimous support were put forward as committee recommendations. Those that did not receive unanimous support could be raised by individual parties as the Liberals did with copyright.
Garneau admitted that the language used may have caused some concern, but that the recommendation was really designed as marker to indicate interest in addressing the copyright issue. He said that copyright was among the most lobbied issues he faces, with weekly meetings from a variety on stakeholders over the past eight months. Garneau cautioned against reading the recommendation as the official position of the Liberal party on copyright, noting that it would likely use Bill C-60, which adopted a more flexible approach on anti-circumvention legislation than C-61, as the starting point for analysis. He added that the Liberal party recognizes the importance of digital issues, as evidenced by their support for C-27 (anti-spam legislation), net neutrality, and copyright reform.
Most commentary about the Supreme Court today surely will focus on the controversial Ricci employment discrimination case and its impact on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings. But the Court also announced two important orders in Info/Law, both concerning decisions that it will not make. By refusing to grant cert. in these cases, the Court [...]
As part of today’s launch of YouTube’s Reporters’ Center, which features how-to videos on news reporting, the Citizen Media Law Project created a short video addressing some of the newsgathering and privacy issues people are likely to face as they head out with camera in hand to cover the news. The two-part series of newsgathering videos (the first video is embedded below, the second video should be up later this week) describe the legal and practical
issues you may encounter as you gather documents, take photographs or
video, and interview others.
The YouTube initiative aims to educate budding videographers on a wide array of
issues associated with news reporting, such as how to fact check stories, avoid breaking the law while reporting, and adhere to journalistic principles. According to YouTube’s press release:
In partnership with several top news and media organizations, YouTube announced today the launch of the YouTube Reporters’ Center (http://www.youtube.com/reporterscenter), a dedicated channel that features how-to videos on news reporting created by some of the industry’s most respected journalists and media experts. A one-stop-shop for journalism training online, the YouTube Reporters’ Center covers a wide range of topics, from preparing for interviews, to fact-checking, to journalistic ethics. . . .
"For the first time on YouTube, veteran journalists are making themselves openly available to aspiring reporters around the world who want to report on the news and events happening around them," said Steve Grove, head of news and politics at YouTube. "As current events demonstrate on a daily basis, citizen-reporting on YouTube is a critical part of today’s media landscape — and the YouTube Reporters’ Center will help foster an even more productive relationship between professionals and these aspiring reporters."
Visitors to the center can browse through over two dozen how-to videos made by the experts for the Reporters’ Center. Citizens with reporting experiences are invited to share the lessons they’ve learned by adding their own how-to videos for inclusion on the site.
A number of organizations are participating in the project, including the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, CBS Evening News, Associated Press, Politifact, The Washington Post, and the Huffington Post.
With the help of CMLP/Berkman interns Lee Baker, Courtney French, Andrew Moshirnia, and Andrew Sellars and Berkman Digital Media Producer extraordinaire Dan Jones, we created two short videos (part 2 is coming later this week) addressing the legal issues that impact your ability to document news events through
video and still photography, including attending governmental meetings, reporting at
crime scenes, filming political rallies or protests, and interviewing
others.
For those who want more specific information, we’ve got a lot of resources available in our legal guide, including sections that address Entering the Property of Others, Gathering Private Information, Recording Phone Calls, Conversations, Meetings and Hearings, Acquiring Documents and Other Property, Documenting Public Proceedings and Events, and Protecting Sources and Source Material. All of these topics can be accessed via the Newsgathering and Privacy page in our legal guide.
The Government will create two new public bodies to help protect Government and citizens from digital security threats. It will set up one strategy body and one operations centre to increase the UK’s cyber security, it said.
Employees have the same rights when a company changes service provider as when work is outsourced in the first place even if the new service is not identical to the old, the Employment Appeals Tribunal has ruled.
During the last few days a virus scam targeting torrent site users has reappeared. Internet users receive an email informing them they have been monitored by anti-piracy company MediaDefender on various torrent sites. Although a log file is included to ‘prove’ infringements, it contains what is being described as a “banking trojan”.
During the last few days a virus scam targeting torrent site users has reappeared. Internet users receive an email informing them they have been monitored by anti-piracy company MediaDefender on various torrent sites. Although a log file is included to ‘prove’ infringements, it contains what is being described as a “banking trojan”.
What do Harry Potter books, The Blair Witch Project, Razor scooters, the Ford Focus and Hebrew National hot dogs have in common? In the late 1990s and 2000s, these brands — or, more precisely, the marketers behind them — were at the cutting edge of a new advertising technique: "buzz marketing." A decade later, the government’s efforts to control such marketing techniques may have impact on blogs and other citizen media.
Inspired by Malcolm Gladwell’s 2000 book The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, the idea behind buzz marketing, as explained by BusinessWeek magazine in July 2001, was to eschew traditional advertisements, replacing them with "influencers" whose role is to promote a brand to a particular group of people. These "influencers" can be paid in the traditional sense, or instead they can be offered special perks and benefits, or given free samples for their own use, or to give away to others. They key is that the "influencers" do not reveal the arrangement, so that their use and interest in a product seems to be a genuine personal preference.
The Federal Trade Commission took notice of this trend in 2006, in response to a petition by the advocacy group Commercial Alert. The result was a FTC staff opinion letter questioning the practice:
[I]n some word of mouth marketing contexts, it would appear that consumers may reasonably give more weight to statements that sponsored consumers make about their opinions or experiences with a product based on their assumed independence from the marketer. … In such circumstances it would appear that the failure to disclose the relationship between the marketer and the consumer would be deceptive unless the relationship were otherwise clear from the context.
Despite this declaration, the staff letter declined to make a general policy on the practice, stating instead that the Commission would address cases on an individual basis.
But by early 2007, the Commission decided to address the issue head-on by looking to revise its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 16 C.F.R. Part 255. The Guides, first issued in 1972 and last revised in 1980, do not have the force of law, but can be used as the basis for FTC enforcement actions. As currently written, they recommend that endorsements and testimonials be truthful and unsolicited; that advertisements disclose if an endorser’s results with a product or service are not typical; and that the connections between the endorser and the advertiser be disclosed if they are not obvious to the consumer.
On Jan. 16, 2007, the Commission invited comments on two studies from 2003 and 2004 on the effect of consumer testimonials in weight loss, dietary supplement and business opportunity advertisements, and on several issues regarding testimonials and endorsements. See 72 Fed. Reg. 2214 (Jan. 18, 2007); press release. After receiving comments from various parties, in November 2008 the Commission released its proposed revisions to the Guides, which would significantly change acceptable advertising practices.
Several others have undertaken a detailed analysis of the proposal (here, here, here, and here). But what made the blogosphere sit up and take notice was the inclusion of examples specifically dealing with blogs.
The first of these examples is under proposed § 255.1(d), which states: "Advertisers are subject to liability for false or unsubstantiated statements made through endorsements, or for failing to disclose material connections between themselves and their endorsers. Endorsers also may be liable for statements made in the course of their endorsements." § 255.1(d).
"Example 5" under this provision reads as follows:
Example 5: A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service. The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser’s products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body lotion and write a review of the product on her blog. Although the advertiser does not make any specific claims about the lotion’s ability to cure skin conditions and the blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to her blog readers who suffer from this condition. The advertiser is subject to liability for false or unsubstantiated statements made through the blogger’s endorsement. The blogger also is subject to liability for representations made in the course of her endorsement. The blogger is also liable if she fails to disclose clearly and conspicuously that she is being paid for her services.
In order to limit its potential liability, the advertiser should ensure that the advertising service provides guidance and training to its bloggers concerning the need to ensure that statements they make are truthful and substantiated. The advertiser should also monitor bloggers who are being paid to promote its products and take steps necessary to halt the continued publication of deceptive representations when they are discovered.
Proposed Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, at 69-70 (emphasis added).
The other example involving bloggers is under proposed § 255.5, dealing with disclosure of material connections:
Example 7: A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert maintains a personal weblog or "blog" where he posts entries about his
gaming experiences. Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions
about video game hardware and software. As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released video game system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write about it on his blog. He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review. The readers of his blog are unlikely to expect that he has received the
video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the
product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact would likely materially affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement. Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously
disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge.
Proposed Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, at 84-5 (emphasis added).
The FTC received 17 comments in response to these proposals, and is expected to act on them by the end of the summer.
Traditionally, "mainstream" journalists were often held to ethical standards — such as those formulated by the Associated Press, the Society of Professional Journalists, and The New York Times Company — which restricted or prohibited endorsements and testimonials. But enforcement of these standards was often left to the employer, as an employee discipline matter, and enforcement was sometimes spotty.
There have been several efforts to create ethical codes for general bloggers (here, here, here) and bloggers that specialize in certain topics (food bloggers 1; food bloggers 2; medical bloggers (archived)). Yet no code has emerged as a consensus, and bloggers generally follow their own notions of proper behavior.
So some guidelines on endorsements by bloggers may be a good idea. But the problem with the proposed FTC regulations is that, even though they are fashioned as "guides," they are ultimately backed by the Commission’s enforcement powers.
The FTC may legitimately penalize advertisers for improper claims and methods in advertising and promotion. But a government agency punishing bloggers for their comments creates a real First Amendment problem.
While it is true that courts have allowed publishers of discriminatory
housing ads and advertisements for illegal activity to be held liable
for those ads, the new FTC rules would hold online content producers
liable not for an advertisement created by others, but for their own
editorial content.
It’s dangerous for the FTC to be regulating editorial content and
ethics, rather than straight ad content. FTC regulations on advertisers, barring them from giving freebies, for example, may be legitimate; regulating bloggers
for what is essentially an ethical issue is a dangerous precedent of government encroaching on First Amendment speech.
A better solution would be the development of a "Better Business Bureau" for bloggers: a voluntary group that would certify that certain blogs and sites meet certain standards for disclosure of commercial interests. Obviously, this would require a bit of organization by bloggers. But that would be less intrusive than ceding the creation and enforcement of standards to the federal government.