News

Tuesday 2025-12-02

10:00 AM

Pluralistic: Meta's new top EU regulator is contractually prohibited from hurting Meta's feelings (01 Dec 2025) [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]


Today's links



A 1950s image of a cop with a patrol car lecturing a boy on a bicycle. Both the cop's head and the boy's head have been replaced with the head of Mark Zuckerberg's metaverse avatar. The ground has been replaced with a 'code waterfall' effect as seen in the Wachowskis' 'Matrix' movies. The background has been replaced with the glaring red eye of HAL 9000 from Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey.' The cop's uniform and car have been decorated to resemble the livery of the Irish Garda (police) and a Garda logo has been placed over the right breast of the cop's uniform shirt.

Meta's new top EU regulator is contractually prohibited from saying mean things about Meta (permalink)

"Regulatory capture" is one of those concepts that can seem nebulous and abstract. How can you really know when a regulator has failed to protect you because they were in bed with the companies they were supposed to be regulating, and when this is just because they're bad at their job. "Never attribute to malice," etc etc.

The difficulty of pinning down real instances of regulatory capture is further complicated by the arguments of right-wing economists, who claim that regulatory capture is inevitable, that companies will always grow to the point where they can overpower the state and use it to shut down smaller companies before they can become a threat. They use this as an argument for abolishing all regulation, rather than, you know, stopping monopolies from growing until they are more powerful than the state:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/05/regulatory-capture/

Despite this confusion, there are times when regulatory capture is anything but subtle. Especially these times, when the corporate world, spooked by the pandemic-era surge in antitrust enforcement, have launched a gloves-off/mask-off offensive to simply take over their governments, abandoning any pretext of being responsive to democratically accountable processes or agencies.

You've got David Sacks, Trump's billionaire AI czar, who is directing American AI policy while holding (hundreds of?) millions of dollars worth of stock in companies that stand to directly benefit from his work in the US government:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/30/technology/david-sacks-white-house-profits.html?unlocked_article_code=1.5E8.Nb2d.3L204EF4nliq

Sacks has threatened the New York Times, demanding that they "abandon" the story about his conflicts of interest:

https://protos.com/david-sacks-sends-silly-legal-threat-to-the-new-york-times/

And he's hired the law-firm that is at the center of a decades-long open conspiracy to end press freedom in America, bankrolled and overseen by the same people who planned and executed the destruction of American abortion rights:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/03/17/actual-malice/#happy-slapping

This isn't a strictly US affair, either. In the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer rang in 2025 by firing the country's top competition regulator and replacing him with the former head of Amazon UK, one of the country's most notorious monopolists, whose tax evasion, labor abuses, and anticompetitive mergers and tactics had been on the Competition and Markets Authority's agenda for years:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/01/22/autocrats-of-trade/#dingo-babysitter

Today, this same swindle is playing out in Canada. Competition Commissioner Matthew Boswell – recently endowed with the most sweeping enforcement powers of any competition regulator in the world – has resigned early. Now, Canada's monopolists are openly calling for one of their own top execs to take over the office for the next five years, citing a bizarre Canadian tradition of alternating between civil servants and revolving-door corporate insiders in turn:

https://www.donotpassgo.ca/p/competition-commissioner-matthew

However, there is one country that always, always brings home the gold in the Regulatory Capture Olympics: Ireland. Ireland had the misfortune to establish itself as a tax haven, meaning it makes pennies by helping the worst corporations in the world (especially US Big Tech companies) hide billions from global tax authorities. Being a tax haven sucks, because tax havens must also function as crime havens.

After all, the tech companies that pretend to be Irish have no loyalty to the country – they are there solely because Ireland will help them cheat the rest of the world. What's more, any company that can hire lawyers to do the paperwork to let it pretend that it's Irish this week could pay those lawyers to pretend that it is Cypriot, or Maltese, or Dutch, or Luxembourgeois next week. To keep these American companies from skipping town, Ireland must bend its entire justice system to the facilitation of all of American tech companies' crimes.

Of course, there is no class of crime that American tech companies commit more flagrantly or consequentially than the systematic, ruthless invasion of our privacy. Nine years ago, the EU passed the landmark General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a big, muscular privacy law that bans virtually all of the data-collection undertaken by America's tech companies. However, because these companies pretend they are Irish, they have been able to move all GDPR enforcement to Ireland, where the Data Protection Commissioner could always be relied upon to let these companies get away with murder:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/15/finnegans-snooze/#dirty-old-town

If you have formed the (widespread) opinion that the GDPR is worse than useless, responsible for nothing more than an endless stream of bullshit "cookie consent" pop-ups, blame the Irish DPC. American tech companies have pretended that they are allowed to substitute these cookie popups for doing the thing the GDPR demands on them (not spying on you at all). This is an obvious violation of the GDPR, and the only way an enforcer could possibly fail to see this is if they served a government whose entire economy depended on keeping Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai happy. It's impossible to explain something to a regulator when their paycheck depends on them not understanding it.

Incredibly, Ireland has found a way to make this awful situation even worse. They've appointed Niamh Sweeney, an ex-Meta lobbyist, to the role of Irish Data Protection Commissioner. Her resume includes "six years at Meta, according to her LinkedIn profile. She was head of public policy, Ireland for Facebook before becoming WhatsApp’s director of public policy for Europe, Middle East and Africa":

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/09/17/ex-tech-lobbyist-named-to-data-protection-commission/

In their complaint to the European Commission, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties lays out a devastating case against Sweeney's fitness to serve – the fact that she has broad, deep, obvious conflicts of interest that should automatically disqualify her from the role:

https://www.iccl.ie/digital-data/complaint-v-ireland-to-european-commission-re-process-appointing-ex-meta-lobbyist-as-data-protection-commissioner/#_ftn11

Among other things, Meta execs – like Sweeney – are given piles of stock options and shares in the company. The decisions that Sweeney will be called upon to make as DPC will have a significant and lasting negative effect on Meta's stocks – if Meta is banned from surveilling 500m affluent European consumers, they will make a lot less money.

But that's just for starters. Meta execs also sign contracts that bind them to:

  • Nondisparagement: ex-Meta executives are permanently barred from "making any disparaging, crucial or otherwise detrimental comments to any person or entity concerning [Meta's] products, services or programs; its business affairs, operation, management and financial condition…"

  • Nondisclosure: ex-Meta executives are broadly prohibited from discussing their employment, or disclosing the things they learned while working at the company.

  • Forced arbitration: if Meta believes that a former exec has violated these clauses, they can order the former exec to be silent, and bill them tens of thousands of dollars every time they speak out. Former executives sign away the right to contest these fines and orders in front of a judge; instead, all claims are heard by an "arbitrator" – a corporate lawyer who is paid by Meta and is in charge of deciding whether Meta (who pays their invoices) is right or wrong.

We know about these contractual terms because they have been applied to Sarah Wynn-Williams, a former top Meta exec who published a whistleblower memoir, Careless People, which discloses many of Meta's most terrible practices, from systemic sexual harassment at the highest echelon to a worldwide surveillance collaboration with the Chinese government to complicity in the Rohingya genocide, to the fact that Mark Zuckerberg cheats at Settlers of Catan and his underlings let him win:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/23/zuckerstreisand/#zdgaf

Meta dragged Wynn-Williams in front of Meta's pet arbitrator over the statements in her book (without disputing their truthfulness). The arbitrator has fined Wynn-Williams $111,000,000 for speaking out ($50,000 per violation), and has barred her from promoting her book in any way. The company has ordered her not to testify before the US Congress or the UK Parliament. The clauses in Wynn-Williams contract are very similar (if not identical) to the clauses that the US National Labor Relations Board ruled unenforceable:

https://www.hcamag.com/us/specialization/employment-law/nlrb-rules-metas-7200-confidentiality-agreements-unlawful/499180

Wynn-Williams appeared on stage with me last month at London's Barbican Centre, in a book-tour event moderated by Chris Morris. Whenever we talked about Meta or Careless People, Wynn-Williams would fall silent and assume a blank facial expression, lest she make another statement that would result in Meta seeking another $50,000 from her under the terms of her contract.

In their complaint to the EU, ICCL raises the extremely likely probability that Sweeney is bound by the same contractual terms as Wynn-Williams, meaning that Meta's top regulator in Ireland, the country where Meta pretends to be based, will be contractually prohibited from saying anything that makes Mark Zuckerberg feel bad about himself.

This isn't just a matter for Ireland, either. Given the nature of European federalism, most of Meta's violations of European privacy laws will start with the Irish DPC – in other words, all 500,000,000 Europeans will be forced to complain to someone who is legally barred from upsetting Zuck's digestion.

Tax havens are a global scourge. By allowing American tech companies to evade their taxes around the world, Ireland is complicit in starving countries everywhere of tax revenue they are properly owed. Perhaps even worse than this, though, is the fact that these cod-Irish American companies can always out-compete their domestic rivals all over the world, because those companies have to pay tax, while Meta does not. Ireland has been every bit as important in exporting US Big Tech around the world as the US has been.

But Ireland has another key export, one that is confined to the European Union. Because every tax haven must be a crime haven, and because Big Tech's favorite crime is illegal surveillance, Ireland has exported American tech spying to the whole European Union.

That's how things stand today, and how they've stood since the passage of the GDPR. If you'd asked me a year ago, I would have said that this is as terrible as things could get. But now that Ireland has put an ex-Meta exec in charge of deciding whether Meta is invading Europeans' privacy, without confirming whether this dingo babysitter is even allowed to criticize Meta, it's clear that things could get much worse than I ever imagined.

(Image: Cryteria, CC BY 3.0, modified)


Hey look at this (permalink)



A shelf of leatherbound history books with a gilt-stamped series title, 'The World's Famous Events.'

Object permanence (permalink)

#20yrsago Custom M&Ms: just don’t mention the war, your hometown, or nouns https://memex.craphound.com/2005/11/28/custom-mms-just-dont-mention-the-war-your-hometown-or-nouns/

#20yrsago Sony CD spyware installs and can run permanently, even if you click “Decline” https://blog.citp.princeton.edu/2005/11/28/mediamax-permanently-installs-and-runs-unwanted-software-even-if-user-declines-eula/

#20yrsago Programmers on Sony’s spyware DRM asked for newsgroup help too https://groups.google.com/g/microsoft.public.windowsmedia.sdk/c/kWKbc54lLxo?hl=en&pli=1#cf2c1677c4ce5138

#20yrsago Vacuum-bag dust houses sculpted by former house-cleaner https://web.archive.org/web/20051127031640/http://mocoloco.com/art/archives/001661.php

#20yrsago Sony knew about rootkits 28 days before the story broke https://web.archive.org/web/20051202044828/http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051129_938966.htm

#20yrsago How the next version of the GPL will be drafted https://gplv3.fsf.org/process-definition/

#20yrsago No Xmas for Sony protest badge https://web.archive.org/web/20051203044536/https://gigi.pixcode.com/noxmas.gif

#20yrsago HOWTO defeat Apple’s anti-DVD-screenshot DRM https://highschoolblows.blogspot.com/2005/11/take-screenshot-of-dvd-player-in-os-x.html

#20yrsago EFF: DMCA exemption process is completely bullshit https://web.archive.org/web/20051204031027/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004212.php

#15yrsago Paolo Bacigalupi’s SHIP BREAKER: YA adventure story in a post-peak-oil world https://memex.craphound.com/2010/11/30/paolo-bacigalupis-ship-breaker-ya-adventure-story-in-a-post-peak-oil-world/

#15yrsago Walt Disney World employees demand a living wage https://thedisneyblog.com/2010/12/01/disney-world-union-takes-offensive/

#15yrsago Hotel peephole doctored for easy removal and spying https://www.flickr.com/photos/kentbrew/5221903189/

#15yrsago DC-area county official says TSA patdowns are “homosexual agenda” https://dcist.com/story/10/11/30/loudoun-county-official-tsa-pat-dow/

#15yrsago Dmitry Sklyarov and co. crack Canon’s “image verification” anti-photoshopping tool https://web.archive.org/web/20110808200303/https://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/113010-analyst-finds-flaws-in-canon.html

#15yrsago TSA scans uniformed pilots, but airside caterers bypass all screening https://web.archive.org/web/20101125095532/https://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2010/11/22/tsa_screening_of_pilots/index.html

#15yrsago BP sued in Ecuador for violating the “rights of Nature” https://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/29/headlines/bp_sued_in_ecuadorian_court_for_violating_rights_of_nature

#15yrsago Four horsemen of the information apocalypse: Cohen, Fanning, Johansen and Frankel https://web.archive.org/web/20101126191152/https://time.com/time/specials/packages/printout/0,29239,2032304_2032746_2032903,00.html

#15yrsago Winner-Take-All Politics: how America’s super-rich got so much richer https://memex.craphound.com/2010/11/29/winner-take-all-politics-how-americas-super-rich-got-so-much-richer/

#15yrsago EFF on US domain copyright seizures https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/us-government-seizes-82-websites-draconian-future

#15yrsago Where’s Molly: heartbreaking reunion with developmentally disabled sister institutionalized 47 years ago https://web.archive.org/web/20101129193304/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/28/sunday/main7096335.shtml

#15yrsago “Death-row inmate” seeks last meal advice on Amazon message-board https://web.archive.org/web/20101130212132/http://www.amazon.com/tag/health/forum/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1EO24KZG65FCB&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3FNFNI6N592DI

#10yrsago You’re only an “economic migrant” if you’re poor and brown https://historyned.blog/2015/09/09/the-wandering-academic-or-how-no-one-seems-to-notice-that-i-am-an-economic-migrant/

#10yrsago Pre-mutated products: where did all those “hoverboards” come from? https://memex.craphound.com/2015/11/29/pre-mutated-products-where-did-all-those-hoverboards-come-from/

#10yrsago Millennials are cheap because they’re broke https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/millennials-arent-saving-money-because-theyre-not-making-money/383338/?utm_source=SFFB

#5yrsago Attack Surface in the New York Times https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/30/selmers-train/#times

#5yrsago RÄT https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/30/selmers-train/#honey-morello

#5yrsago Open law and the rule of law https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/30/selmers-train/#rogue-archivist

#5yrsago Twitter is more redeemable than Facebook https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/30/selmers-train/#epistemic-superiority


Upcoming appearances (permalink)

A photo of me onstage, giving a speech, pounding the podium.



A screenshot of me at my desk, doing a livecast.

Recent appearances (permalink)



A grid of my books with Will Stahle covers..

Latest books (permalink)



A cardboard book box with the Macmillan logo.

Upcoming books (permalink)

  • "Unauthorized Bread": a middle-grades graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, 2026

  • "Enshittification, Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It" (the graphic novel), Firstsecond, 2026

  • "The Memex Method," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2026

  • "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book about being a better AI critic, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, June 2026



Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing:

  • "The Reverse Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux about being an effective AI critic. LEGAL REVIEW AND COPYEDIT COMPLETE.

  • "The Post-American Internet," a short book about internet policy in the age of Trumpism. PLANNING.

  • A Little Brother short story about DIY insulin PLANNING


This work – excluding any serialized fiction – is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to pluralistic.net.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.


How to get Pluralistic:

Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Pluralistic.net

Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://pluralistic.net/plura-list

Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

Twitter (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://twitter.com/doctorow

Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/tagged/pluralistic

"When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla" -Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla

READ CAREFULLY: By reading this, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

ISSN: 3066-764X

Visible Minorities: Karen Hill Anton’s Willful Ignorance of History [SNA Japan]

A prominent spokesperson within Japan’s foreign community won’t admit racism happens in Japan unless it rises to the level of racism in America.

SNA (Tokyo) — If you haven’t heard of Karen Hill Anton, she is well known as a commentator on life in Japan. Living in Japan’s countryside since 1975 with an American husband and raising several interracial children, Anton has written and spoken widely on cross-cultural communication, her most famous work being the award-winning memoir The View from Breast Pocket Mountain (2020).

Anton’s accomplishments are impressive. Her LinkedIn lists diversity training consultancies at corporations such as Shinsei Bank, Corning Japan, Eli Lilly, and Citigroup. A Freeman Foundation Fellow and Plenary Speaker at JALT 2022, Anton has also been a member of the Jun Ashida Educational Foundation, the Shizuoka Human Rights Association, and the Board of Overseers at Temple University, Japan. Her gigs include fourteen years writing the “Crossing Cultures” column for the Japan Times, and another 15 writing the “Another Look” column for the Chunichi Shinbun.

She has even advised the highest levels of the Japanese government, serving on the Internationalization in Education and Society Advisory Councils of Prime Ministers Ryutaro Hashimoto and Keizo Obuchi.

I respect this mightily, and said so when I met her at her home in 2024. But I’ve recently discovered her time-honored platform willfully ignores, minimizes, or outright dismisses the experiences of other Non-Japanese (NJ) residents. That’s what this column is about.

Flawed Methodology towards Racism in Japan

In a recent Substack essay, “What Racism is–and isn’t–in Japan” (November 12), she offered herself as an example of a “visible minority,” citing her experiences dealing with people as an African-American woman in Japan.

Despite the essay’s title, Anton notes that Japan does distinguish between people based upon their physical appearance, such as a Japanese shopkeeper who grabbed her dreadlocks and asked if they were real. But for Anton, in Japan it’s more a matter of stupidity, rudeness, or poor behavior in individual interactions, not racism. Defining racism as a systemic, institutionally enforced exclusion from social, educational, or economic participation (as opposed to modern definitions involving the process of differentiation, “othering,” and subordination), Anton concludes that racism is not present in Japan like in the United States.

This sounds plausible until it becomes clear she is working backwards from a conclusion. She claims, “Any foreign child can go to any public school anywhere in Japan.”

That’s manifestly untrue. As reported on Debito.org and in Japanese media for decades, foreign children have been denied entry to Japanese schools. Even visible minorities, e.g., international children with Japanese citizenship, get bullied out of the system, as they are a frequent target of Japan’s self-appointed “hair police”—school officials who force children to cut, straighten, or dye their hair or be suspended. That’s why there are ethnic schools in Japan—so these children can somehow get an education.

How can this happen? Because, even using Anton’s definition of something systemic and institutionally enforced: Japan’s Fundamental Law of Education (Kyoiku Kihon Ho) only guarantees primary and secondary education to citizens (kokumin), and has expressly been cited by authorities to deny foreign children entry.

This should not be news to Anton, since there is, for example, an underclass of now-grown undereducated South American workers less than an hour’s local train ride from her.

Regardless, Anton narrates a story about her fourth-grade daughter dealing with a classmate who “said something mean” to her. In Anton’s telling, all it took was her husband reporting it to the principal and the very next day the boy’s mother visited the Anton household offering cakes, a flower bouquet, and an apologetic son. Anton concluded, “As far as I was concerned, the matter was finished. There was no victim here.”

Good that all was resolved so well, what with the school administration and the classmate’s parents being so cooperative, and that scars from the experience did not seem to linger in Anton’s child. But this experience is hardly universal. Debito.org has catalogued many cases where the parents of visible minorities weren’t so lucky in their experiences either administratively or interpersonally. Some have even resulted in lawsuits with damages awarded, or in suicides. This is all available with a quick Google search, but those facts would spoil Anton’s story.

Anton instead places the onus on NJ residents to avoid being treated this way: “In the places I’ve called home in Japan, if you follow the rules for putting out your garbage, and participate in community obligations like cutting roadside weeds, it could be said your outward appearance causes no particular problems.”

This is reasonable advice, but not a panacea. It also “could be said” there are systemic barriers (such as “Japanese Only” signs and establishments, legally exclusionary government policies, and even bullying neighborhood associations) to visible minorities, harassed and excluded no matter how much effort they put into community effort and assimilation. Plenty of journalistic and government surveys evidence the effects of this.

But the biggest flaw in Anton’s essay is her constant minimizing of discrimination in Japan by comparing it to Jim Crow America of the 1950s.

A commenter to Debito.org responded best: “As a black European in Japan, this habit of American activists to hold racism in the US up as some kind of yardstick is frustrating to say the least. ‘Bad things that happened in the US don’t happen here, therefore there’s no problem,’ is a terrible method of evaluation, not least because the conversation is supposed to be about issues in Japan, no need to drag a different country into it. I’m not the only one whose daily life is a series of frustration and (mostly small) humiliations caused by Japan’s ethnocentrism and resulting racism. ‘At least you’re not getting lynched’ offers no reassurance, it’s only a bizarre way to shift the focus of the conversation to a different, unrelated, topic. It’s like telling a homeless person that they should be glad that at least they’re not terminally ill. Not helpful.”

A Willful Ignorance of History

What spurred me to write this column was the essay’s conclusion, where Anton discounts a famous 1999 lawsuit by a Brazilian journalist named Ana Bortz. Refused entry into a jewelry store in nearby Hamamatsu, Bortz won in Shizuoka District Court on the grounds of “racial discrimination” (jinshu sabetsu). It was the first court decision acknowledging that discrimination in Japan is in fact racial.

Anton’s take? “The woman, who filed a discrimination lawsuit, and won—as well she should have—was described by a foreign journalist as ‘the Rosa Parks of Japan.’ Rosa Parks? Surely not the same Mrs. Rosa Parks, revered by Americans and people of conscience worldwide, for her courage and principled stance in literally sitting down while standing up to injustice. She succeeded in galvanizing a nation in challenging hundreds of years of oppression and institutionalized racism, protected by law, in the most powerful country on earth. That Rosa Parks? I don’t think so.”

That was the last sentence of Anton’s essay: a straw-man argument that because some lazy journalist compared Bortz to Parks, it’s somehow… not racism… enough?

Two issues: One, I worked with Ana Bortz, and she never compared herself to Parks. Two, Anton here commits an egregious sin of omission. She neglected to mention the subsequent Otaru “Japanese Only” Public Baths Case, which my friends and I took all the way to Japan’s Supreme Court, and where lower courts unanimously upheld the Ana Bortz precedent.

Or the subsequent Steve McGowan Case, where an African and African-American were refused entry to an eyeglass shop, and we caught the manager on tape expressly saying he refused McGowan because he is black and he personally hates black people.

Or the Yener Case. Or the Aigi Golf Club Case. Or the umpteen other lawsuits, many successful, regarding racial discrimination. This is disrespectful to the people who toiled for years at great personal cost to fight discrimination.

The Damage Done

I blogged a paragraph-by-paragraph critique of Anton’s essay at Debito.org and notified her via her Substack comments. She responded to say, “Anyone who wants to take me down, scold me, disagree with my experience, perspective, and opinion, is free to.” Hours later she deleted my comment. When I followed up to ask why, she wrote, “I do not want to clutter my site.”

When counterarguments are treated as “clutter,” it’s clear that what’s going on here is a willful ignorance of history on a complex topic.

But given her prominent position, Anton’s antics are hurting people.

Another person texted me to say, “Thank you for calling Karen Anton Hill out. I felt the same after her plenary at JALT a few years ago… The few people I have mentioned this to have not liked me pointing this out about her work. As a darker skinned minority whose kids were brutally bullied, who has experienced real racism, her platform and narrative allows real concerns to be dismissed. Good luck though, she is great at ingratiating herself… and is great at self-promotion. I have learned that I can’t overtly criticize her.”

So I will, with this SNA column. It’s about time.

But why me? Because this denialism goes against all our work. Let me establish some credibility here:

I know about racial discrimination in Japan, particularly towards Japan’s visible minorities, to the point where I was awarded a PhD on it in 2014 from Meiji Gakuin University. My doctoral dissertation became the monograph Embedded Racism: Japan’s Visible Minorities and Racial Discrimination (Lexington Books, 2015, 2nd Ed. 2022). My other books include “Japanese Only”: The Otaru Hot Springs Case and Racial Discrimination (Akashi Shoten, Inc: English and Japanese 2004, updated 2006 and 2013), and Handbook for Newcomers, Migrants, Immigrants and Immigrants to Japan (coauthored with Akira Higuchi; Akashi Shoten 2008, updated 2012).

I have also maintained Debito.org, an active archive of human rights issues in Japan, since 1995, offering more than thirty years of research and historical record. This includes fifteen years of direct fieldwork cataloging “Japanese Only” signs and rules on businesses nationwide in Japan.

My point is this isn’t just my personal experience; I speak with peer-reviewed authority on this subject. That’s why Anton’s column is such a shock—it overwrites a history that people like me have curated over decades to combat the natural revisionism of time.

Granted, we could merely put it down to the shortcomings of a memoirist’s methodology—in other words, “If it didn’t happen to me, it’s not part of my life memoir.” But the blind spot in this methodology is that it dismisses other people’s cases. How many times have you heard naysayers argue something like, “I personally haven’t seen it, so did it really happen? It’s not the Japan I know.”

But there’s ignorance, and then there’s willful ignorance. Even when I presented facts and a historical record counter to her narrative, Anton refused to address any of them. Her retort: “I do not want to engage with you.”

She can, of course, disagree with the case as I presented it, or offer other facts to counter mine. Instead, she chose to just delete it and not engage.

Anton is entitled to her worldview, of course. But if she’s speaking on how to live life in Japan as a self-described “visible minority” advising Japan’s corporate world on issues of diversity and inclusion, even meeting policymakers at the highest levels of Japan’s government, she needs to get it right. She’s not. Instead she promotes a dangerous denialism of how NJ and visible minorities experience Japanese society.

Denialism as a Marketing Gimmick

When I followed up some more, Anton did respond briefly to say, “I do not hold myself ‘as a template about how to live in Japan’ or anything else. That’s your interpretation. I write about my experience. I do not seek agreement. Ever.”

Yet in public press releases, she has been marketed not only as an “author, columnist, and consultant,” but also as “a model of successful cultural adaptation,” “lecturing widely” as a “bridge between cultures.”

That’s what makes Anton’s approach a business. Her whole mindset of, “Just get out there and contribute more to your communities and your skin color won’t matter,” is more gimmick than fact. But it sells well.

A Japanese policymaker will especially like hearing it’s the foreigners’ fault they aren’t trying hard enough to be accepted. It’s a lot easier than calling for the government to legally guarantee equal treatment and access, or for the dismantling of systems that perpetually differentiate, “other,” and subordinate minorities.

And it’s especially appealing when, even in the clearest cases of discrimination in Japan, a long-term foreigner dismisses them because it’s not like America. Even if this process excuses racism here because it’s worse over there.

It’s classic “whataboutism.” But it works. It’s gotten Anton a seat at the table at even the highest levels of government.

It’s also one reason why it’s been difficult to get “newcomer” visible minorities to unite and speak with one voice in the form of, for example, domestic anti-defamation leagues. (The “oldcomer” ethnic Koreans and Chinese do it much better.) Because spokespeople within the minorities’ own ranks undermine any potential social movement and self-disempower—by saying all we have to do is cooperate and behave. After all, it worked for these spokespeople. They made a life out of it.

For those who think I’m unduly picking on Karen Hill Anton, let the record show I have similarly called out others who pander: Kyoto Seika University President Oussouby Sacko, who similarly denies there is racism in Japan by the dumbfounding claim he is treated differently in Japan not because he is black, but because he does not “look Japanese.” Or Japan Times columnist Gregory Clark, who sells Japan’s uniqueness myths in his nationwide speaking tours. Or journalist Henry Scott-Stokes, who staved off late-life penury by putting his name to books ghostwritten by Japan’s far right denying Japan’s wartime atrocities. Or Tony Laszlo, protagonist of the bestselling “My Darling is a Foreigner” manga series, who completely deleted the online history of our pre-Debito.org activist organization, Issho.org, before it had an impact on his wife’s book sales. I’ve even criticized sacred cows like famed translator Donald Keene, who, on the day of his naturalization into Japan, denigrated NJ residents during a press conference by joking he, unlike them, was not a criminal.

There are lots of people like this in Japan: ideologues proffering snake-oil narratives that are popular and profitable. Pandering pays. Why wait for Japanese society to toss you a few crumbs from the table? Say what people want to hear and they’ll even give you a seat at it.

Plight of the Columnist: Whether to Pander?

One more point: Like Anton, I too have been a columnist for forty years, including seventeen years at the Japan Times, eleven years under the “Just Be Cause” byline. I understand that having a clear and consistent perspective sustains an audience.

But over time the question becomes: How do you keep that audience as you age? Do you continue with the topics that attracted your audience in the first place? Or do you pursue new avenues of inquiry and hope your readers follow?

Either way, you should be open to learning new information, or you’ll just have stale columns running on retreads. But as you absorb new things and get new data, you should be intellectually honest enough to change your mind.

Old stale columnists can fall into a trap of relying on personal experience as a source in itself. After all, the province of the elderly is the sanctity of their memory. Your past is yours to recall and portray. In your own mind, nobody can assail your impressions of what happened to you. Only you witnessed it all.

And memoirists by definition make this their methodology. But you still have to be responsible with your platform, especially if you’re going to talk about a subject as complicated as racism. Be aware of your own limitations. How you’re remembering things. How you’re gathering information. How you’re interpreting the world.

Stories not grounded in history and social science are merely extended anecdotes. A sample size of one.

Yes, memoirists are entitled to their own world. It’s their memoir, after all. But I have a problem when they go outside their world and try to overwrite history (especially one I’ve painstakingly curated) as a marketing gimmick. When they minimize, ignore, deny, or even delete facts and cases because they don’t fit their narrative, that’s not just dogmatism. That’s dishonesty. And when it’s hurting people, it needs to be called out.

Look at the big picture here: Denialism may be Karen Hill Anton’s survival strategy in Japan, but it’s not going to help Japan’s visible minorities, the very group she claims to speak for.

Remember that Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi recently rose to power in part by blatantly lying about foreigners kicking park animals. Now watch as Cabinet minister Kimi Onoda (who herself was a dual citizen of Japan and the United States until she too was called out) finds new ways to scapegoat NJ residents for Japan’s ills.

All this pandering by NJ spokespeople will mean little in the end. The powers-that-be will still treat you as second-class citizens and residents no matter how hard you try to assimilate. The onus is not on NJ to scrape for acceptance. The onus is on Japanese society and legal structures to treat all of its legal residents, regardless of citizenship, as human beings with equal rights.

Karen Hill Anton’s methodology doesn’t lend itself to pushing for that. It’s certainly been an effective survival strategy for her, as she’s accomplished a lot for herself. But it should be seen for what it always has been: an isolated sample size of one. Not a template. And as she keeps on keeping on, vigilance: She should not be permitted to minimize, ignore, dismiss, or overwrite the history of other NJ in Japan.

Become a Shingetsu News supporter on Patreon.

Under the Trump Garbage Truck [The Status Kuo]

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has tumbled into a political garbage compactor. And his career could get crushed as a result.

Reporting on Friday by the Washington Post, backed by two sources familiar with the operation, stated Hegseth ordered SEAL Team 6 to “kill them all” after the U.S. military destroyed an alleged drug smuggling vessel off the coast of Venezuela in early September. That order included two survivors who reportedly were still in the water, clinging to the wreckage of their craft.

There aren’t many things that people on the opposite ends of the political spectrum, let alone the entire civilized world, agree on. But the immorality and illegality of firing upon defenseless people floating in the ocean after you’ve sunk their ship, giving them “no quarter” in their time of greatest distress, is one. And there is no one, outside of lawless or fascist regimes, who would defend it today.

This is where we now find ourselves. The prohibition on “no quarter” orders is such a bright line that even the increasingly lawless and fascist Trump regime won’t be able to stand behind it. And that has Hegseth’s opponents eager to press the crush button on his garbage leadership.

Subscribe now

Any way you slice this bread, Hegseth is toast

If the reporting is accurate—and as I’ll discuss below, there is strong reason to believe it is, and the specifics will soon become clear—this presents quite a conundrum for the ”War Secretary.”

If we are at war, as Hegseth claims, then his order was a war crime. A “Former JAG Working Group,” comprising officials that Hegseth conveniently pushed out of their military legal oversight roles just before the illegal strikes began, “unanimously considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both.”

Here’s why. If the U.S. military operation to destroy vessels suspected of narco-trafficking is in fact a “non-international armed conflict” as the White House claims, then Hegseth’s orders to “kill them all” can “reasonably be regarded as an order to give ‘no quarter,’ and to ‘double-tap’ a target in order to kill survivors”—something that is “clearly illegal under international law.”

“In short,” the Former JAG Working Group concludes, “they are war crimes.”

If we want a clear textual statement of this, we need look no further than the Defense Department’s own Law of War Manual, which explicitly cites “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked” as a “clearly illegal” act.

It will be quite hard for Hegseth to get around that example.

But if we’re not at war, as many argue, because Congress has not authorized this military action, then per the Former JAG Working Group, “orders to kill helpless civilians clinging to the wreckage of a vessel our military destroyed would subject everyone from SECDEF down to the individual who pulled the trigger to prosecution under U.S. law for murder.”

In sum, it was either a war crime or it was murder. Time to choose your poison, Pete. (Ironically, Hegseth is probably better off trying to argue that the U.S. is not actually at war, because as I’ll explain below, war crimes are much harder to escape than murder charges.)

Fox News’ chief legal analyst, Andy McCarthy, was equally unforgiving. He penned an OpEd for the National Review entitled, “We Intended the Strike To Be Lethal” Is Not A Defense. McCarthy was referring to Hegseth’s initial response to the reporting, in which he failed to deny the reporting and instead doubled down, citing the “lethal kinetic” intent of the operation (whatever that means).

The Washington Post had reported that Adm. Mitch Bradley, head of Special Operations Command, in compliance with Hegseth’s command, gave the order for the second strike. Ostensibly, this was to ensure the survivors couldn’t call on other traffickers to come to their aid.

Wrote McCarthy, “Neither Hegseth’s statement nor the explanation attributed to Bradley...makes legal sense.” Indeed, Hegseth’s argument is entirely circular: “It cannot be a defense to say, as Hegseth does, that one has killed because one’s objective was ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’”

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor, conservative legal expert on executive action and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush, published a piece on Saturday concluding the same:

[T]here can be no conceivable legal justification for what the Washington Post reported earlier today: That U.S. Special Operations Forces killed the survivors of a first strike on a drug boat off the coast of Trinidad who, in the Post’s words, “were clinging to the smoldering wreck.”

Goldsmith cited the DoD Law of War Manual as well, noting Section 5.4.7’s clear prohibition on “No Quarter” orders:

Prohibition Against Declaring That No Quarter Be Given. It is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given. This means that it is prohibited to order that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees, such as unprivileged belligerents, will be summarily executed. Moreover, it is also prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter. This rule is based on both humanitarian and military considerations. This rule also applies during non-international armed conflict.

Goldsmith observes that this prohibition is a foundational principle of modern war, going back to the Hague Regulations of 1907 and even to the Civil War era 1863 Lieber Code: “Whoever intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy already wholly disabled, or kills such an enemy, or who orders or encourages soldiers to do so, shall suffer death, if duly convicted, whether he belongs to the Army of the United States, or is an enemy captured after having committed his misdeed.”

As Just Security’s Ryan Goodman observed, the World War II Peleus War Crimes Trial is also on point. The trial was named after a Greek frigate used by the British and sunk by a German U-boat, where the commander ordered survivors fired upon while they were still in the water. The case is familiar to international and military lawyers alike. At the conclusion of the case, which kicked off the Nuremberg trials in Germany, the Nazi commanders who gave the “no quarter” order were convicted along with those who carried it out, with three of the defendants sentenced to death for their war crimes.

No quarter from Congress

We’re so accustomed to the GOP-led Congress doing nothing in response to the criminal excesses of the Trump regime that any movement in the opposite direction makes headlines. Over the weekend we were treated to such a surprise. Both the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees issued bipartisan statements promising thorough investigations and a “full accounting.”

The bipartisan part is key. Because the GOP controls both of those committees, that means subpoenas will actually issue, followed by hearings, under oath, for everyone in the chain of command. That includes Defense Secretary Hegseth.

So far, Hegseth is getting little love from his own party, signaling that he is in for some rough questioning. Rep. Don Bacon (D-NE), who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, agreed that if the Washington Post reporting is true, that would be “a clear violation of the law of war.” And Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), another senior member of that committee, remarked on the double-strike to comply with Hegseth’s reported order:

“If that occurred, that would be very serious and I agree that would be an illegal act…This is completely outside of anything that has been discussed with Congress and there is an ongoing investigation.”

As Goodman notes, that short statement contains two distinct points. First, Turner agrees that the order would be an “illegal act”—something nearly everyone agrees on. Second, and critically, Turner implied that the true purpose of the double-strike was something not disclosed to Congress.

In fact, as the Washington Post reported, the Joint Special Operations Command later told the White House a different story: that the “double-tap” was intended to sink the boat and remove a possible hazard to other ships and not to kill survivors. A similar explanation was provided to Congress in closed-door briefings.

But that never sat well with more experienced veterans in Congress. “The idea that wreckage from one small boat in a vast ocean is a hazard to marine traffic is patently absurd, and killing survivors is blatantly illegal,” said Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), a Marine Corps veteran serving on the House Armed Services Committee. “Mark my words: It may take some time, but Americans will be prosecuted for this, either as a war crime or outright murder.”

A mini-Nuremberg?

While Hegseth and whoever else participated in the killings won’t initially be on trial, congressional hearings could rise to the level of high international drama. After all, the question will be whether the U.S. Secretary of Defense is either a war criminal, a murderer or both.

A few key things to watch for. The former Southern Command leader, Admiral Alvin Holsey, announced back in mid-October that he was resigning from his office not even a full year into his term. That raised alarms over what could be driving such a move, but now we have more clues—and more questions. What did Admiral Holsey know about Hegseth’s orders? Was his resignation in connection with the second strike? The timing certainly suggests a link.

Then there are the two sources cited within the Washington Post’s reporting who confirmed that Hegseth gave the no quarter kill order, as well as everyone under Hegseth who carried out the illegal instruction. Those under Hegseth may be justifiably concerned about their own criminal liability, particularly those who ultimately pulled the trigger. Depending on the circumstances, it might be possible for Congress to offer limited immunity to those in the know in order to overcome their Fifth Amendment assertions.

Hegseth himself will likely be called and placed under oath, where he might also assert his right against self-incrimination. But if he does so, two things to consider: 1) demands for Hegseth’s resignation, if he hasn’t quit or been forced out already, will grow deafening, and 2) this still doesn’t mean he can’t later be convicted of murder or of a war crime.

On the latter charge, Hegseth will need to consider his position carefully, especially over whether the U.S. is legally at war. After all, per the Justice Department’s Guide To Human Rights Statutes, there is no statute of limitations for war crimes, per 18 U.S.C.§ 3281 (if the commission of a war crime results in death, prosecution is not barred by the statute of limitations.) Nor does the President’s pardon power under the Constitution extend to violations of international law when prosecuted under the laws of another country. (The U.S. is not a member of the International Criminal Court, so this gets into murky questions of jurisdiction and venue.)

Hegseth’s past writings and actions will come back to bite him

During upcoming hearings, congressional questioners will have a wealth of material. Much of it will come from Hegseth himself, who graciously wrote an entire book in 2024 containing his thoughts and disdain for things like the Geneva Conventions and legal oversight of military actions. As Anna Bower of Lawfare observed, there’s an entire chapter in the book entitled “More Lethality, Less (sic) Lawyers.”

In his writings, Hegseth showed open disdain for international laws and norms regarding warfare. He stated,

Should we follow the Geneva Conventions? What if we treated the enemy the way they treated us? Would that not be an incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism? Hey, Al Qaeda: If you surrender, we might spare your life. If you do not, we will rip your arms off and feed them to the hogs.”

And continued,

Makes me wonder, in 2024—if you want to win—how can anyone write universal rules about killing other people in open conflict? Especially against enemies who fight like savages, disregarding human life in every single instance. Maybe instead, we are just fighting with one hand behind our back—and the enemy knows it.

Hegseth’s past actions also reflect his writings. He once openly and successfully lobbied Trump to pardon soldiers accused and convicted of war crimes. The move was highly controversial within the military, and no doubt many opposed to his efforts have not forgotten the stain it left on the reputation of our armed forces.

Trump sees the writing on the dumpster

There’s a key unanswered question still looming. If Hegseth gave the double-tap kill order, did he clear it first with his boss? The gravity of the circumstance would suggest that Trump was in the know about the attack. After all, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted, Trump gave the initial order to fire upon the alleged drug smuggling vessel.

Shortly after it happened, Trump posted an edited version of the attack that showed the first strike. But he did not post footage of the double-tap lethal strike.

So why wouldn’t Trump have approved, or at least know about, the second strike?

Trump is already moving to distance himself from such a claim. Asked about Hegseth’s second order while on board Air Force One, Trump said, “He said he didn’t do it.” When pressed if he would be okay if Hegseth had done it, Trump answered, “He said he didn’t do it, so I don’t have to make that decision.”

For a man of his size and age, that’s pretty good dodgeball.

Trump also insisted, when asked by a reporter whether a second strike would be legal in his view, “I don’t know that that happened.” He added, “Pete said he did not even know what people were talking about.” Trump said he himself “wouldn’t have wanted a second strike” because “the first strike was very lethal. It was fine.”

So we are to believe Hegseth ordered the second strike without consulting Trump? That’s quite a war crime to commit without the cover of the Commander-in-Chief’s blessing. As Sam Stein of The Bulwark observed,

The WH a bit shifty on this Venezuela double strike story.

Hegseth two days ago: “Biden coddled terrorists, we kill them.”

Trump tonight: “I wouldn’t have wanted a second strike... Pete said that didn’t happen.”

Bottom line? Trump is now hiding behind what Hegseth supposedly told him. That way if and when the evidence shows otherwise, that Hegseth indeed gave an illegal double-tap kill order, Trump can claim Hegseth lied to him.

From there, Donald can back his big garbage truck right over Pete.

09:00 AM

NYC’s Police Oversight Board Is Now Covering Up More Misconduct Than The Cops Themselves [Techdirt]

What a difference a near-decade makes. Back in 2017, the main concerns raised by New York City’s Civilian Complaint Review Board was that officers were routinely violating the right to record police officers.

Sure, there wasn’t nearly as much precedent to rely on then (and we’re still waiting for the Supreme Court to make this right definitive), but it seemed pretty clear no one should be arrested for exercising their First Amendment right to record public officials engaged in their public duties.

Years later, the problem with the Civilian Complaint Review Board was that it didn’t actually have the power to hold NYPD officers accountable for their actions. It could always suggest punishments and detail violations, but it was ultimately up to the NYPD itself to decide whether or not it would follow the CCRB’s recommendations. Mostly it didn’t. And it didn’t because NYPD officials — including the department’s commissioner — simply decided to sweep misconduct complaints under the rug. And that’s in addition to exchanging the discipline recommended by the CCRB for meaningless wrist slaps that deterred nothing.

What’s always been the Achilles heel of the CCRB has finally made itself apparent. While it is indeed the “Civilian Complaint Review Board,” actual civilians have almost no control over the composition of the oversight board. Almost everyone on it is a political appointee, which means the deck has been stacked by the outgoing Eric Adams administration with cop apologists.

Here’s what happens when people in power (who also happen to think cops are aces) take control of the CCRB:

As Hell Gate revealed earlier this month, the CCRB’s politically appointed members have not only been dismissing investigators’ allegations that cops lied to them at a disproportionately high rate, the board has also been altering public data to obscure the fact that the CCRB has been overturning a high proportion of cases in which its own investigators found strong evidence that NYPD officers lied to them. The board has instead been quietly misclassifying those allegations under the different and more opaque “Abuse of Authority—Other” category, which includes such difficult-to-categorize misconduct as improperly ejecting a person from the subway. 

The CCRB was given the power to bring disciplinary charges against officers who lied to the board’s investigators. Of course, those recommendations were almost always ignored by NYPD supervisors, who generally chose to reject these recommendations. But at least it was something, a relative rarity in the nation where almost every city, state, and federal official thinks no one should be doing anything about police misconduct.

But the CCRB was, at least, owed an explanation. It never officially bothered to seek one, though, which meant the journalists writing for Hell Gate took it upon themselves to hold the CCRB — and the cops beyond it — accountable. For all of its trouble, it was blown off by the oversight board itself.

Last Wednesday, Hell Gate asked that question again, this time at the board’s monthly public hearing, and finally got some answers: The board has indeed been deliberately altering the data it publishes to the public portal, CCRB Executive Director John Darche confirmed to Hell Gate—and according to the CCRBit is doing so in order to protect officers’ reputations, after unidentified “associated stakeholders” expressed “concerns” about the allegations of lying being public.

Wow. I wonder who these “associated stakeholders” who have expressed “concerns” about their patterns of lying to investigators being made public might be?

Here’s the thing about the CCRB and stakeholders. On one hand, you have the cops. More particularly, you have the cops that lie to CCRB investigators and run to their union reps when they get caught lying. While the cops (and more specifically, their unions) may be “stakeholders” in these incidents, the CCRB should be more obligated to serve the other stakeholders: millions of NYC taxpayers.

But apparently this CCRB doesn’t care that it’s being lied to… at least not after having been approached/threatened by certain “stakeholders.”

Hell Gate’s earlier investigation found that while the CCRB has substantiated some 200 of those allegations, in nearly a quarter of the cases where investigators alleged, again, with evidence, that officers lied to them, the politically appointed board members overturned the recommendations, making the charges go away. That’s more than twice the rate at which board members have overturned investigator’s recommendations for other types of misconduct.

If that’s how things are going to go, why even bother engaging in investigations? If more cases are going to be rejected because an officer lied to investigators, there’s a blueprint for dismissal being created with the explicit assistance of an oversight board that’s supposed to serve the public, rather than the interests of the cops they’re investigating.

Somehow, it manages to get worse, as Hell Gate reported earlier this month:

Last month, Hell Gate broke the story that the Civilian Complaint Review Board has a practice of obscuring the nature of some misconduct allegations against officers in its public-facing data, a previously undisclosed practice the agency told Hell Gate it had undertaken at the request of unnamed “stakeholders.” 

Since then, the website 50-a.org, which downloads and makes searchable NYPD misconduct records from public databases, has updated thousands of its listings, and Hell Gate’s review of those updates shows that in 2023 and 2024, the CCRB recategorized more than 10,000 misconduct allegations previously published to the City’s open data portal.

It’s not just the lying that’s getting recategorized to make it more difficult for regular people to obtain information on the specifics of NYPD misconduct. It’s also a bunch of other stuff. Officers who have (allegedly) used racial slurs against residents, arrestees, and even other members of the force have been moved to the vague category of “offensive language – other,” which doesn’t contain the specificity needed to determine whether an officer routinely uses bigoted slurs.

This, however, is even worse than the whitewashing of lying cops and bigoted officers:

Also altered after the fact, according to the 50-a.org data, are a host of sexual misconduct allegations, including verbal and gestural sexual harassment, sexual or romantic propositioning, and sexual humiliation through failing to cover up someone whose body is exposed. These allegations were all recategorized after the fact to the generic “abuse of authority–other” category.

While these acts are undoubtedly covered by the “abuse of authority” categorization, they deserve to be broken out because they are sexually motivated abuses of authority. It’s like turning every rape charge into an assault charge because both involve physically harming another human being. Sure, that’s the common denominator, but there’s a massive amount of psychological damage that differentiates a rape from punching someone in the face.

All of this adds up to the CCRB just being an extension of the NYPD and its unions, rather than a force for police accountability. The few people who still care about this are steadily being forced out of their CCRB positions. The few that remain don’t have the voting power to offset the pro-cop appointees infesting the oversight board. And that means everything will go back to getting worse, which is the regression to the mean most cops love to see happen.

07:00 AM

The Future of Tor Browser Alpha [Tor Project blog]

With the recent release of Tor Browser 15.0, we have come out of yet another ESR-transition season whereby Tor Browser has been updated to the latest version of Firefox Extended Support Release (ESR). Historically, we have spent several months each year on this work. It is a very important and methodical process which ensures Tor Browser remains secure and private through upstream security updates from Mozilla and by testing and updating our own features and customizations. You can find a somewhat detailed overview of this process and why it is so important in our previous Tor Browser 14.0a1 release blog post.

Starting with Tor Browser 16.0a1, rather than being based on Firefox ESR 140 (as would have been the case in the past), the Tor Browser Alpha release will instead be based on the latest Firefox Rapid Release. The Tor Browser Stable release (starting with 15.0) will remain on the latest Firefox ESR Release. This change will only affect Tor Browser Alpha users.

Release Channels

NOTE: This is a simplification of the available browser release channels offered both by Mozilla and the Tor Project, but these are by far the most relevant release channels to the majority of users.

Mozilla has two different release channels for shipping Firefox updates: Rapid Release and Extended Support Release. The basic idea is that the Rapid Release channel receives major features with each new version every four weeks, while the Extended Support Release channel only receives security updates every four weeks while receiving a year's worth of features roughly every 52 weeks (you can read about the differences in this Mozilla Support article).

The Tor Project also has two different release channels for shipping Tor Browser updates: Alpha and Stable. The Alpha channel is where the Tor Browser developers spend most of their time working on new features. To the end-users, this is where most of the visible changes happen throughout the development cycle. The Stable channel typically receives security updates with each release and only occasional new features through targeted backports from the Alpha channel.

Up until now, both of these channels (i.e. Tor Browser Alpha and Stable) have been based on Firefox's Extended Support Release channel. For the next release cycle, we are going to conduct an experiment whereby Tor Browser Stable will continue to be based on Firefox Extended Support Release while Tor Browser Alpha will instead be based on Firefox Rapid Release.

Traditionally, we would now be working on Tor Browser 15.5a1 based on Firefox ESR 140. Instead, we are already working on Tor Browser 16.0a1 and every Alpha from the 16.0aX series will be based on the Firefox Rapid Release channel. Tor Browser 16.0 will stabilize when Firefox 153 is ready next year and, once released, will follow the ESR channel for the remainder of its life-cycle.

Ramifications for Users and Testers

⚠️ If you are an at-risk user, concerned about your privacy, or just need a reliably working web-browser, you SHOULD NOT use Tor Browser Alpha and instead stick with Tor Browser Stable ⚠️

If you are an alpha tester running Tor Browser Alpha, you can expect the following changes:

  • Quicker access to new upstream features developed by Mozilla: Rather than waiting until the next major ESR version for newly shipped features in Firefox, Tor Browser Alpha users will receive these features shortly after they are introduced upstream. This will allow our alpha-testers to evaluate how new upstream features interact with (or break) our privacy and security patches over a much longer development and stabilization period.

  • Potentially Less Secure and Private Tor Browser Alpha Releases: One side-effect of quickly shipping upstream features to users, is that we will also be quickly shipping upstream bugs to users too. These bugs could have security and privacy implications. The upside is that we should also get bug reports from users more quickly as well, which will give us more time to develop proper fixes than we would otherwise. Therefore, users should only use Tor Browser Alpha for testing purposes! At-risk users should migrate to and remain on Tor Browser Stable.

  • A Less Predictable Release Cadence: Sometimes the intersection of upstream changes, our build system, and our patches introduce rather difficult problems for us to solve. It is entirely possible resolving such problems may take longer than the available four week window of time between scheduled Rapid Release versions. Therefore, Tor Browser Alpha releases may be delayed relative to Firefox's release schedule. The consequence of this is that Tor Browser Alpha may not receive upstream security updates as promptly as it has in the past.

  • Faster Platform Deprecation: Because we are following Mozilla directly, we will also be dropping support for platforms in the Alpha release channel sooner than we would have in the past. Previously, Tor Browser Alpha's minimum supported platforms would follow Firefox ESR, which would change on a yearly basis after the ESR Transition. In the general, Tor Browser Alpha will drop support for legacy platforms at the same time as Firefox Rapid Release. Specifically, the following platforms will no longer be supported by Tor Browser Alpha starting with 16.0a1:

    • x86 Linux and Android: As described in our Tor Browser 15.0 blog post, upstream has dropped support for Linux and Android running on 32-bit x86 processors. As such, we will not be releasing builds for these platforms in the Tor Browser Alpha 16.0 series.

    • Android older than Android 8.0: Also described in our Tor Browser 15.0 blog post, upstream has dropped support for Android versions 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0. This means to upgrade to the Tor Browser Alpha 16.0 series you will need a mobile device running at lest Android 8.0.

If you are an end-user running Tor Browser Stable, you can expect the following changes:

  • One major feature release per year: Previously, we have had two feature releases per year: one in Q2 and one in late Q3. With this new development model, we expect to have only one major feature release per year. Therefore, with Tor Browser Stable 15.0 just released, users can expect Tor Browser Stable 16.0 (based on Firefox ESR 153) to be released about halfway through Q3 of 2026 (i.e. there will not be a Tor Browser 15.5).

Developer Rationale

So why are we changing things? We believe changing our development model in this way will allow us to be both more effective at developing and maintaining Tor Browser while also reducing contributor stress.

For the past several years we have tried to divide the annual Tor Browser development cycle into two phases: a six month feature phase and a six month ESR transition phase. During the feature phase, we would work on new developments to be shipped during Q2 in the .5 release. During the ESR transition phase, we would work almost exclusively on ESR transition related work to be shipped during late Q3/early Q4 in the .0 release.

This division of the year into two distinct phases introduces problems:

  • Cascading Delays: If something is scheduled for a particular feature phase, then inevitable development and project management surprises can drive back the day we ship. However, doing so would also drive back when we begin the next ESR transition phase. This delay would of course pay it forward and further delay the next feature phase and so-forth.

    Unfortunately, we cannot just let these delays pile-up release upon release because we have a fixed window of time each year on the calendar where we must complete our annual ESR transition. This is because Mozilla offers only a four release overlap between major ESR versions where both the previous ESR and the new ESR receive security updates.

    This means that if we were to begin the ESR transition work only when the new major ESR version is released, there would be only about 16 weeks of calendar time before the old Tor Browser version would stop receiving security updates from upstream. We therefore have a responsibility to our users to get the ESR transition work done as quickly as humanly possible before this window closes.

    Unfortunately, we never really hit the desired six-month release cadence. In reality, we usually have more of a seven to eight month feature phase and a four to five month ESR transition phase.

    So, if we cannot let our development windows slide then the only recourse we have to remedy delayed features is to either kick them to the next major feature release or to try to finish them during the ESR transition phase.

  • Developer Stress: The 16 week ESR window is a very small amount of time for us to do our due-diligence and properly serve our users. There is a ton of work that has to happen (as described in our Tor Browser 14.0a1 release blog post) and not a whole lot of time to do it. As a result, this part of the Tor Browser release cycle has historically been quite stressful and a major contributor to developer burnout.

  • Poor Feature Development Continuity: Context switching in general is the bane of many developers. It is quite difficult to make consistent progress on a task when you are being constantly interrupted by other things. With our previous on-again/off-again development model, nearly everyone on the team had to switch from feature work to ESR transition work for an entire release cycle in order to make the ESR deadline.

    As a result, in the past we have had to take extra care to split large features across multiple feature release cycles, rather than naturally working on them incrementally across one. This process increases complexity and mental overhead when developing features to make sure that what we ship to users works even when not fully complete. It also adds an extra 'remembering what we were doing months ago' tax when coming back to a feature after an ESR transition and further complicates planning and scheduling.

The hope is that by spreading the ESR transition-related work out over the entire year, we will be able to:

  • Increase the number of major features shipped each year
  • Increase our confidence in the ESR transition itself
  • Trade the high-intensity/high-stress 16-week ESR transition window for lower-intensity/lower-stress over the entire year

Next Steps

It is yet to be seen whether this process change will have the intended results, but initial experiments have been promising. The first step in this process was experimenting with iterative Rapid Release to Rapid Release rebases (rather than a single large ESR to ESR rebase which we have traditionally done). This process has not only been easier to perform, but also much easier to code-review. It turns out rebasing after 4 weeks of changes is significantly easier than rebasing after 52 weeks of changes!

For the ESR 140 transition, this process also allowed us to catch several runtime bugs in Tor Browser for Android individually as they were introduced, rather than having to debug and disentangle them all at once. We have continued this iterative-rebase process throughout the ESR 140 cycle and will be releasing Tor Browser Alpha 16.0a1 based on Firefox 146 or 147 soon. The big challenge for us this release cycle will be keeping up the slow incremental progress each release while interleaving this with our regular feature work.

The nice thing about making this change now is that if there ends up being major problems or unintended consequences, we can always revert to the old ways next year without our Tor Browser Stable users noticing much of a difference. The worst-case scenario is that we already have a head-start on the ESR 153 transition.

Become a tester!

Now is a great time to become a Tor Browser Alpha tester! However, if you are at risk or need strong anonymity, please stick with Tor Browser Stable.

Lawmakers Want To Ban VPNs—And They Have No Idea What They’re Doing [Techdirt]

Remember when you thought age verification laws couldn’t get any worse? Well, lawmakers in WisconsinMichigan, and beyond are about to blow you away.

It’s unfortunately no longer enough to force websites to check your government-issued ID before you can access certain content, because politicians have now discovered that people are using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to protect their privacy and bypass these invasive laws. Their solution? Entirely ban the use of VPNs. 

Yes, really.

As of this writing, Wisconsin lawmakers are escalating their war on privacy by targeting VPNs in the name of “protecting children” in A.B. 105/S.B. 130. It’s an age verification bill that requires all websites distributing material that could conceivably be deemed “sexual content” to both implement an age verification system and also to block the access of users connected via VPN. The bill seeks to broadly expand the definition of materials that are “harmful to minors” beyond the type of speech that states can prohibit minors from accessing—potentially encompassing things like depictions and discussions of human anatomy, sexuality, and reproduction. 

This follows a notable pattern: As we’ve explained previously, lawmakers, prosecutors, and activists in conservative states have worked for years to aggressively expand the definition of “harmful to minors” to censor a broad swath of content: diverse educational materialssex education resources, art, and even award-winning literature

Wisconsin’s bill has already passed the State Assembly and is now moving through the Senate. If it becomes law, Wisconsin could become the first state where using a VPN to access certain content is banned. Michigan lawmakers have proposed similar legislation that did not move through its legislature, but among other things, would force internet providers to actively monitor and block VPN connections. And in the UK, officials are calling VPNs “a loophole that needs closing.”

This is actually happening. And it’s going to be a disaster for everyone.

Here’s Why This Is A Terrible Idea 

VPNs mask your real location by routing your internet traffic through a server somewhere else. When you visit a website through a VPN, that website only sees the VPN server’s IP address, not your actual location. It’s like sending a letter through a P.O. box so the recipient doesn’t know where you really live. 

So when Wisconsin demands that websites “block VPN users from Wisconsin,” they’re asking for something that’s technically impossible. Websites have no way to tell if a VPN connection is coming from Milwaukee, Michigan, or Mumbai. The technology just doesn’t work that way.

Websites subject to this proposed law are left with this choice: either cease operation in Wisconsin, or block all VPN users, everywhere, just to avoid legal liability in the state. One state’s terrible law is attempting to break VPN access for the entire internet, and the unintended consequences of this provision could far outweigh any theoretical benefit.

Almost Everyone Uses VPNs

Let’s talk about who lawmakers are hurting with these bills, because it sure isn’t just people trying to watch porn without handing over their driver’s license.

  1. Businesses run on VPNs. Every company with remote employees uses VPNs. Every business traveler connecting through sketchy hotel Wi-Fi needs one. Companies use VPNs to protect client and employee data, secure internal communications, and prevent cyberattacks. 
  2. Students need VPNs for school. Universities require students to use VPNs to access research databases, course materials, and library resources. These aren’t optional, and many professors literally assign work that can only be accessed through the school VPN. The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s WiscVPN, for example, “allows UW–‍Madison faculty, staff and students to access University resources even when they are using a commercial Internet Service Provider (ISP).” 
  3. Vulnerable people rely on VPNs for safety. Domestic abuse survivors use VPNs to hide their location from their abusers. Journalists use them to protect their sources. Activists use them to organize without government surveillance. LGBTQ+ people in hostile environments—both in the US and around the world—use them to access health resources, support groups, and community. For people living under censorship regimes, VPNs are often their only connection to vital resources and information their governments have banned. 
  4. Regular people just want privacy. Maybe you don’t want every website you visit tracking your location and selling that data to advertisers. Maybe you don’t want your internet service provider (ISP) building a complete profile of your browsing history. Maybe you just think it’s creepy that corporations know everywhere you go online. VPNs can protect everyday users from everyday tracking and surveillance.

It’s A Privacy Nightmare

Here’s what happens if VPNs get blocked: everyone has to verify their age by submitting government IDs, biometric data, or credit card information directly to websites—without any encryption or privacy protection.

We already know how this story ends. Companies get hacked. Data gets breached. And suddenly your real name is attached to the websites you visited, stored in some poorly-secured database waiting for the inevitable leak. This has already happened, and is not a matter of if but when. And when it does, the repercussions will be huge.

Forcing people to give up their privacy to access legal content is the exact opposite of good policy. It’s surveillance dressed up as safety.

“Harmful to Minors” Is Not a Catch-All 

Here’s another fun feature of these laws: they’re trying to broaden the definition of “harmful to minors” to sweep in a host of speech that is protected for both young people and adults.

Historically, states can prohibit people under 18 years old from accessing sexual materials that an adult can access under the First Amendment. But the definition of what constitutes “harmful to minors” is narrow — it generally requires that the materials have almost no social value to minors and that they, taken as a whole, appeal to a minors’ “prurient sexual interests.” 

Wisconsin’s bill defines “harmful to minors” much more broadly. It applies to materials that merely describe sex or feature descriptions/depictions of human anatomy. This definition would likely encompass a wide range of literature, music, television, and films that are protected under the First Amendment for both adults and young people, not to mention basic scientific and medical content.

Additionally, the bill’s definition would apply to any websites where more than one third of the site’s material is “harmful to minors.” Given the breadth of the definition and its one-third trigger, we anticipate that Wisconsin could argue that the law applies to most social media websites. And it’s not hard to imagine, as these topics become politicised, Wisconsin claiming it applies to websites containing LGBTQ+ health resources, basic sexual education resources, and reproductive healthcare information. 

This breadth of the bill’s definition isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. It gives the state a vast amount of discretion to decide which speech is “harmful” to young people, and the power to decide what’s “appropriate” and what isn’t. History shows us those decisions most often harm marginalized communities

It Won’t Even Work

Let’s say Wisconsin somehow manages to pass this law. Here’s what will actually happen:

People who want to bypass it will use non-commercial VPNs, open proxies, or cheap virtual private servers that the law doesn’t cover. They’ll find workarounds within hours. The internet always routes around censorship. 

Even in a fantasy world where every website successfully blocked all commercial VPNs, people would just make their own. You can route traffic through cloud services like AWS or DigitalOcean, tunnel through someone else’s home internet connection, use open proxies, or spin up a cheap server for less than a dollar. 

Meanwhile, everyone else (businesses, students, journalists, abuse survivors, regular people who just want privacy) will have their VPN access impacted. The law will accomplish nothing except making the internet less safe and less private for users.

Nonetheless, as we’ve mentioned previously, while VPNs may be able to disguise the source of your internet activity, they are not foolproof—nor should they be necessary to access legally protected speech. Like the larger age verification legislation they are a part of, VPN-blocking provisions simply don’t work. They harm millions of people and they set a terrifying precedent for government control of the internet. More fundamentally, legislators need to recognize that age verification laws themselves are the problem. They don’t work, they violate privacy, they’re trivially easy to circumvent, and they create far more harm than they prevent.

A False Dilemma

People have (predictably) turned to VPNs to protect their privacy as they watched age verification mandates proliferate around the world. Instead of taking this as a sign that maybe mass surveillance isn’t popular, lawmakers have decided the real problem is that these privacy tools exist at all and are trying to ban the tools that let people maintain their privacy. 

Let’s be clear: lawmakers need to abandon this entire approach.

The answer to “how do we keep kids safe online” isn’t “destroy everyone’s privacy.” It’s not “force people to hand over their IDs to access legal content.” And it’s certainly not “ban access to the tools that protect journalists, activists, and abuse survivors.”

If lawmakers genuinely care about young people’s well-being, they should invest in education, support parents with better tools, and address the actual root causes of harm online. What they shouldn’t do is wage war on privacy itself. Attacks on VPNs are attacks on digital privacy and digital freedom. And this battle is being fought by people who clearly have no idea how any of this technology actually works. 

If you live in Wisconsin—reach out to your Senator and urge them to kill A.B. 105/S.B. 130. Our privacy matters. VPNs matter. And politicians who can’t tell the difference between a security tool and a “loophole” shouldn’t be writing laws about the internet.

Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

06:00 AM

Congress Dusts Off ‘Think Of The Children’ Playbook To Push Internet Censorship Bills [Techdirt]

Twenty years ago, John Jonik released one of the best political cartoons ever regarding attempts to censor and control the internet. In it, a character dressed up as Uncle Sam is placing a gift box labeled “Control of Internet Speech” on a counter. Behind it, a man dressed in a suit, labeled “Corporate Media” is asking Uncle Sam “How would you like this wrapped?”

Behind him are two rolls of wrapping paper. One is labeled “Anti-terrorism” and the other is “Protect kids.”

It’s difficult to think of a cartoon that has been more accurate for so many years, though, I would imagine if drawn today it might add a third one for “human trafficking.”

Either way, it looks like the government is wrapping its plans to control and censor internet speech with the “protect kids” wrapping again. On Tuesday, December 2nd, the House Energy and Commerce’s subcommittee on “protecting children and teens online” will be holding a hearing on a long list of proposed laws, all of which use the “but think of the children” moral panic to suggest problematic ideas.

It’s not worth going through all of them, many of which have no chance of going anywhere. The headliner is, not surprisingly, a new version of KOSA. While this version is improved from the House version by removing the “duty of care” provision (which is a blatant censorship tool), it still has supporters of the original KOSA screaming about how the bill has been neutered.

But the bill is still terrible and dangerous. It, like many of these bills, is trying to offload responsibility for raising, educating, and protecting children from those actually responsible: parents and teachers. These are all really just cynical attempts by lawmakers to shake down tech companies for campaign contributions to fill their campaign coffers. None of this is actually about protecting the children, because the actual solutions discussed by actual experts never seem to show up in these hearings.

Either way, gird yourself, because these hearings always go the same way: elected officials will parade out a long list of horrible things which they will blame on the internet.

They will make zero effort to note that similar or exactly equivalent things happened pre-internet. They will make zero effort to consider whether parents or teachers might have some culpability in not helping kids deal with various challenges. And certainly they will actively avoid mentioning that things like improved education and access to mental health care (things that this group of politicians have been actively working against for the most part) might help prevent these tragedies.

Instead, they will trot out a parade of horribles, insist it’s all the internet’s fault, and promise that they will get tough with legislation, even if that legislation will actually make things worse and/or violate the Constitution.

We have our moral panic, and Congress will continue to feed it at any cost.

Daily Deal: Babbel Language Learning (All Languages) [Techdirt]

Become a language expert with a Babbel Language Learning subscription. With the app, you can use Babbel on desktop and mobile, and your progress is synchronized across devices. Want to practice where you won’t have Wi-Fi? Download lessons before you head out, and you’ll be good to go. However you choose to access your 10K+ hours of online language education, you’ll be able to choose from 14 languages. And you can tackle one or all in 10-to-15-minute bite-sized lessons, so there’s no need to clear hours of your weekend to gain real-life conversation skills. Babbel was developed by over 100 expert linguists to help users speak and understand languages quickly. With Babbel, it’s easy to find the right level for you — beginner, intermediate, or advanced — so that you can make progress while avoiding tedious drills. Within as little as a month, you could be holding down conversations with native speakers about transportation, dining, shopping, directions, and more, making any trip you take so much easier. It’s on sale for $130 when you use the code LEARN at checkout.

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.

04:00 AM

Once Again, The Trump Administration Is Caught Lying About Deportation Options For Kilmar Abrego Garcia [Techdirt]

The Trump administration just lies and lies and lies. Those in charge assume they can just bluster their way past the system of checks and balances. For everything else, there’s AI generated memes depicting Trump taking a shit on the people he serves. Win-win, I guess.

But things haven’t exactly been running smoothly for Trump’s mass deportation program — one that seems to run entirely on his cabinet’s hatred for anyone who may not be entirely on board the MAGA bus. That has resulted in an unprecedented number of talented government employees resigning or being fired. And there aren’t enough Trump loyalists around to offset this attrition rate.

The same thing goes for Trump’s amped-up, fueled-by-hate mass deportation program. Trump advisor Stephen Miller wants 3,000 arrests per day. Former Trump lawyer/current appellate judge Emil Bove told DOJ lawyers to say “fuck you” to federal courts seeking to limit the administration’s refusal to respect a rather large number of constitutional rights during its “immigration enforcement efforts.” Bove also was apparently behind the administration’s “murder people in boats” program.

As the combined forces of federal officers still somehow fail to rack up the number of daily arrests that would make Stephen Miller erect, the DOJ continues to deal with a single arrest that has been irritating it ever since immigration officers first performed it.

That would be the arrest of Kilmar Abrego Garcia — someone who has refused to back down despite the government tossing him into El Salvador’s dictator-run maximum security hell hole (CECOT) and being brought back to the United States (following a judge’s orders) just to be given the unappetizing “choice” of pleading guilty to highly imaginative criminal charges dreamed up by Trump’s vindictive DOJ or being dumped into the nearest hell hole or hell hole-adjacent country (to date: Liberia, Uganda, Ghana, and Eswatini).

The DOJ continues to claim it has to dump Garcia in a country where his chances of survival are incredibly slim because no country less war-torn or with an El Salvadoran-esque history of rampant human rights violation is willing to allow an alleged criminal like Garcia to call their country home.

But this has never been true. The government of Costa Rica — a destination far more preferable than those the US government claims are the only places willing to take custody of Garcia — has repeatedly made it clear that it is a willing host for someone the government continues to pretend is a dangerous person with ties to violent criminals.

The government won’t listen to this because it would rather send Garcia where it wants than grant any accommodations to someone who has constantly fought back against the administration’s bullying.

Once again, the federal court system is being given a chance to right this wrong. Here’s reporting from ABC News that reflects the facts laid out in Garcia’s latest filing challenging the government’s vindictive prosecution.

A top Costa Rican official said the country is still willing to accept Kilmar Abrego Garcia, contradicting statements made by U.S. government officials in court earlier this week.

“Costa Rica’s offer to receive Mr. Abrego Garcia for humanitarian reasons remains in place,” Mario Zamora, Costa Rica’s minister of security, told ABC News in a statement. “My letter dated August 25, 2025, is the official position of the government.”

Garcia’s motion [PDF] says the same thing, although it quotes [PDF] (in its entirety) slightly earlier reporting by the Washington Post. That reporting names the Costa Rican official offering an official welcome to Kilmar Abrego Garcia:

Security Minister Mario Zamora Cordero told The Washington Post that he had informed the U.S. Embassy in San José in August that the government would accept Abrego on humanitarian grounds and provide him legal residency. He reiterated that Costa Rica has the “highest human rights standards” and would receive Abrego “under humanitarian conditions that guarantee the full respect for his rights and liberties.”

“That position that we have expressed in the past remains valid and unchanged to this day,” Zamora Cordero said in a statement, responding to questions from The Post.

So, you can see how that won’t work from the Trump administration and the ghouls it employees. This government has promised to give Garcia “full respect for his rights and liberties.” The United States — under Donald Trump — certainly can’t be expected to do the same.

And it can’t even be bothered to explain why it won’t allow Costa Rica to become Garcia’s new home. Back to the ABC reporting:

“Mr. Cantu, when you say Costa Rica is not an option for removal … where does that come from?” U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis interjected.

“Counsel,” [ICE Field Office Director John] Cantu said, referring to a State Department attorney. 

During the hearing, Cantu also struggled to answer questions about a sworn declaration he signed regarding the government’s communications with Costa Rica.

“Sitting here today, you could not tell me whether anyone from the State Department has been in touch with Costa Rica since Aug. 21, to determine whether communications have changed?” asked Sascha Rand, an attorney for Abrego Garcia. 

“That’s right,” Cantu replied. 

In other words, ICE (and the DOJ) aren’t interested in talking to anyone who might give Garcia an option that’s less cruel and vindictive than the Trump administration desires. And if it has to take the phone off the hook to accomplish this, it will — even if that means administration officials (and any remaining DOJ prosecutors) will have their whole asses exposed repeatedly by judges and opposing counsel.

This administration is incapable of being both smart and cruel. Perhaps we should be thankful for this small grace, no matter how inadequate it often seems.

03:00 AM

Kanji of the Day: 呼 [Kanji of the Day]

✍8

小6

call, call out to, invite

よ.ぶ

呼ばれる   (よばれる)   —   to be called (a name)
呼びかけ   (よびかけ)   —   call
呼び   (よび)   —   call
呼ぶ   (よぶ)   —   to call out (to)
呼び掛け   (よびかけ)   —   call
呼びかける   (よびかける)   —   to call out to
呼吸   (こきゅう)   —   breathing
呼び出し   (よびだし)   —   call
呼吸困難   (こきゅうこんなん)   —   labored breathing
連呼   (れんこ)   —   calling repeatedly (e.g., someone's name)

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 矛 [Kanji of the Day]

✍5

中学

halberd, arms, festival float

ム ボウ

ほこ

矛盾   (むじゅん)   —   contradiction
矛先   (ほこさき)   —   point of a spear
自己矛盾   (じこむじゅん)   —   self-contradiction
論理矛盾   (ろんりむじゅん)   —   logical inconsistency
相矛盾   (あいむじゅん)   —   mutually contradictory
形容矛盾   (けいようむじゅん)   —   contradictio in adjecto
銅矛   (どうほこ)   —   bronze hoko
矛盾語法   (むじゅんごほう)   —   oxymoron
矛盾撞着   (むじゅんどうちゃく)   —   self-contradiction
矛盾律   (むじゅんりつ)   —   law of contradiction (logic)

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

12:00 AM

Trump Withholding Billions In Grants From States That Engage In Corporate Oversight [Techdirt]

Hoping to repay corporate America’s feckless support of authoritarianism, the Trump administration is once again attempting to illegally ban all state and federal oversight of corporate power. Both via executive order, and by withholding already awarded grants from states that refuse to play along.

The Trump administration has already done generational damage to federal consumer protection and corporate oversight. Now the rich donors pulling the strings are doing their best to take direct aim at any states that might try and fill the void on environmental, labor, or consumer protection.

The Trump administration has tried several times this year to push an unsuccessful blanket ban on “regulating AI.” They like keeping the press attention on “regulating AI,” to push the narrative that they’re protecting American innovation from the mean old government. As opposed to trying to impose a corrupt, blanket ban on all state or federal oversight of unchecked corporate power.

Case in point: earlier this year, Senator Ted Cruz came up with the idea of withholding billions in already awarded infrastructure broadband grants from any state that “regulated AI.” But Cruz’s effort also attempted to punish any state that attempted to enforce their own net neutrality laws, or even make sure that taxpayer-subsidized broadband was affordable.

Ted Cruz’s effort to include these restrictions in this year’s spending bill didn’t work. So the Trump administration is back again with a new executive order that attempts to, once again, withhold already awarded broadband grants from states that try to “regulate AI”:

“Trump’s draft order apparently would apply to about half of the funding available from the $42 billion program, which was created to deploy broadband to homes and businesses without modern access.”

By “regulate AI” it’s again important to understand the Trump administration means “do absolutely anything that upsets corporate America.” While the Supreme Court and circuit courts have done an impressive job destroying federal oversight of corporate America, state autonomy still remains a bit of a wild card in the Project 2025 and corporate quest for total immunity from literally all public accountability.

This isn’t about “protecting innovation from burdensome regulation.” It’s about completely destroying the state and federal government’s ability to protect labor, consumers, markets, or the environment from unchecked corporate power. I feel compelled to annoyingly repeat myself on this point because it’s so often buried in press coverage that tries to normalize corrupt anti-democratic extremism.

In addition to the hijacking of the courts to ensure all corporate oversight efforts fail (see the 5th Circuit’s recent decision to let AT&T off the hook for spying on Americans and selling their location data, the 8th Circuit attack on FTC consumer protection, or the entire Supreme Court Loper Bright mess), the administration has increasingly been hijacking already awarded taxpayer funds for states that don’t play along.

The poster child for this effort has been the $42.5 billion BEAD (Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment) broadband grant program created by the 2021 infrastructure bill. Republicans repeatedly demonized and voted against this bill, but love taking credit for its improvements.

Despite the fact that Republicans made a huge election season stink about how long it was taking BEAD to deliver broadband, the program was recently completely rewritten to ensure that Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos get billions in taxpayer dollars for doing absolutely nothing differently, introducing significant new delays for states that were finally on the cusp of oodles of fiber broadband deployment.

Republicans also stripped away any and all language requiring that taxpayer-funded broadband is actually affordable to the public. And they redefined core definitions to make the program generally less useful. Hijacking already awarded funds doled out by Congress is not, you may be surprised to learn, legal. But that’s generally not reflected in press coverage of the program’s sabotage.

As Ars Technica notes, Trump’s latest Executive Order also tries to magically imbue FCC boss Brendan Carr with the regulatory authority to punish states that try and regulate AI:

“The draft order would also require the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission to take action against state AI laws. The FCC chairman would be directed to “initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.”

Again, that’s… not how any of this works.

With one hand, the Trump administration likes to insist that regulators have zero power to tell corporations what to do. They’ve made very clear progress in defanging all regulatory autonomy when it comes to protecting consumers, labor, or markets.

But with their other hand, the Trump administration likes to pretend they have all manner of vast regulatory authority to tell companies or states what they can or cannot do.

You’ve seen this reflected in the way FCC boss Brendan Carr routinely insists the government has no authority to crack down on Comcast’s shitty behavior, but all the authority in the world to regulate TikTok, punish media companies that engage in journalism that’s critical of Donald Trump, or harass companies that aren’t suitably racist or sexist enough for the president’s liking.

But U.S. courts (so far) have generally found that when the federal government abdicates its authority over federal consumer protection, it can’t then just turn around and tell states what they can or can’t do. This was most notable on the net neutrality front, when the FCC was repeatedly told by courts it couldn’t ignore consumer protection, then ban states from enforcing state net neutrality laws.

The corporate press buries the lede (because most affluent media owners really like this war on the regulatory state), but the goal here is a complete ban of government oversight of billionaires and corporate power.

The nation’s richest certainly don’t want states like Tennessee trying to prevent Elon Musk from engaging in rampant data center pollution of minority neighborhoods, they also don’t want states enforcing labor protections, policing consumer fraud, enforcing “right to repair” laws, punishing predatory telecom monopolies, or anything else.

The Trump election season lie that he’d be a Lina Khan populist antitrust enforcer was pushed by MAGA and assorted useful idiots. Instead we’ve seen a generational assault on state and federal corporate oversight. This has been broadly dressed up as sane policy by the corporate press, “free market” Libertarians and authoritarian zealots, but it’s really just anti-democratic corporatist extremism that’s going to leave a generation of suffering, chaos, and carnage in its wake.

Monday 2025-12-01

10:00 PM

Rehearsing emotional state [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

If you walk into the Parthenon or paddle at dawn on Joe Lake, it’s easy to feel a sense of wonder.

And waiting in a long line for an important flight can trigger frustration.

But much of the time, our state is automatic.

What’s your default? Satisfied, bitter, anxious, sad, curious, grateful, energized, disappointed, exhausted, eager, bored, hopeful, frustrated, overwhelmed, inspired or nostalgic…

If we can trigger one for six minutes, perhaps we can do it for an hour.

We’re more likely to perform what we rehearse.

      

Nhentai Rejects Piracy Claims, Hits Back with $500k Damages Claim for Fraud [TorrentFreak]

nhentaiWith an estimated 85 million visits per month, Nhentai is one of the most trafficked websites online today.

The site serves adult-oriented anime and manga, also known as hentai. These spicy Japanese comics are popular worldwide, but not everyone is happy with with the content Nhentai has to offer. Some rightsholders consider the site a deviant pirate operation.

In the summer of 2024, California-based rightsholder PCR Distributing (PCR), which operates under brands including J18 and JAST USA, took legal action against Nhentai, describing the site as a significant threat to its business.

Nhentai Owner Unmasked

PCR initially requested a DMCA subpoena asking Cloudflare to unmask the people behind the site. However, when Nhentai filed an objection, PCR swiftly dropped the subpoena request and launched a full lawsuit against the site’s owner at a California federal court.

In January, Nhentai asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Among other things, the site’s attorneys argued that a representative of PCR’s brands previously granted written permission for the use of their content while exploring the option to run paid ads on the site.

Besides a dismissal, the site’s operator/owner requested a protective order to proceed in the case anonymously, at least in the early stages. Keeping personal details out of public filings would shield them from potential retribution, they argued.

In April, California District Court Judge Cynthia Valenzuela denied both Nhentai’s motion to dismiss and the motion for a protective order. This meant that the lawsuit would continue, with Delaware company X Separator LLC stepping forward as Nhentai’s owner/operator.

Nhentai Owner Denies Wrongdoing

Last week, X Separator filed a formal answer to PCR’s complaint. The company admits that it owns and operates Nhentai.net with the intention of making it available in the United States while earning revenue there as well.

In the same filing, the company denies that it engages in copyright infringement or piracy activities, and further denies any connections to or involvement with Nhentai.to.

Denials such as these are typical under the circumstances. Together with a list of affirmative defenses, they make up the formal answer that a defendant must submit once a federal lawsuit moves forward.

However, Nhentai’s filing doesn’t stop there. In addition to the mandatory response, X Separator is countersuing PCR for fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Copyrights And Permission

The countersuit centers on PCR’s copyright registrations and the permission that was allegedly given to Nhentai. It argues that PCR Distributing didn’t just tolerate the site; the rightsholder actively approached Nhentai for promotions, partnerships, and advertisements.

From the counterclaims

counterclaims

The legal paperwork includes the examples above, as well as many others where representatives of PCR brands suggest deals or partnerships while their content remains on the site. These offers run counter to the copyright allegations in the complaint.

In addition, Nhentai’s countersuit points out that these works were not initially registered at the U.S. Copyright Office.

“From at least October 29, 2020 through April 21, 2022 – the timeframe in which the above-referenced emails were sent – Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant knew it had not filed or registered any U.S. copyrights,” X Separator’s filing reads.

In March 2023, PCR Distributing reportedly began registering its works at the Copyright Office but never rescinded the permission previously given to Nhentai. PCR went on to sue Nhentai for copyright infringement in 2024.

Permission not Retracted

register

Nhentai Countersues for Fraud

The emails where PCR Distributing allegedly approved the use of its works on Nhentai form the basis of the fraud and misrepresentation counterclaims.

For example, the counterclaim notes that PCR CEO Dave Adams submitted a declaration where he, “under penalty of perjury,” claimed to have personal knowledge of “countless instances” where PCR’s works were posted on nHentai.net without authorization.

Countless Instances

dave

X Separator argues that these statements are demonstrably false. The company alleges that PCR’s executives knew about the “permission” emails but chose to mislead the court to secure a DMCA subpoena and file the lawsuit.

$500k in Damages

The countersuit formally lists claims for Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation and Negligent Misrepresentation.

Because of the alleged deception, Nhentai’s parent company claims to have suffered significant harm so is requesting compensatory damages “which currently exceeds $500,000.00”.

$500k

500k

In addition, the company seeks punitive damages, arguing that the rightsholder acted “willfully, fraudulently, maliciously, and oppressively” with the specific intent to injure the site’s owner.

PCR Distributing has yet to respond to allegations. Meanwhile, the case will move forward to an eventual trial, if it gets that far. For now, Nhentai remains online.

A copy of X Separator LLC’s first amended answer to the amended copyright infringement complaint, including the counterclaims, is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

09:00 AM

ICYMI…and a Very Baby-Filled Holiday! [The Status Kuo]

It’s been a busy month with amazing meet-ups, conversations and travel, with just enough energy left over to have quality baby time and a big holiday meal with good friends and close family!

First, the ICYMI parts:

For free subscribers who’d like to become paid supporters of my work, today is the final day of my Thanksgiving weekend sale. Thank you to all you upgraded! You help make this newsletter possible. If you’re currently a free reader who’d like to chip in, use the button below!

Yes! Count Me in at 20% Off

My live convo last week with the amazing Michelle Meow of the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco is now on YouTube. We talked about the Supreme Court and its increasingly damaging “shadow” docket, the unprecedented deployment of the U.S. military in our cities, the recent election results and what they portend, and how to stay happy in America even when we’re not happy with America. Here’s the link:

Another ICYMI: Yesterday I had the pleasure of speaking at length with fellow appellate litigator and former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance. If you don’t read her substack Civil Discourse, I highly recommend it! You can sign up for it here.

We spoke about recent reporting on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s illegal order to kill the survivors of U.S. military attacks on civilian vessels; the recent cracks and defections in the MAGA movement; DOJ whistleblowers and incompetents and what it means for Trump’s revenge plans; and the political outlook for the GOP in the wake of Trump’s declining popularity, especially among Latinos and young men. I’m sure there was more, but you can catch our talk here:

And if you haven’t picked up a copy of Joyce Vance’s book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, it’s an important statement about where we are and what lies ahead for our nation. You can grab a copy here.

Okay, with all the ICYMIs out of the way, a few photos from this long weekend’s feast!

The kids got dressed up for the occasion. Riley’s smile is truly mischievous and infectious!

I don’t think I’m ever cutting Ronan’s hair.

I set a table for eight plus two baby high chairs…

We had six guests and five dogs over for Thanksgiving. This is Cleo, who is known as “Foxy Cleo” for a reason!

Many thanks to my brother John for preparing the Heritage turkey and all the fixings!

I made a mushroom Wellington and veggie Cajun-style cornbread stuffing for us non-meat eaters.

The butternut squash soup with ginger and cashew cream was a big hit with the kids.

I didn’t realize until I became a parent of two how rare it is to have everyone looking at the camera at the same time!

Some dear friends, a respectable food coma, puppy piles and happy sociable babies all made for a great Thanksgiving Chez Kuo!

Now it’s on to Yule Tide preparations. Whew! Can you believe tomorrow is December already?

Have a great Sunday! And thanks again for being a part of this broad, welcoming and strong community.

Jay

07:00 AM

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt [Techdirt]

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is MrWilson with a comment about how fascism is happening live on TV:

Trump’s supporters, like Trump himself, if being honest (ha!) will reply, “I don’t care, I want this to happen.”

They’ve never cared about the Constitution except as a weapon to be used against others and as a get-out-of-responsibility free card to use when someone calls them out. Hence the hypocrisy that they defend their harassing and threatening language as “free speech” but call for the persecution and prosecution of the free speech with which they disagree.

They think of the Constitution the same way they do the bible and America itself. Their uneducated, unnuanced gut feeling about what it is and what it contains is more truthy to them than actually being aware of what’s in it and what its nature actually is.

In second place, it’s Thad with a reply to that comment:

Yep. The next time there’s a Democrat in office they’ll suddenly be Very Concerned about checks and balances and coequal branches of government again.

(That and the deficit.)

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from ThatOtherOtherGuy about the failure to prosecute James Comey:

The key difference…

If there was really a crime, veteran litigators would have been lining up to get the case, not resigning to avoid it.

Next, it’s frankcox with a comment about what’s missing when federal judges call out DHS, ICE, and CBP for their lies:

Perjury perjury everywhere…

All of these people lying in court, with proof that they lied, and not a single perjury charge in sight.

Over on the funny side, it appears we’re still in a bit of a drought when it comes to funny comments! There are slim pickings for the editor’s choice, so we’re just going to do the winners by votes (the second of which didn’t even get enough votes to earn a badge).

In first place, it’s MrWilson again with a reply to a weird comment claiming a post said stuff that it absolutely didn’t:

It’s weird that you just admitted to shitting your pants daily. At least that’s how I read it. Apparently it’s not necessary to base your perspectives on things people actually say and you can just fight strawmen all day at your own leisure.

In second place, it’s an anonymous reply pushing back on a comment about RFK Jr. being a brain-eating zombie:

Maybe. But he’s still not a zombie. A real zombie would die of starvation in Washington DC after all.

That’s all for this week, folks!

03:00 AM

Kanji of the Day: 障 [Kanji of the Day]

✍14

小6

hinder, hurt, harm

ショウ

さわ.る

障害   (しょうがい)   —   obstacle
障害者   (しょうがいしゃ)   —   disabled person
保障   (ほしょう)   —   guarantee
故障   (こしょう)   —   fault
支障   (ししょう)   —   obstacle
社会保障   (しゃかいほしょう)   —   social security
視覚障害者   (しかくしょうがいしゃ)   —   visually impaired person
障がい   (しょうがい)   —   obstacle
障害物   (しょうがいぶつ)   —   obstacle
障害児   (しょうがいじ)   —   child with a (physical or mental) disability

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 憬 [Kanji of the Day]

✍15

中学

yearn for, aspire to, admire

ケイ

あこが.れる

憧憬   (しょうけい)   —   longing
憬れる   (あこがれる)   —   to long for
憬れ   (あこがれ)   —   yearning
憧憬れる   (あこがれる)   —   to long for

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Sunday 2025-11-30

10:00 PM

Pirate IPTV Box Evades Blocking But is Also Critically Vulnerable to Attack [TorrentFreak]

disaster-boxDescribed by the MPA, Premier League and other rightsholders as a priority piracy threat, a set-top box available to buy right now on popular markets, initially sounds like an attractive buy.

Manufactured in China, EVPAD TV boxes look fairly unremarkable, and with an Android 7.0 operating system under the hood, they are. When purchased with a cheap ‘lifetime’ subscription, with installable apps providing access to all the content most people will ever need, looks become less important.

However, a look under the hood reveals that the trade-off between content and privacy cannot be ignored.

Researchers Investigate EVPAD

Android-based EVPAD devices provide access to a huge library of infringing movies, TV shows, and live TV, sourced from countries including Canada, Taiwan, the UK, and the United States, among others. As a result, major rightsholders have regularly reported EVPAD and similar devices to the USTR’s Notorious Markets review.

A team of researchers at Korea University took an interest in the EVPAD ‘3p’ and ’10p’ devices when considering what type of anti-piracy measures might be effective against device-specific apps, operating within closed, subscription-based networks.

In this case, the EVPAD website advises buyers of the ‘3p’ device to download two apps from a third party website. ‘StarLive’ and ‘StarVod’ provide access to live TV broadcasts and VOD content, respectively. For the ’10p’ device, a single app called ‘StarV10’ is sufficient and in all cases, installation is simplicity itself.

evpad3“Interestingly, during the installation process from such unknown sources, the service applications are installed seamlessly without requiring any additional user interaction or explicit permissions,” the researchers report.

“Upon further inspection, we found that the global system setting for package installation from non-market sources (install_non_market_apps) was set to 1, indicating that side-loading from unknown sources is universally permitted on this Android 7-based device.”

For regular buyers, zero control over permissions should’ve been an immediate red flag. For the researchers, the secrets of obfuscated source code were still to be discovered.

“Streaming is Safer Than Torrents”

Since regular streaming is a process of consumption and the law tends to view supply more seriously, the theory that streaming is safer than torrents usually finds solid ground.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that streaming pirated content is legal, but in a client/server streaming scenario, obtaining evidence of downloading meets technical challenges that aren’t easily overcome. In contrast, BitTorrent users upload by default, which makes evidence of a more serious offense comparatively easy to obtain.

When people buy an EVPAD TV box, many will expect to ‘stream’ pirated content to the device. While that may be a part of the process, the reality is less straightforward.

A Hybrid Network

The researchers at Korea University found that EVPAD devices initially communicate with centralized servers, which manage authentication, various updates, and the all-important content lists. Once obtained, EVPAD devices use that information to join a BitTorrent-like peer-to-peer (P2P) network, in which unwitting downloaders become simultaneous uploaders, or as they say in court, unlicensed distributors of infringing content.

StarLive uses the ‘libtvcore‘ library to establish connections with other EVPAD devices, enabling real-time data sharing among peers, including the distribution of live TV broadcasts.

Under the Hoodevpad-dia1

When a user of StarVod selects a video to watch, the system identifies a corresponding .torrent file and HTTP file server. Encrypted using XOR, the .torrent file is decrypted by the libp2ptrans library then used to perform standard BitTorrent functions, with a tracker providing a list of available peers.

“Simultaneously, the user engages in both P2P communication with other peers and HTTP communication with the file server delivering the selected VoD title. This dual approach ensures both downloading and streaming, but in practice, HTTP streaming via a dedicated file server significantly enhances service availability and playback speed, often playing a major role in video streaming,” the researchers note.

Hybrid Network Complicates Blocking

This hybrid approach to networking complicates blocking efforts. While blocking certain domains would prevent service updates, that may not necessarily disrupt the P2P network.

In the event that the source of content becomes unavailable, the researchers say that data broadcasting nodes in the P2P network provide a fallback mechanism by acting as servers within the ‘swarm’. For video-on-demand (VoD) content, the system utilizes P2P but when necessary, HTTP is used to reach servers operating as Content Delivery Networks.

“[These servers] distribute torrent files and video content, and the presence of multiple similar domains suggests that they are designed to quickly circumvent domain blocks. Additionally, there are domains and IP addresses for Trackers to facilitate torrent-based communication,” the researchers add.

evpad-dia2

After manipulating IDs used to identify content categories, the researchers obtained all VOD lists from the servers above, which together identified 24,934 pieces of video content. That included 1,052 movies and TV shows in the ‘Nflix’ category alone.

Building Resilience Introduced Weakness

No system is completely bulletproof, and this one is no exception. In theory, the decentralized nature of the P2P network makes the system more difficult to shut down. In practice, it also introduces vulnerabilities that can be exploited to disrupt the service.

The researchers discovered two vulnerabilities. Using the Android emulator NoxPlayer to mimic an authenticated EVPAD device, the first allowed them to bypass authentication. This enabled content to be viewed from around the world, without a subscription, with the potential for “unlimited replication.”

While the first vulnerability granted access to the network, the second vulnerability instantly denied it.

“Given the critical nature of this vulnerability, we determined that even a single, carefully crafted TCP packet is sufficient for an individual to trigger service termination on a remote peer device. This drastically lowers the bar for potential abuse, as no significant bandwidth or coordinated effort is required,” the team note.

Blocking Measures Disrupt the EVPAD Network

When combined, these vulnerabilities form the basis of a theoretical anti-piracy strategy. Once a node is deployed in every available TV channel, the data normally used to connect peers can be leveraged for a different purpose. It allows an attacker to identify specific users and hit them with a TCP packet, causing an instant disconnection.

There’s no suggestion that such an attack has ever been used outside a lab environment. However, the researchers mention an injunction obtained in India by the Premier League that granted authority to block certain domains, which caused network disruptions lasting four days.

While service was restored, the researchers say that would’ve been more difficult if additional capability had been deployed alongside.

Implications For End Users

Beyond the inherent risks of sharing copyrighted content, the implications for users of EVPAD devices are significant. Often distributed in a pre-rooted state with no package installation restrictions, EVPAD devices are highly vulnerable to abuse. The researchers found that the device update process lacks any mechanism to verify integrity or authenticity.

The device also operates with SELinux in permissive mode, where policy violations occur without enforcement. These factors and others lead to the conclusion that attackers could secure a global network of “zombie” devices through which they could execute further attacks by remote control.

evpad-dia3

“At its peak, [the Mirai botnet] generated about 1TB of attack traffic using 145,000 devices,” the researchers note, adding that 17,000 compromised EVPAD devices could “potentially generate up to 0.12TB of malicious traffic at peak.”

The study identified 131,175 devices across 116 countries and 78 operational servers located in the United States, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and other countries

“Even if malicious intent is not the primary motive, the lack of commitment to user security by such illegal operators places users in a vulnerable position, making them susceptible to attacks.”

Watch Out Your TV Box: Reversing and Blocking a P2P-based Illegal Streaming Ecosystem, is available here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

08:00 PM

The shard moment of transition [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

When a new technology arrives, it appears unpolished, ill-formed and a bit wonky.

As it gains traction, existing industries and processes begin to be threatened, often before their replacements in the new technology are fully ready.

This is how Napster showed up for the music business, or email for faxes, or television for radio. Same with online shopping, smart phones and online learning.

The pointy part is the precipice–a shard where change is inevitable, but also feels fraught. The biggest gap between fear and hope. This is when foreboding in the existing industries begins to peak, and it’s not clear that the new tech is going to be able to absorb the energy, investment and attention of folks who can feel the old ways slipping away.

Right now, we’re seeing the beginning of that phase for AI.

People are either concerned about the future of their old ways, or in denial and ignoring what’s going on around them.

I’ve never seen a smooth handoff between technology regimes, and I’m not expecting one now. Not-smooth doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen, though.

Organizations and leaders can’t wait until the next steps are obvious and safe. At that point, it’s too late.

      

07:00 AM

Two kinds of useful specifications [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

Professionals use specs to invite others to participate in the work.

One kind of spec outlines the solution. In clear language, it defines the work to be done. A good solution spec defines an outcome with no room for error or variety. “It’s this. Not that, not that, but this. If it’s this, we’re done.”

The other kind of spec outlines the problem. It invites team members to innovate on the way to producing a solution. “If it solves this problem within these constraints, we’re done.”

Neither effective spec approach involves “I’ll know it when I see it.” A spec eliminates mindreading and guesswork.

      

This Week In Techdirt History: November 23rd – 29th [Techdirt]

Five Years Ago

This week in 2020, Portland, Maine passed a facial recognition ban that said the city can fire employees who violate it, which might have been useful in Seattle where a police detective took Clearview for a spin and possibly violated local laws. The FBI pulled another one of its manufacture-a-terrorist schemes, and was elsewhere seeking to perform an intrusive search of a phone for evidence it didn’t need. Nintendo was trying to crack down on creative uses of Animal Crossing, while the developers of Cyberpunk 2077 were adding a special mode to help streamers avoid DMCA notices. And Comcast decided that the middle of a pandemic was a good time to expand its bullshit usage caps.

Ten Years Ago

Speaking of Comcast, this week in 2015 they were testing net neutrality by letting their own streaming service bypass usage caps, and then they wished everyone an early happy new year by announcing price hikes and new misleading fees. The Telegraph published an extremely dumb article defending encryption by David Cameron’s former speechwriter, and Dianne Feinstein was flip-flopping on her previous concerns about cybersecurity by calling for encryption backdoors, while it came out that the “ISIS encryption training manual” about which much hay had been made was actually a pretty generic pamphlet for journalists and activists.

Fifteen Years Ago

This week in 2010, we wrote about why voting for COICA was voting for censorship, and why adopting ACTA would increase copyright infringement (not that this stopped the EU Parliament from rubber stamping their approval). Backlash was mounting against the TSA, with the San Diego airport team arresting a man for refusing to be groped and claiming that recording the TSA security process is an arrestable offense too. Agents decided to demonstrate the process for Congress to show that it was no big deal, which completely backfired, while the agency was refusing to say if it had ever caught a terrorist on the basis that this was a state secret, and we wrote about how all this TSA nonsense was based on the myth of “perfect security”.

Live with Joyce Vance [The Status Kuo]

Get more from Jay Kuo in the Substack app
Available for iOS and Android

Just for Skeets and Giggles (11.29.25) [The Status Kuo]

As Trump grows noticeably more erratic, foul mouthed and drowsy—all clear signs of increasing dementia—his defenders are doubling down.

Image.heic

Remember Megyn Kelly?

Image.heic

He’s trying to lean into Christianity, but it’s landing with a thud.

Image.heic

And there’s a big day coming up.

Image.heic

And even the traditional Turkey Pardon at the White House turned political.

Image.heic

People are still talking about that Trumpy moment on Air Force One. A tip for the holidays, applicable over Christmas, too.

Image.heic

This is a proper use of AI. Maybe the kids are all right.

Image.heic

MAGA Twitter was frantically hiding where the accounts are really based, and I’ll get to that later. First though, Newsom’s office with the news remix.

Image.heic

There’s still significant fallout from that Oval Office love fest with Zohran Mamdani. The South Park guys had Trump’s number a while back, tbh.

Image.heic

The Bubba blowback keeps bubbling around…

Image.heic

And theories about Mamdani’s charms abounded.

Image.heic

Shared this one earlier on social media. So wrong but so perfect.

Image.heic

Trump was crushing hard and it showed.

Image.heic

From whence this power Mamdani has over Trump?

Image.heic

Or perhaps another franchise.

Image.png

I wondered how true this is.

Image.heic

Then the wardrobe change happened.

Image.heic

Was he… Zara for Zohran?

Image.heic

I’m still not past the “It’s okay, you can say it” part of that meeting.

Image.heic

Riley Gaines apparently didn’t get the Mamdani White House memo.

Image.heic

And JD Vance? Flames. Out the side of his face.

Image.heic

Speaking of the Hillbilly Doughboy, his wife was spotted out sans wedding ring.

Image.heic

And since it’s Thanksgiving, let’s hear it for this meme that just turned one.

Image.heic

Stephen Miller cooked something for the holiday.

Image.heic

Let’s check in on the other top aides.… The Onion with the headline of the week.

Image.heic

How about over in Congress?

Image.heic

RFK, Jr. continued to wreak havoc.

Image.heic

And Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy had some advice for passengers. The Daily Show with the takedown.

Image.heic

Note: Xcancel links mirror Twitter without sending it traffic. Give it a sec to load. Issues? Click the settings gear on the upper right of the Xcancel page and select “proxy video streaming through the server.” Then click “save preferences” at the bottom. Still no? Copy the link into a URL and remove the word “cancel” after the letter X in the URL and it will take you to the original video.

The Internet would like a word, Sean.

Image.heic

This person really exists at DHS.

Image.heic

And at BLS, they couldn’t produce any numbers.

Image.heic

DOGE died, finally and officially.

Image.heic

Speaking of DOGE, Elon Musk’s social media platform went through some things. And some huge accounts, often amplified by Musk himself, were exposed as frauds. I so love this for them.

Image.heic

This guy…

Image.heic

People started asking whether any of the big MAGA accounts were actually from the U.S.

Image.heic

It makes you wonder…

Image.heic

Was any of it real? The mood among liberals who’ve put up with this crap for the last three years:

Image.heic

What Twitter began to feel like…

Image.png

Same, Sarah, same.

Image.png

These faux accounts used “all American” looking profile pics to fool the MAGAs.

Image.heic

All of the breaking news could be reframed, it turns out.

Image.heic

Then intrepid fraudsters figured out they could route through a VPN to hide their location.

Image.heic

This guy even tried to suggest a fix using home country flags. THIS GUY.

Image.heic

Maybe to change the subject away from the fact his platform is a hotbed of foreign influence, Musk went on Joe Rogan and tried to be funny but was just cringe AF.

Image.heic

Speaking of horrible terminally online people, Ben Shapiro decided trans bullying is still his thing. And a Guardian of the Internet was born.

Image.heic

And rapist/sex trafficker/friend of the Trump family Andrew Tate shared this interesting take.

Image.heic

Men without girlfriends are easier to control, I guess.

The more the White House bashes immigrants, the more openly racist his base becomes.

Image.heic

Many poor unfortunate souls had to head home for the holidays, where MAGA relatives would be gathered ’round the table. That’s where Leslie Jones can came in handy.

Image.heic

And how many of you have had this happen?

Image.heic

If you think white folks have it hard with MAGA voters in the family, imagine the convo around Latino tables.

Image.heic

Then there were all those MAGAs who posted that families should save a spot for Charlie Kirk at their Thanksgiving dinner table.

Image.heic

Let’s go back to a happier time when we could still laugh together around the table.

Image.heic

Speaking of Turkey Day, I’m running a Thanksgiving weekend sale! This newsletter depends on a volunteer paying readership, and you can become one today with 20% off your first year’s subscription. It’s a terrific time to offer your thanks and your support!

Yes! I’m In for 20% Off!

On to the doggos! Look at the shear dedication here:

Image.heic

A little help on pronunciation please.

Image.heic

I put a cape on Windsor, but she just sat there looking cute.

Image.heic

Speaking of corgis, my heart squeezed hard and melted over this. 🥺

IMG_9442.jpeg

I need someone to explain how they do this.

Image.heic

I can’t train my cat not to barf on the ottoman. So this is crazy.

Image.heic

Winter is coming, but if it means more content like this

IMG_9565.jpeg

These clips make me almost want a bird.

Image.heic

Jack apparently busts a lot of moves and has his own social media account.

Image.heic

My rabbit hole with Jack probably told the algos to feed me more bird content. Here is Henry the Turkey, whose run put a smile on my face.

Image.heic

If you have a duck at home, make it ghost your other pets.

Image.heic

This is me with the MAGA folks in my comments.

IMG_9591.jpeg

My favorite Chinese parents, Jay and Sharon, shared a special day for their son.

Image.heic

(No children were actually abandoned to make this video, but boy is this ever my go-to anxiety!)

Another proper use of AI:

Image.heic

The San Andreas Fault account was also on the troll.

Image.heic

A truly epic moment circulated on the net.

Image.heic

I love how he doesn’t even know until much later.

No shade on Britney, but this hits hard.

Image.heic

Speaking of pop stars, a big wedding was announced.

Image.heic

Watching other people’s reactions while they play these games is a new spectator sport.

Image.heic

Misheard and mistaken lyrics are a favorite human error of mine. Throwback to this Spanish radio request:

Image.heic

The mind often hears what the eyes see in the captions. Check this out:

IMG_9496.png

When you don’t remember the lyrics, just sing what you think it sounds like!

Image.heic

Here’s another:

Image.heic

It’s officially the holidays, so let’s kick things off with a truly epic, magical flash mob in Paris.

Image.heic

An extra dose of bad dad jokes this week! Here’s one from our resident aliens.

Image.heic

Even moms can be guilty of dad jokes.

Image.heic

A Thanksgiving dad joke, told by a cat. Convergence!

Image.heic

I‘m saving this for when my kids start to text me without using the shift button.

Image.heic

I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving! Tomorrow, I’ll be back with some pics (with babies!) from my own feast with friends and fam.

Jay

03:00 AM

Kanji of the Day: 雨 [Kanji of the Day]

✍8

小1

rain

あめ あま- -さめ

時雨   (しぐれ)   —   rain shower in late autumn (fall) or early winter
豪雨   (ごうう)   —   torrential rain
大雨   (おおあめ)   —   heavy rain
降雨   (こうう)   —   rainfall
雨水   (あまみず)   —   rain water
雨天   (うてん)   —   rainy weather
梅雨   (つゆ)   —   rainy season (in Japan, usu. from early June to mid-July)
小雨   (こあめ)   —   light rain
春雨   (しゅんう)   —   gentle spring rain
集中豪雨   (しゅうちゅうごうう)   —   local downpour

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 謀 [Kanji of the Day]

✍16

中学

conspire, cheat, impose on, plan, devise, scheme, have in mind, deceive

ボウ ム

はか.る たばか.る はかりごと

共謀   (きょうぼう)   —   conspiracy
無謀   (むぼう)   —   reckless
陰謀   (いんぼう)   —   plot
参謀   (さんぼう)   —   staff officer
首謀者   (しゅぼうしゃ)   —   ringleader
参謀長   (さんぼうちょう)   —   chief of staff
参謀本部   (さんぼうほんぶ)   —   General Staff Headquarters
謀略   (ぼうりゃく)   —   scheme
密謀   (みつぼう)   —   conspiracy
謀反   (ぼうへん)   —   plotting to overthrow the government (by assassinating the emperor)

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Saturday 2025-11-29

10:00 PM

Yout and RIAA Clash in Court Over YouTube’s Alleged Copyright Barriers [TorrentFreak]

yout logoFive years ago, YouTube ripper Yout.com sued the RIAA, asking a Connecticut district court to declare that the site does not violate the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision.

The music group had previously used DMCA takedown notices to remove many of Yout’s links from Google’s search results. This had a significant impact on Yout’s advertising revenues, according to operator Johnathan Nader, who always believed he wasn’t breaking any laws.

In 2022, the district court concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn’t circumvent YouTube’s technological protection measures. That rendered Yout’s defamation and business disparagement claims moot, but the legal battle was far from over.

Yout.com Appeals

Yout’s operator did not give up. In 2023, Nader appealed in the belief that YouTube rippers do not violate the DMCA. The argument received backing from the EFF and GitHub in their supporting amicus briefs.

The RIAA disagreed, countering that Yout is an “illicit stream-ripping service” that effectively allows people to “bypass YouTube’s technological restrictions” that prevent downloading of works streamed through YouTube. As such, the service violates the DMCA, a position supported by the Copyright Alliance.

One of the key issues in this dispute is whether YouTube’s “rolling cipher” is a technological measure designed to control access to or copying of copyrighted works. The difference between access and copying has become a key point of contention in a new AI twist.

AI Relevance: Access Controls vs. Copy Controls

Last month, AI music companies Suno and Udio filed an amicus brief at the Court of Appeals, alerting it to an alleged error the Connecticut district court made in its original ruling against Yout.

Suno and Udio, who were both sued by music companies, argued that the lower court’s ruling failed to recognize the difference between “access controls” and “copy controls”. This is crucial, they noted, as Congress explicitly separated these two copyright controls to enable fair use.

Congress recognized that to claim fair use, people have to copy something first. If the law were to prohibit the circumvention of copying restrictions, fair use would be effectively outlawed as well.

Circumventing access controls is prohibited under 17 U.S.C. § 1201

Circumventing copy controls is NOT explicitly prohibited under 17 U.S.C. § 1201.

For AI companies like Suno and Udio, the legal distinction between access controls and copy controls is not just a technicality. It’s the difference between having a viable fair use defense and being automatically liable for massive damages.

If the court rules that YouTube’s “rolling cipher” is an access control, Suno and Udio effectively lose their ability to argue fair use for the data they’ve scraped by accessing YouTube.

Yout Cites New Paywall Defense

Last week, Yout’s legal team told the Court of Appeals that they wholeheartedly agree with Suno and Udio. In a response brief, they note that the AI companies have it precisely right.

Yout’s lawyer, Evan Fray-Witzer, once again stresses that YouTube doesn’t have any access controls, as it is obvious that anyone with a web browser can watch videos on the platform.

“The District Court’s opinion ignores the simple fact […] that the videos displayed on YouTube are freely available to ‘anyone who requests them’ without a paywall, encryption, password, or decryption,” Yout’s response reads.

To back this up, Yout points to a very recent ruling: the July 2025 decision in a lawsuit between Emmerich Newspapers and the news aggregator Particle Media, better known as NewsBreak.

In that case, a court ruled that the news aggregator didn’t violate the DMCA when its bots stripped “paywall code” from the newspaper’s website. The judge concluded that, because the newspaper’s server voluntarily sent the full article text to the bot (including the paywall code), the bot didn’t “break in” to an access-controlled area. Instead, it simply “used” the data it was given in a way the publisher disliked.

Yout stresses that the same logic applies to its interaction with YouTube. Because YouTube sends audio and video data to anyone who visits the site without requiring a password, Yout argues the “gates are up,” making it legally impossible to “circumvent” an access control.

RIAA: You Can Watch, But You Can’t Touch

The RIAA also filed a brief in response to Suno and Udio, urging the Court of Appeals to reject the arguments from these AI companies.

RIAA’s central argument is that YouTube’s “rolling cipher” is designed to distinguish between two different things: access to a performance (the stream) and access to the work (the fixed digital file).

The RIAA agrees that YouTube allows people to view the stream, but they argue that the rolling cipher is designed to control access to the underlying fixed file.

“Amici’s argument conflates access to a ‘performance’ of a work with access to the ‘work’ itself,” the RIAA writes. In bypassing the cipher to download the file, stream-rippers such as Yout can access something YouTube never intended to give: a permanent digital copy.

While YouTube allows the public to view the performances without restriction, it uses the “rolling cipher” to restrict direct access to the underlying file. By modifying this cipher, Yout bypasses a valid access control, the RIAA notes.

The YouTube Whisperers

Both sides clearly have an opinion on how and why YouTube implemented its rolling cipher code. However, YouTube itself is not a party to the lawsuit, nor has it filed an amicus brief to explain its technology.

Yout’s lawyer previously argued that there is a legal vacuum where the court has to guess YouTube’s intentions, instead of moving the case forward so YouTube itself can be heard.

“There is a question as to what YouTube intended with these measures. We don’t know because YouTube isn’t here,” Yout’s lawyer argued in a previous hearing.

The RIAA, however, argues that YouTube’s intent is irrelevant. The music group maintains that the DMCA only cares about whether a measure “effectively controls access” in its ordinary operation, not what the engineers were thinking when they wrote the code.

Suno & Udio Settle: Yout Continues

Interestingly, both Suno and Udio settled their legal disputes with several major music labels recently, opting for licensing deals instead.

Udio settled its copyright dispute with Universal Music Group in October, followed by a similar agreement with Warner Music Group in November. Earlier this week, Suno followed suit, announcing a “landmark” partnership with Warner Music Group.

These settlements were agreed upon after Suno and Udio submitted their amicus brief in the legal battle between Yout and the RIAA. This means that their critique and the responses from both Yout and the RIAA still stand. Whether the Court of Appeals agrees remains to be seen.

A copy of Yout’s response to the brief of Suno and Udio is available here (pdf). RIAA’s response can be found here (pdf).

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

RSSSiteUpdated
XML About Tagaini Jisho on Tagaini Jisho 2025-12-02 11:00 AM
XML Arch Linux: Releases 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML Carlson Calamities 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML Debian News 2025-12-02 11:00 AM
XML Debian Security 2025-12-02 11:00 AM
XML debito.org 2025-12-02 11:00 AM
XML dperkins 2025-12-02 10:00 AM
XML F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository 2025-12-01 06:00 PM
XML GIMP 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML Japan Bash 2025-12-02 11:00 AM
XML Japan English Teacher Feed 2025-12-02 11:00 AM
XML Kanji of the Day 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML Kanji of the Day 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML Let's Encrypt 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML Marc Jones 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML Marjorie's Blog 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML OpenStreetMap Japan - 自由な地図をみんなの手で/The Free Wiki World Map 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML OsmAnd Blog 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow 2025-12-02 10:00 AM
XML Popehat 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML Ramen Adventures 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML Release notes from server 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect 2025-12-02 10:00 AM
XML SNA Japan 2025-12-02 10:00 AM
XML Tatoeba Project Blog 2025-12-02 11:00 AM
XML Techdirt 2025-12-02 11:00 AM
XML The Luddite 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML The Popehat Report 2025-12-02 10:00 AM
XML The Status Kuo 2025-12-02 10:00 AM
XML The Stranger 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML Tor Project blog 2025-12-02 11:00 AM
XML TorrentFreak 2025-12-02 11:00 AM
XML what if? 2025-12-02 11:00 AM
XML Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed 2025-11-24 07:00 PM
XML Write, Publish, and Sell 2025-12-02 03:00 AM
XML xkcd.com 2025-12-02 11:00 AM