Source: Government Seizes Vehicles Worth $1 Million; Brings No Charges, Keeps The Cars | Techdirt
Category: Ignorant or unreasonable
Former GOP Sen. Phil Gramm: “It Was an Outrage” That “Exploited” AT&T CEO Got Only $75 Million at Retirement
Gramm attributed anger at CEOs like Edward Whitacre (who actually got $158 million) to “the one form of bigotry that is still allowed in America … bigotry against the successful.”
AEI Expert: Iranians Think “Very Differently” From Us Because They’re “Nationalists”
Iranians: are they normal human beings like us, or are they weirdos whose foreign, mysterious thought processes can only be understood by experts like Michael Rubin?
Source: AEI Expert: Iranians Think “Very Differently” From Us Because They’re “Nationalists”
Ghost Students, Ghost Teachers, Ghost Schools – BuzzFeed News
50 hospitals charge uninsured more than 10 times cost of care, study finds – The Washington Post
Researchers said the hospitals with the highest markups are not in pricey neighborhoods or big cities.
Source: 50 hospitals charge uninsured more than 10 times cost of care, study finds – The Washington Post
Use snooped data in court? Nah, says UK.gov – folk might be cleared
British government snoops claimed it was too much hassle for them to use intercepted communications data in court proceedings because the accused could use the info to prove their innocence, it has emerged.
Police officers, spies and local council bin inspectors were all asked for their views of Blighty’s surveillance laws as part of the Independent Terrorism Legislation Reviewer’s, er, review of Blighty’s snooping laws, which was published on Thursday.
One of the questions asked was why, uniquely in the West, Britain’s state-sponsored snoopers do not use the evidence they gather against alleged criminals in legal proceedings. The response, at paragraph 9.16 was revealing:Part of the reason for this is the extensive disclosure requirement in criminal proceedings: were it sought to rely on the product of intercept conducted over a period of several months, the defence could legitimately request a transcript of the entire intercept product with a view to searching it for exculpatory material.
In plain English, this meant the authorities were worried that using communications data hoovered up under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act would mean alleged crims could demand access to the same data – and use it to show they were innocent of the crimes they were charged with.
Guy Reveals Airtel Secretly Inserting JavaScript, Gets Threatened With Jail For Criminal Copyright Infringement
Last week, an Indian blogger, Thejesh GN, discovered that mobile operator Airtel was injecting javascript into subscribers’ browsing sessions, which is both incredibly sketchy and a huge security concern (not to mention raising net neutrality issues on the side). He posted the proof to GitHub andtweeted about it:
He posted the evidence showing that javascript was being quietly inserted, and that it apparently tried to insert some sort of toolbar:
That’s all super sketchy. But that’s just the very beginning of this story. Because days later, Thejesh received the most ridiculous legal threat letter, coming from a lawyer named Ameet Mehta from the law firm Solicis Lex. It claims to be representing an Israeli company, Flash Network, which is apparently responsible for the code injection software… and it claims that by merely revealing to the public that Airtel was doing these injections, he had engaged in criminal copyright infringement under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Wireless carriers sue to block cell phone radiation warning requirement
I’m just going to quote the first comment to this article on Ars Technica:
Did they fail high school physics? I get more radiation in total wattage and of a higher frequency from light bulbs by standing next to a lamp. Are you going to post a warning label on light bulbs next?
-macromorgan
The biggest wireless industry trade group is suing the City of Berkeley, California to stop a requirement that cell phones come with radiation warnings.
The Berkeley City Council last month passed an ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to provide the following notice to all customers who buy or lease phones:
To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. This potential risk is greater for children. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.
CTIA-The Wireless Association, which represents carriers and suppliers, sued in US District Court yesterday, saying the “required disclosure… impermissibly abridges CTIA’s members’ First Amendment rights,” that it is “preempted by federal law,” and that there is no scientific basis for the warning.
“The Federal Communications Commission (‘FCC’) implements a mandate from Congress to create a nationwide, uniform set of regulations for wireless communications devices,” CTIA wrote. “Pursuant to that mandate, the FCC—consulting with expert federal health and safety agencies and drawing from international standards-setting bodies—has carefully reviewed the scientific studies that have examined cell phones for possible adverse health effects, including health effects from the radio waves—a type of radiofrequency energy (‘RF energy’)—that cell phones emit in order to function. The FCC has determined, consistent with the overwhelming consensus of scientific authority, that ‘[t]here is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other problems, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss.'”
The FCC’s standards are conservative, CTIA wrote, saying that the commission’s “exposure limits for RF energy in a general population setting ‘are set at a level on the order of 50 times below the level at which adverse biological effects have been observed in laboratory animals.'”
When contacted by Ars, a Berkeley spokesperson responded, “We don’t comment on pending litigation.”
San Francisco revoked a similar ordinance in 2013 after losing a court battle to CTIA. But Berkeley isn’t giving up. The San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday:
Berkeley officials said they were confident the ordinance would be upheld. Councilman Max Anderson, the measure’s lead sponsor, said the warning language was taken directly from manufacturers’ statements in product manuals. Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, helped to draft the ordinance and has agreed to defend it without charge.
“I believe Berkeley has a right to assure its residents know of the existing safety recommendations,” Lessig said by e-mail.
Judge finds Prenda Law attorneys in contempt, says they hid assets
Prenda Law was a “copyright trolling” scheme that sued thousands for downloading online porn, but the organization was buried under a wave of judicial sanctions beginning in 2013.
However, the three lawyers found to be intertwined with the organization—John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, and Paul Duffy—continue to get in hot water. On Friday, an Illinois federal judge reconsidered (PDF) a 2014 ruling in which he found there wasn’t enough evidence for a “contempt of court” finding. New evidence has convinced US District Judge David Herndon that Steele and Hansmeier should be found in contempt, and last week he ordered them to pay $65,263. That amount will get progressively larger, the judge warned, “if they continue their misdeeds before this Court.”
In addition, Steele and Duffy “engaged in unreasonable, willful obstruction of discovery in bad faith,” and Herndon ordered those two to pay for the defense’s discovery expenses, needed to unwind the complex financial records.
The three offending lawyers have until July 15 to pay up.
“We’re ecstatic because we finally got it, and this order gives them a set date by which to pay,” said defense lawyer Jason Sweet in an interview with Ars. “They didn’t have to obstruct discovery. It was always in their control. As the court found, they’ve shown a willingness to lie, and they’ll continue to do so unless they’re sanctioned.”
Comcast Was So Incredibly Full Of Crap During Its Merger Sales Pitch, The Government Is Considering Additional Punishment
While Comcast’s attempted acquisition of Time Warner Cable may be dead in the water, information revealed during the company’s ugly but often entertaining merger sales pitch may come back to haunt it. When Comcast started selling regulators on the idea of the Time Warner Cable merger, you’ll recall it highlighted repeatedly how Comcast should be trusted because it had done such a bang up job adhering to the conditions placed on its acquisition of NBC Universal. Except when regulators tried to verify this M&A claim (which is already rare enough in telecom), they discovered that not only did Comcast write most of the conditions itself, it still somehow managed to repeatedly fail to adhere to them.
For example Comcast had to be fined $800 million by the FCC for failing to offer and clearly advertise a relatively paltry 5 Mbps, $50 per month broadband tier. Similarly, the company’s Internet Essentials program, which promised 5 Mbps, $10 broadband for low income communities and was a phenomenal PR boon for Comcast — at one point resulted in Philadelphia street protests for being hard to find, qualify, and sign up for. It was also revealed that Comcast ignored conditions intended to keep the company from hamstringing Internet video competitor Hulu, which it acquired as part of the NBC deal.
So yes, Comcast, you’re really great at adhering to merger conditions, just as long as nobody actually bothers to look at how well you adhere to merger conditions. Given how closely the FCC had looked at whether companies adhered to merger conditions in the past (as in: not at all), Comcast’s hubris here was understandable.