Bad Patents Getting In The Way Of A Fun Toy; Or Why I Had To Teach My Kids About How Patents Ruin Everything

from the well-that-sucks dept

Last year I backed a very cool looking crowdfunding project for my kids. It's called Makeway, and seems like the coolest ever possible marble run setup. Marble runs are already cool, but since basically everyone in my family will spend hours just staring at some of the more advanced marble run setups in museums (or building them in the more hands on museums, or much simpler ones with just home kits), this seemed like a really amazing project to be able to create a museum-level marble run in your own home. The project launched right before the pandemic went into full swing, and, like tons of crowdfunding projects, it's had some difficulties along the way. Of course, unlike many such projects in which the creators go quiet and hide behind silence as they deal with the difficulties, the guy behind Makeway sends out incredibly and intricately detailed novella length updates, going deep into the challenges and (usually!) the solutions.

Indeed, that part has been kind of fascinating -- especially to my kids, who actually get super excited each time a new update is sent and want to hear all the details of the project (indeed, learning about how difficult it is to create a product like this, and the effort the creators are making to get past those hurdles, seems like a good lesson for kids to learn). While they've been disappointed that the shipping of the product has been delayed, the updates are still neat, and I have every confidence that the product will eventually be delivered.

Except... not all of it. The latest update gave me a new lesson to teach my kids: just how stupid patents can be, and how they can mess up cool products. Buried in the middle of this latest epic update was one hurdle that simply could not be overcome: threats from patent holders. For a freaking marble run piece.

It's not a critical piece by any means -- it was more of a fun piece. Indeed, they called it the "party" piece. Basically as a marble would zip by, a fan would spin, and it could light up with a message and play music. Neat:

The Makeway guys really liked this part too:

The party part is our pride. We invested to make it sleek, elegant, always working with no buttons or switches, and mostly - working fluently, with a slight touch of the running marble. We hired a composer to make the music, we added our vocals to the track, we programmed the fan light to show Makeway's logo, we placed an order and fully paid for 2 IC's (the brain of the part) - one for the lights and one for the music, and to our delighted surprise, all this effort came up to a really satisfying part, that we included in many of our videos. We were very happy and even surprised when all were composed together into one working piece, and we were excited to start producing it to be able to ship it soon to our backers...

But, it's not to be. Apparently, they were threatened by someone with a newly granted patent (they don't reveal who it was, other than that it's by a competing marble run company -- though they do reveal that the lawyers refer to it as the '205 patent, meaning those are the last 3 digits of the patent number -- but a bit of poking around by me has failed to find the relevant patent) from someone who claims that this little toy violates their patent:

Unfortunately, some time ago we got a letter stating that we are infringing, with this piece, a patent that was approved a few months ago and that is owned by a marble-run company. The patent describes a part that, when triggered by a marble, turns on light, and/or sound, and/or sends RF signals.

The Makeway guy says he explored a variety of options, but with the other company demanding a huge licensing fee -- on top of all the other challenges that this project has come across, it just couldn't work out.

A company at this gentle stage of stabilizing it's financial standards, in our size and with our resources, could waste all of it's assets trying to defend it's activity in those types of lawsuits. As hard as it is for us, we just can't take the risk to get lost in lawsuits instead of fulfilling Makeway and taking care of it's future. we had to sacrifice our best part in order not to get in financial troubles that might (and most likely) risk the future of Makeway.

And that's why, this week, I (for the first time) had to explain to my kids just what patents are, and just how damaging they can be. It's something I've obviously written about for years, but didn't expect that it would impact my kids at this age. And, yes, in the grand scheme of things, Makeway not being able to deliver this one fun, but not essential, part is not the end of the world. But it really does show how ridiculous patents are. Why does such a thing need a patent? It doesn't. It's clearly an idea that multiple people were coming up with. Just let everyone develop their own versions and compete in the marketplace.

Filed Under: competition, marble run, patents, toys
Companies: makeway

Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place

from the stop-expecting-it-to dept

Tech platforms, especially the largest ones, have a problem—there’s a lot of offensive junk online. Many lawmakers on Capitol Hill keep coming back to the same solution: blaming Section 230.

What lawmakers don’t notice is that a lot of the people posting that offensive junk get stopped, again and again, thanks to Section 230. During a March hearing in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, lawmakers expressed concern over some of the worst content that’s online, including extremist content, falsehoods about COVID-19, and election disinformation.

But it’s people spreading just this type of content that often file lawsuits trying to force their content back online. These unsuccessful lawsuits show that Section 230 has repeatedly stopped disinformation specialists from disseminating their harmful content.

Section 230 stands for the simple idea that you’re responsible for your own speech online—not the speech of others. It also makes clear that online operators, from the biggest platforms to the smallest niche websites, have the right to curate the speech that appears on their site.

Users dedicated to spreading lies or hateful content are a tiny minority, but weakening Section 230 will make their job easier. When content moderation doesn’t go their way—and it usually doesn’t—they’re willing to sue. As the cases below show, Section 230 is rightfully used to quickly dismiss their lawsuits. If lawmakers weaken Section 230, these meritless suits will linger in court longer, costing online services more and making them leery of moderate the speech of known litigious users. That result could make it easier for these users to spread lies online.

Section 230 Protects Moderators Who Remove Hateful Content

James Domen identifies as a “former homosexual,” who now identifies as heterosexual. He created videos that describe being LGBTQ as a harmful choice, and shared them on Vimeo, a video-sharing website. In one video, he described the “homosexual lifestyle” this way: “It’ll ruin your life. It’s devastating. It’ll destroy your life.”

In at least five videos, Domen also condemned a California bill that would have expanded a ban on “sexual orientation change efforts,” or SOCE. Medical and professional groups have for decades widely recognized that efforts to change sexual orientation in various ways, sometimes called “conversion therapy,” are harmful.

Vimeo removed Domen’s videos. In a letter to Domen’s attorney, Vimeo explained that SOCE-related videos “disseminate irrational and stereotypical messages that may be harmful to people in the LGBT community,” because it treated homosexuality as “a mental disease or disorder” that “can and should be treated.” Vimeo bans “hateful and discriminatory” content, and company officials told Domen directly that, in their view, his videos fell into that category.

Domen sued, claiming that his civil rights were violated. Because of Section 230, Domen’s lawsuit was quickly thrown out. He appealed, but in March, the federal appeals court also ruled against him.

Forcing a website to publish Domen’s anti-LGBTQ content might serve Domen’s interests, but only at the expense of many other users of the platform. No website should have to face a lengthy and expensive lawsuit over such claims. Because of Section 230, they don’t.

Some lawmakers have proposed carving civil rights claims out of Section 230. But that could have the unintended side effect of allowing lawsuits like Domen’s to continue—making tech companies more skittish about removing anti-LGBTQ content.

Section 230 Protects Moderators Who Remove Covid-19 Falsehoods

Marshall Daniels hosts a YouTube channel in which he has stated that Judaism is “a complete lie” which was “made up for political gain.” Daniels, who broadcasts as “Young Pharaoh,” has also called Black Lives Matter “an undercover LGBTQ Marxism psyop that is funded by George Soros.”

In April 2020, Daniels live-streamed a video claiming that vaccines contain “rat brains,” that HIV is a “biologically engineered, terroristic weapon,” and that Anthony Fauci “has been murdering motherfuckers and causing medical illnesses since the 1980s.”

In May 2020, Daniels live-streamed a video called “George Floyd, Riots & Anonymous Exposed as Deep State Psyop for NOW.” In that video, he claimed that nationwide protests over George Floyd’s murder were “the result of an operation to cause civil unrest, unleash chaos, and turn the public against [President Trump].” According to YouTube, he also stated the COVID-19 pandemic and Floyd’s murder “were covert operations orchestrated by the Freemasons,” and accused Hillary Clinton and her aide John Podesta of torturing children. Near the video’s end, Daniels stated: “If I catch you talking shit about Trump, I might whoop your ass fast.”

YouTube removed both videos, saying that they violated its policy on harassment and bullying.  

Daniels sued YouTube, demanding account reinstatement and damages. He claimed that YouTube amounted to a state actor, and had thus violated his First Amendment rights. (Suggesting that courts treat social media companies as the government has no basis in the law, which the 9^th Circuit reaffirmed is the case last year.)

In March, a court dismissed most of Daniels’ claims under Section 230. That law protects online services—both large and small—from getting sued for refusing to publish content they don’t want to publish.

Again, Internet freedom was protected by Section 230. No web host should be forced to carry false and threatening content, or Qanon-based conspiracy theories, like those created by Daniels. Section 230 protects moderators who kick out such content.

Section 230 Protects Moderators Who Remove Election Disinformation

The Federal Agency of News LLC, or FAN, is a Russian corporation that purports to be a news service. FAN was founded in the same building as Russia’s Internet Research Agency, or IRA; the IRA became the subject of a criminal indictment in February 2018 for its efforts to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election.

The founder and first General Director of FAN was Aleksandra Yurievna Krylova, who is wanted by the FBI for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Later in 2018, the FBI unsealed a criminal complaint against FAN’s chief accountant, Elena Khusyaynova. In that complaint, the FBI said that Federal Agency of News was not so different than the IRA. Both were allegedly part of “Project Lakhta,” a Russian operation to interfere with political and electoral systems both in Russia “and other countries, including the United States.”

Facebook shut more than 270 Russian language accounts and pages in April of 2018, including FAN’s account. Company CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the pages “were controlled by the IRA,” which had “repeatedly acted deceptively and tried to manipulate people in the U.S., Europe, and Russia.” The IRA used a “network of hundreds of fake accounts to spread divisive content and interfere in the U.S. presidential election.” Facebook’s Chief Security Officer stated that the IRA had spent about $100,000 on Facebook ads in the United States.

At this point, one might think that anyone with alleged connections to the Internet Research Agency, including FAN, would lie low. But that’s not what happened. Instead, FAN’s new owner, Evgeniy Zubarev, hired U.S. lawyers and filed a lawsuit against Facebook, claiming that his civil rights had been violated. He demanded that FAN’s account be reinstated, and that FAN be paid damages.

A court threw the FAN lawsuit out on Section 230 grounds. The plaintiffs re-filed a new complaint, which the court again threw out.

Small Companies And Users Can’t Afford These Bogus Lawsuits 

Weakening Section 230 will give frivolous lawsuits like the ones above a major boost. Small companies, with no margin for extra legal costs, will be under more pressure to capitulate to bogus demands over their content moderation.

Section 230 protects basic principles, whether you run a blog with a comment section, an email list with 100 users, or a platform serving millions. You have the right to moderate. You have the right to speak your own mind, and serve other users, without following the dictates of a government commission—and without fear of a bankrupting lawsuit. 

Innovation, experimentation and real competition are the best paths forward to a better internet. More lawsuits over everyday content moderation won’t get us there.

Reposted from the EFF's Deeplinks blog.

Filed Under: bad stuff online, content moderation, internet, section 230

Ohio Republicans Are Using State Budget Battle To Kill Community Broadband

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

Frustrated by high prices, a lack of competition, spotty coverage, and terrible customer service, some 750 US towns and cities have built some form of community owned and operated broadband network. While not some silver bullet, studies have shown these networks often provider faster, cheaper, better service than most apathetic regional telecom monopolies. They also tend to put money back into the local community, as well as being somewhat more accountable given they're run by folks with a vested interest in the community they live in.

Instead of preventing such efforts by offering better, faster, cheaper service, giant regional mono/duopolies ISPs like AT&T, Charter, and Comcast have historically found it cheaper to write and lobby easily corruptible state lawmakers. There are currently laws in 17 states either hamstringing or outright banning cities from building their own networks, almost all of them ghost written by industry.

As COVID highlighted the essential nature of broadband, some states have realized the counterproductive nature of such proposals. For example Arkansas and Washington both eliminated their state restrictions earlier this year, arguing that such creative, local niche solutions can go a long way in shoring up access and lowering prices.

But Ohio is taking a different tack. State Republicans embedded a new amendment in the state budget earlier this month that would effectively outlaw community broadband in the state. The provision is so unpopular among consumers, none of the Republicans pushing for it are willing to affix their name to it:

"On June 9, the Ohio Senate approved a new budget bill. But a last-minute amendment shoveled into the bill is angering state residents and locally-owned ISPs, who say it’s an underhanded effort by AT&T and Charter to protect their regional broadband monopolies...Ohio’s restrictions were implemented without any public notice or input. One local Cleveland outlet noted that the effort is so unpopular, Ohio Republicans sponsoring the amendment are refusing to even officially acknowledge their support.

Like many ISP-backed proposals, it's a "death by a thousand cuts" approach that pretends to not be an outright ban. The Ohio restrictions would for example prohibit the building of any community broadband in areas where 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up broadband is already available. But such a standard doesn't even meet the FCC's already fairly pathetic definition of broadband (25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up), and given that expensive, capped satellite broadband is available in most areas, it allows a regional cable broadband monopoly like Charter to proclaim most places as already "served," and therefore bans community broadband.

The restrictions also prohibit any community-owned and operated ISP from utilizing taxpayer resources (even if voters wanted to), as well as prohibiting such operations from using federal money to fund operations (something that undermines the point of many COVID relief initiatives, and attempts to scuttle planned community broadband funding in the looming Biden broadband plan). While nobody wants to acknowledge their support of the amendment, several Ohio lawmakers previously worked on government policy and lobbying for Time Warner Cable, now Charter.

If you sit down with most voters and ask them whether Comcast or AT&T should be dictating what their town or city can or can't do with their own infrastructure and resources, they'd quite correctly tell you that AT&T and Comcast should go to hell. So instead, large ISPs hire an army of economists, consultants, and think tankers (usually via dodgy proxy organizations with names like "Very Sincere Taxpayer Lovers United") happy to try and claim that community broadband is always a taxpayer boondoggle -- unnecessary because private sector US broadband is just that innovative and wonderful.

Most of these critics fixate relentlessly on the idea that community broadband is "government run amok" (it's not) or "socialism" (it's not, many such efforts are public/private partnerships or utility backed), while ignoring that incumbent ISPs like AT&T are not only bone grafted to the government (see: the NSA) but get countless billions in tax cuts, subsidies, and regulatory favors in exchange for fiber networks that always mysteriously wind up half deployed.

As in, these telecom-backed stunt policy groups and consultants really care about taxpayer waste when it's a frustrated town and city forced to get into the broadband business due to market failure, yet disappear from the conversation entirely when it comes to discussing how far, far more state and federal taxpayer money is going to giant national ISPs which then waste it with minimal accountability.

But honestly Ohio Republicans couldn't even be bothered to take this usual disingenuous route. They just shoveled Charter and AT&T's agenda into a budget bill without telling the public, and hoped nobody would really notice. The Ohio House and Senate now have until June 30 to reconcile House and Senate budget bills and strip out the offending language. Local community owned ISPs like Fairlawn Gig (which runs on the back of a local utility) are begging Ohio residents to call their representatives to complain, but it's not sure their concerns will be heard over the din of the daily US news cycle.

Filed Under: community broadband, competition, ohio

Daily Deal: The Complete 2021 Learn Linux Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Complete 2020 Learn Linux Bundle has 12 courses to help you learn Linux OS concepts and processes. You'll start with an introduction to Linux and progress to more advanced topics like shell scripting, data encryption, supporting virtual machines, and more. Other courses cover Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 (RHEL 8), virtualizing Linux OS using Docker, AWS, and Azure, how to build and manage an enterprise Linux infrastructure, and much more. It's on sale for $59.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Disproving The Nonsense About The FBI & Jan. 6th Would Be Easier If The FBI Didn't Have A History Of Entrapping People In Made Up Plots

from the you-guys-made-this-worse dept

There's a very, very dumb conspiracy theory making the rounds -- and I want to be very clear on this -- that has zero evidence to support it, that the FBI was actually behind the January 6th invasion of the Capitol. It was originally reported by a wacky extremist news organization that I won't even bother naming here, and then got a lot more attention when Fox News made it a story via Tucker Carlson's show. The underlying confusion is that a (former Trump admin official who was let go after attending a conference with white nationalists but then later appointed to a new job within the Trump White House) reporter completely misunderstood what "unindicted co-conspirator" means in various charging documents.

What it generally means are people the government has not yet charged, and who they don't want to name so they don't tip them off (or where they don't yet know who they are, or don't have enough evidence to charge, or for a variety of other reasons). What it absolutely never means, is an undercover FBI agent or informant. Those people are not ever described as unindicted co-conspirator. But the reporter somehow got it into his head that this meant they were FBI agents, and then went to town with a conspiracy theory blaming the FBI for the insurrection, claiming that it was designed to "frame the entire MAGA movement."

As noted, this is false, and there is no evidence to support this. At all. It's a fiction of imagination from someone who has no idea what he's talking about, and of course Tucker Carlson ran with it, because that's what Tucker Carlson does.

But... here's the thing: it would be a hell of a lot easier to debunk this nonsense if the FBI (especially since 9/11) didn't have a depressingly long history of... setting up fake terrorist plots in order to entrap people to get big headlines around an arrest of someone who never had any means to actually carry out the attack. We've covered examples of these kinds of FBI activities for years. We've written about examples of this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

No doubt, what the FBI does in those cases is disgusting and highly questionable. It often involves them searching out people who are either mentally troubled or really desperate, and then proposing they get involved in a completely fictional terrorist plot -- a plot that the individuals would have no possible chance of actually carrying out on their own. The undercover FBI agents (or the confidential informant working for the FBI) then proceed to do all the actual "planning" including buying any of the necessary materials and getting all the details in order. Then, after the planning has reached a certain point and the sucker is bought in on the plan, they're arrested, and the FBI claims it "stopped" a terrorist attack -- which usually gives the FBI lots of glowing press attention.

Of course, the reality is that there was no threat. There was no actual plot. There is never any ability to actually carry anything out. The weapons or bombs or whatever are all faked or never actually in existence. It's all a shadow play so the FBI can try to get some headlines and pretend they're doing something.

But that's clearly not what happened with January 6th. For one thing, the events of January 6th actually happened. The Capitol was actually invaded. Damage was actually done. If the FBI was planning it as per their usual homegrown plots, no actual attack would have happened. Also, if you look at the pattern of who the FBI has gone after with these plots... it's not really been the Trump supporting MAGA militia type.

Either way, though, people wouldn't have to be doing this big silly debunking of this kind of nonsense conspiracy theory if the FBI didn't actually have a track record of doing this kind of thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

So, you know, perhaps they should stop doing that.

Filed Under: conspiracy theory, doj, entrapment, fbi, january 6th, own plot, tucker carlson, undercover

Former Trump Lawyer Facing Sanctions In Michigan Now Saying The Things She Said Were Opinions Are Actually Facts

from the chronic-self-inflicted-foot-injuries-now-traveling-to-mouth-area dept

The Kraken is on the move!

Former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell -- last seen being sued by a voting machine maker after making (and filing) a bunch of baseless claims about a "stolen" election -- is headed to Detroit, Michigan. There will be some more Michigan-focused courtroom action, but it won't be Powell playing offense.

Sidney Powell and other attorneys who defended former President Trump’s false claims about the 2020 presidential election have been summoned for a sanctions hearing in a Michigan federal court.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker ordered the attorneys to appear at a hearing on July 6, according to court documents.

This case for sanctions has been building for months, beginning late last year after Powell (and several others) filed a bunch of BS lawsuits in Michigan courts seeking to overturn election results. The state's sanctions complaints were compiled with the inadvertent assistance of Powell herself, whose response to Dominion's defamation lawsuit was to assert that no reasonable person would believe the outlandish claims she made about the voting machine maker.

Unfortunately for Powell, that group of "reasonable" people apparently included the judges presiding over lawsuits she filed late last year. Claiming you're really in the business of dispensing hyperbole and rhetoric may play well when faced with defamation allegations, but it plays much worse in courts where you're the plaintiff trying to convince a judge these same statements are potentially verifiable facts.

Even with all of this going on, Powell just won't quit making things worse for herself. As Jacob Sullum reports for Reason, Powell recently attended a conference in Dallas, Texas where she claimed all the stuff she just finished telling Dominion was nothing more than heated rhetoric mostly free of facts is actually a bunch of facts she stands behind.

"I don't think they realized that some of us litigators were going to catch on and hold their feet to the fire and expose what really happened," Powell said during the "For God & Country: Patriot Roundup" gathering on Memorial Day weekend, which also featured prominent election conspiracy theorists such as former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Florida congressman Allen West, and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R–Texas). She predicted that Dominion's lawsuit will be dismissed because "we meant what we said, and we have the evidence to back it up." If the lawsuit proceeds, she added, "then we will get discovery against Dominion, and we will be on offense."

That's not what she told the court. Playing defense against Dominion, Powell said:

[I]t was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern…

But in front of this crowd of conspiracy theorists and Trump torch-carriers, Powell claims to have the "evidence" to back up her "opinions and legal theories." Well, we'll see how that plays out when she returns to court to continue facing Dominion's lawsuit. We'll also see what effect being sanctioned for filing bullshit lawsuits in Michigan will have on the lawsuit she didn't file. Chances are, none of this will work out well for Powell. Trying to have it both ways just isn't going to work.

Filed Under: defamation, facts, opinion, sanctions, sidney powell, the kraken

Study Shows Blood Pattern Analysis Is Just More Guesswork Posing As Scientific Evidence

from the blood-suckers dept

Another form of evidence used in criminal cases is being called into question. The latest (via CJ Ciaramella) to receive the dubious honor of being designated "dubious" is blood spatter analysis. This brings it in line with a long list of other things long-considered (and, in too many cases, still considered) to be evidence worthy of introducing into a court of law, joining bite mark analysis, hair analysis, um… pair of blue jeans analysis... and even the old standby, DNA analysis.

The problem with all of these sciences is that they're mostly subjective. Sure, they look pretty science-y. A lot of math and charts and lab coats and computers are scattered all over the place. Inscrutable printouts are carried by expert witnesses with years of experience under their belts. They show up in court and make claims about certainty of matches or probability of X contributing to Y, much of which can't be easily contested because, as mentioned earlier, the results are open to interpretation.

Despite this, a lot of what's called forensic science still ends up being used as evidence in criminal cases, even though it's more accurate to refer to it as forensic guesswork. Blood spatter analysis is no exception. This study [PDF] for Forensic Science International says the lack of solid standards in the blood pattern analysis field have resulted in experts looking at the same blood patterns but all seeing something different.

We investigated conclusions made by 75 practicing bloodstain pattern analysts on 192 bloodstain patterns selected to be broadly representative of operational casework, resulting in 33,005 responses to prompts and 1760 short text responses. Our results show that conclusions were often erroneous and often contradicted other analysts. On samples with known causes, 11.2% of responses were erroneous. The results show limited reproducibility of conclusions: 7.8% of responses contradicted other analysts.

That's a problem. How big of a problem is unknown. Actually, a lot about this is unknown. Differing opinions on blood spatter evidence can turn a suicide into a homicide or turn a killing from an act of self-defense to a murder. There's actual freedom riding on these interpretations, so it's crucial they be correct. And yet no one in the field (or in the court system) seems too concerned about ensuring this evidence is correctly analyzed.

Although BPA has been admissible as expert testimony for more than 150 years, the accuracy and reproducibility of conclusions by BPA analysts have never been rigorously assessed in a large-scale study.

In 2009, the National Research Council condemned blood pattern analysis as "more subjective than scientific." Nothing changed. In 2016, it called for testing of error rates in criminal forensic science. Again, nothing changed. Small studies were performed but nothing on the scale of this one, which involved 75 practicing blood pattern analysts and 192 samples. The results are far from encouraging. In fact, they point to enough of a margin of error that this sort of analysis should be prohibited from being introduced as evidence until standards are developed and put into practice that eliminates the subjectivity on display here.

But, given the 150 years of use and the minimum of interest in developing standards, this will also likely lead to nothing changing. What this research does do, at least, is give defendants something to use to challenge questionable evidence and questionable statements by prosecutors' expert witnesses.

Filed Under: blood pattern analysis, blood splatter analysis, evidence, junk science

Shake Shack Manager Sues NYPD Officers, Union Reps For Falsely Claiming His Business Sold Cops Poisoned Shakes

from the shake-(dead)weight dept

Last June, as anti-police brutality protests were sweeping across the nation following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, some NYPD officers claimed it was the public that was actually violent and abusive.

This supposed anti-police sentiment manifested itself -- at least in this case -- as "poisoned" milkshakes served to NYPD officers by a local Shake Shack.

The officers complained of "not feeling well" before being hospitalized and later released, the NYPD said in a statement to USA TODAY, and Shake Shack said via Twitter that it was "horrified" and working with police.

Now, were the roles reversed and officers accused of poisoning Shake Shack employees, law enforcement officials and their union reps would have been telling the public to wait until all the facts were in before passing judgment on the alleged poisoners.

But when it's cops allegedly being poisoned, these officials couldn't wait to start passing judgment. The Detectives Endowment Association sent out this tweet (since deleted):

Tonight, three of our fellow officers were intentionally poisoned by one or more workers at the Shake Shack at 200 Broadway in Manhattan.

Pat Lynch, the head of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, sent out both a statement and this tweet (also since deleted):

#BREAKING When NYC police officers cannot even take meal without coming under attack, it is clear that environment in which we work has deteriorated to a critical level. We cannot afford to let our guard down for even a moment.

Less than six hours later, the facts were in.

New York City police determined there was nothing criminal afoot when three officers got Shake Shack milkshakes that might have been accidentally tainted with a cleanser.

Police came to the determination after “a thorough investigation,” NYPD Chief of Detectives Rodney Harrison said in a tweet early Tuesday.

The officers complained of feeling ill upon sipping the shakes and ended up going to a hospital. Harrison said they were fine.

I assume they're all feeling well enough to handle a lawsuit. Because that's what they're getting. The manager of the falsely-accused Shake Shack, Marcus Gillum, is suing [PDF] a whole bunch of officers and union figureheads for defamation. The list of defendants is quite the read, with a few names bearing titles of ignobility:

PATRICK LYNCH, THE POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, INC., DETECTIVES’ ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., “Jane Doe NYPD Officer who ordered a Strawberry Shake”, “John Doe NYPD Officer who ordered a vanilla shake”, “Richard Roe NYPD OFFICER” who ordered a Cherry Shake”, “NYPD Sergeant who stated When Did You Add The Bleach”, “NYPD Sergeant Who called in ESU”, NYPD Officers JOHN DOE 1-20 (Names and Number of whom are unknown at this time), and CITY OF NEW YORK

Ah, yes, NYPD Sergeant Who Stated When Did You Add The Bleach, First of his Name, Lord of Lower Manhattan, Guardian of the Blue Line. Look at him now. He's no more than a common defendant. And there will be no qualified immunity to protect him or the others sued. There's no good faith exception that permits slander.

Of course, this still has to pass judicial scrutiny and motions to dismiss. And it could be argued the kneejerk responses issued by the police unions were based on the facts as they were understood at the time, even if said facts later turned out to be misunderstandings, if not actual falsehoods.

But there's some interesting stuff in the lawsuit -- some details that should have given the cops who thought they were poisoned some reasons to believe this had nothing to do with Shake Shack or its employees deliberately seeking to harm them.

Since the orders were placed using a mobile application, and not in person, Mr. GILLIAM and the other Shake Shack employees could not have known that police officers had placed the order.

Since the order was already packaged and waiting for pickup when Officers Strawberry Shake, Vanilla Shake and Cherry Shake arrived at the Shake Shack, Mr. GILLIAM and the other Shake Shack employees could not have “dosed” the milkshakes after they arrived.

But that was the accusation soon after the cops took possession of their order. These were serious allegations but the cops only treated it half-seriously. You'd think well-trained officers with all their expertise would know to preserve the crime scene. But, no. The alleged criminal evidence -- the "poisoned" shakes -- were tossed into an outside garbage can.

Following their disposal of the evidence, the cops decided to turn the Shake Shack into a crime scene (albeit one missing some very crucial evidence), seemingly for the sole purpose of keeping customers out and making the site appear dangerous.

The Sergeant then called in the Emergency Service Unit to set up a crime scene at Shake Shack.

LOL. This paragraph:

At approximately 9:20 p.m.—nearly two hours after Officers Strawberry Shake, Vanilla Shake and Cherry Shake first got the “sour” shakes— NYPD’s Emergency Service Unit arrived and set up a crime scene at the Shake Shack.

Which leads directly to this equally-hilarious image:

The discarded evidence was tested and cleared by the ESU. But by that point, the social media damage had already been done.

No qualified immunity defense for defamation. But qualified immunity will still be raised because there are also some Constitutional claims in the lawsuit. The manager of the Shake Shack was arrested by NYPD officers and questioned for more than an hour at the precinct station. He was finally released nearly three hours after officers detained him. There's your Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations. And false arrest is also a state law claim, which might cause problems for these officers even if they're given immunity for the Constitutional violations. There's a First Amendment claim thrown in for good measure but it's not really fleshed out in the lawsuit.

Whether or not this Shake Shack manager wins, this should hopefully remind cops it's foolish to draw conclusions before all the facts are in. And while nearly anyone with an internet connection can drag a business and its operators through the mud based on bad information, only a special few -- New York's finest -- can effect an arrest on top of it.

Filed Under: blame, defamation, marcus gillum, milkshakes, nypd, police
Companies: shake shack

As Predicted, Smaller Media Outlets Are Getting Screwed By Australia's Link Tax

from the exactly-as-we-warned dept

Ever since the giant news organizations, led by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., began pushing the ridiculous idea of forcing Google and Facebook (and often just Google and Facebook) to pay a "link tax," we've been pointing out that while this might be a windfall of free money for the news giants, small news organizations (like, um, us) would likely get totally screwed over. With Australia leading the charge of silliness and passing its link tax, we're discovering that our predictions were exactly correct.

The big Australian publishers, News Corp. and NINE, are making out like bandits, while the smaller publications? Not so much.

A long-term commercial deal between Facebook and Google and Guardian Australia is expected to be completed in a matter of days, adding to a raft of agreements struck between large tech companies and major media outlets since February. While companies like Nine Entertainment Co, News Corp Australia and Seven West Media are already implementing plans off the back of the deals, there is increasing concern among smaller companies that they still have not been remunerated fairly.

Of course, this isn't really surprising. In fact, the real worry should be that the administrative costs for the internet companies to have to figure out how to compensate smaller publishers is so unworthy of the hassle, that those smaller publications will just start to be excluded en masse from Google and Facebook, once again serving the interests of the largest publishers, and not actually helping the cause of journalism at all.

Filed Under: australia, link tax, rupert murdoch, wealth transfer
Companies: facebook, google, news corp.

DOJ Asks DC Court To Compel Decryption Of Device Seized In A Capitol Raid Case

from the be-careful-what-you-ask-for dept

The DOJ is testing some waters it may not want to be troubling, not with hundreds of prosecutions stemming from the January 6 Capitol raid on the docket. It has asked the DC court to compel a defendant to decrypt his laptop so the FBI can search it for evidence. (h/t Marcy Wheeler)

The government is seeking an All Writs Act order [PDF] forcing the alleged device owner to unlock the device using either his face or his passcode.

The government respectfully moves for an order compelling the defendant to produce a critical piece of evidence – his Microsoft Surface Pro laptop computer – in an unencrypted state. The government proposes a two-step process: First, the defendant should be ordered to place his face in front of the computer’s camera, so that the computer can be biometrically unlocked. Second, if the biometric attempt does not unlock the computer, the defendant should be ordered to type his passcode or PIN into the computer.

Having failed to obtain consent, the government is now hoping to achieve this by force. This isn't a particularly wise idea considering how many cases it's currently juggling in this circuit. If the court decides this violates the Fifth Amendment, it may negatively affect other prosecutions involving secured devices.

The government argues there's no Fifth Amendment issue here.

The requested relief would not violate the defendant’s Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights. With respect to the Fourth Amendment, there is only minimal intrusion on the defendant’s privacy, and there is probable cause that the defendant’s face can unlock the Subject Device (and lead to the recovery of relevant evidence). With respect to the Fifth Amendment, Reffitt’s entering his password into the Subject Device does not violate his privilege against self-incrimination, because his act of production would not be testimonial, since the only potentially testimonial component implicit in his act of producing the unlocked/unencrypted device is a foregone conclusion.

This will come down to what the court feels the phrase "foregone conclusion" actually means. While the act itself (either presenting biometrics or providing a passcode) isn't necessarily testimonial, it does give the government access to evidence that might be used against the person being compelled to grant access to this information. At least one court has found that entering passwords and providing evidence are basically the same thing, since the first naturally leads to the latter. The government has no interest in the password, even though that's what it is seeking to compel. It's interested in what having that password entered will provide.

If the only foregone conclusion the government needs to have in its possession is who owns the computer, obviously compelled decryption will help establish ownership. The government appears to know whose computer it is. The Surface Pro targeted by the proposed order displays the name of the defendant (Guy Reffitt) on the screen when opened. And, despite Reffitt (initially) telling investigators otherwise, one of Reffitt's family members confirmed it belonged to the defendant.

Having that much information on hand might be enough to compel decryption if the court decides the only foregone conclusion the government needs to reach is the most likely owner of the device it's seeking to unlock. But if the foregone conclusion bar is set higher -- a likely source of criminal evidence -- things will get much more difficult for the government.

The government is basing this request on the theory that recordings captured at the Capitol by the suspect's helmet-mounted camera were moved to the laptop for storage prior to their deletion from the camera. However, the government seized multiple devices from the defendant's home, including three phones, two other laptops, and one desktop computer. Most of those have been searched already and determined they don't hold any relevant data.

The government is assuming -- based on statements by family members who viewed recordings on that device -- that's where the recordings it is seeking are now located. But it won't know this until after it performs a search. And it can't perform a search until the device is unlocked. This assumption is credible, but the files could have been uploaded to the cloud and viewed on the device, which means the files the government concludes (in a foregone way) must reside on the laptop possibly aren't actually there.

If the court decides the government doesn't have more than a hunch at this point, it may deny this order. And it may decide to lay down some Fifth Amendment ground rules that eliminate compelled production as an option. This is a roll of the Constitutional dice the government may later regret -- a rerun of its failure to compel decryption assistance in the San Bernardino case. But if it goes the other way, it will become that much easier for the government to pursue prosecutions in a district that handles an outsized portion of the DOJ's cases.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, 5th amendment, all writs act, decryption, doj, encryption, facial recognition, january 6th, unlocking