Awesome Stuff: Everything On One Display

It's an age-old symbol of tech dismay: a dozen interconnected devices, a dozen remote controls, all failing to work smoothly with each other. This week, we're looking at a device that aims to sort out some of the mess when it comes to video: Skreens, a robust HDMI input mixer aimed at streamers and heavy media users.

The Good

Juggling multiple video devices is no picnic. Even having multiple windows open on a desktop or laptop is less than ideal, and once you bring in external devices other than general purpose computers, things get even tougher, leaving you with little option but to split your attention between multiple displays. Skreems offers another option: it takes two or four HDMI inputs (depending on the model), and lets you arrange them as you see fit and send them all to a single output. Sports on the left, Twitter feed on the right? No problem. Want to watch a movie, play Xbox, and use Skype all at once? Just drag and drop the three separate screens into your desired configuration and fire it up. It all runs through one compact box and is controlled by a separate app, which can also serve as a universal remote control. Skreens has the potential to be a complete solution to most multiple-media-device woes.

The Bad

Skreens comes in four models: the two-input and the four-input version, each with both a regular and pro model. That makes perfect sense until you take a closer look at the specs, and notice that they've made one very unfriendly choice: the pro models, which come with an extra $100 on the price tag, don't actually include any superior hardware — they just have some extra unlocked capabilities. In other words, it appears the non-pro models are capable of letting you do absolutely everything the pros are, but some of those features are artificially restricted, such as advanced video quality settings and the aforementioned universal remote capabilities. This sort of artificial limitation benefits nobody, and it's just begging to be circumvented — though we'll have to wait and see if the people behind Skreens make an effort to stop people from doing so. It's a shame that half of the models of this otherwise-impressive device have been intentionally hamstrung in order to push people into spending more.

The Performance-Friendly

Of course, part of the reasoning behind this is clearly that the creators see their biggest potential market among online streamers, and are hoping those increasingly-professional ranks will be willing to spend the extra bucks. And it's true that Skreens looks like a pretty exciting tool for people who stream their gaming sessions online, since they are usually either stuck with the limited options provided by a gaming console or various PC apps that add an extra software burden to their gaming rig. Skreens opens up lots of new possibilities for streaming gamers, and I suspect we'll see it being used to widen the possibilities for just what you can stream to Twitch or the new YouTube Gaming, beyond the now-standard "webcam feed in the top corner" configuration. Livestreaming is a rapidly growing entertainment sector with an already-massive audience, and Skreens has a shot at becoming a standard piece of every streaming gamer's setup — even with the unfortunate premium price tag on the pro models.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

SalesForce Says It Doesn't Support CISA After Signing Letter That Suggested It Did

One of the issues with various "cybersecurity information sharing" bills like CISPA from last year and CISA from this year, is that some tech companies have been (quietly) supportive of these bills. The whole focus of these bills is to encourage "cybersecurity information sharing" between private companies and the government. And, in theory, that may sound like a good thing. In reality, all the bills really do is focus on protecting companies from liability should they share private information they shouldn't have shared. And, of course, there's the fact that people who understand these things recognize that there's a hidden meaning behind CISA, in that it's really designed to give the NSA more "signatures" to use in its surveillance dragnet.

But, of course, for many companies, the bill just looks like a "get out of court free" bill -- because the entire focus is on protecting those companies from liability. Some companies take a more long-term, customer- or public-centric view of things and recognize all this, and have not supported CISA. Others, however, have been more supportive. A few weeks ago, the BSA -- which is really the Business Software Alliance, but refers to itself as The Software Alliance -- sent a letter to Congress outlining some of the issues that its members were supporting. This included a bunch of reasonable and good things, like much needed ECPA reform. However, it also included this:

Cyber Threat Information Sharing Legislation will promote cybersecurity and protect sensitive information by enabling private actors in possession of information about vulnerability and intrusions to more easily share that information voluntarily with others under threat, thus enabling the development of better solutions faster.

Now, it's notable that this line does not directly endorse CISA. And it's pretty clear that's on purpose. Of the bullet points in the letter three of the other four all name specific bills that the letter is supporting. Leaving out specific support of CISA is an interesting choice and at least indicates some hesitancy among some of the companies signing onto the letter to actually support CISA in its current form.

Of course, the problem is that, right now, there are no real alternatives being offered, and politicians who support CISA can and will point to this letter to argue that "the tech industry supports CISA." And, with that in hand, the good folks at Fight for the Future kicked off a campaign called YouBetrayedUs.org, calling on the companies who signed the letter -- including Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Symantec, Salesforce.com, Oracle and more to renounce the letter itself.

It appears that they've claimed their first scalp, as Salesforce.com has issued a press release saying they do not support CISA and have never supported CISA. The quote is from the company's chief legal officer, Burke Norton, who is the same representative who signed the letter:

“At Salesforce, trust is our number one value and nothing is more important to our company than the privacy of our customers' data,” said Burke Norton, chief legal officer, Salesforce. “Contrary to reports, Salesforce does not support CISA and has never supported CISA.”

And here he is on the letter: Again, it's absolutely true that the letter did not directly support CISA. And it could have. As mentioned, most of the other bulletpoints list out bills by name and/or number. But the one on cybersecurity did not. Of course, one might argue that the BSA did this on purpose, knowing that if it cited CISA by name, all hell would rain down on them from the public.

Either way, perhaps this should act as a clear warning to tech companies that do want to support CISA. The public isn't going to like it very much. Similarly, this should provide further notice to companies in signing these kinds of letters that they should understand what it appears they're supporting as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The new art of war: How trolls, hackers and spies are rewriting the rules of conflict

Cyberwar isn't going to be about hacking power stations. It's going to be far more subtle, and more dangerous.

Techdirt Podcast Episode 41: Privacy Policies Have Nothing To Do With Privacy

Privacy policies are ubiquitous online, and often required by law, but what are they really for? People don't read them, and when they do, they have a tendency to misunderstand them -- such as with the recent flare-up over poorly-contextualized changes to Spotify's policy. Plus, there's a built-in incentive for companies to write their policies as broadly as possible to avoid accidentally violating them, further stripping them of all purpose. This week, we discuss a simple question: are privacy policies an altogether stupid idea?

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apple Refused Court Order To Decrypt iMessages For DOJ; DOJ Debates What To Do

For many months now, there's been a war of words over the whole "going dark" issue, with the two loudest participants being the DOJ demanding backdoors to encryption, and Apple standing up and speaking out loudly about the importance of encryption. Sooner or later you knew the two would meet in a legal situation -- and now it's happened, with Apple clearly winning round one. The NY Times is reporting that the DOJ obtained a court order earlier this summer, demanding that Apple hand over decrypted iMessage messages (in real time) for an investigation. Apple, apparently, told the DOJ that those messages are encrypted, and it has no way to comply with the order. This is exactly the scenario that everyone's been chattering about for the past year. And apparently, people inside the DOJ are debating what to do about it:

The case, coming after several others in which similar requests were rebuffed, prompted some senior Justice Department and F.B.I. officials to advocate taking Apple to court, several current and former law enforcement officials said.

However, the article notes that any plans to take Apple to court have "been shelved for now." The rest of the article focuses on a somewhat related situation that we've discussed in the past, involving Microsoft refusing to comply with a DOJ subpoena to hand over emails that are stored on an Irish server. The issue in that case is not about encryption, so much as jurisdiction and the differences between a warrant and a subpoena. That case heads back to court this week. However, the issue about encryption and demands to decrypt communications or stored data will continue for quite some time.

The article notes that Apple did turn over some information, which the DOJ took as a sign of good faith:

In the drug and gun investigation this summer, Apple eventually turned over some stored iCloud messages. While they were not the real-time texts the government most wanted, officials said they saw it as a sign of cooperation.

Of course, the major difference here is that the iMessages are encrypted end-to-end, while data stored in iCloud is not, meaning that Apple actually has access to that content. Many have pointed out that in most cases, the important information that the DOJ will want is probably backed up in iCloud anyway, so perhaps that keeps the DOJ from actually going after Apple for the time being. But, still, it is noteworthy that a clash has already happened. Sooner or later, assuming Apple doesn't give in to the backdoor demands, the DOJ is likely to take someone to court over this... Perhaps it's just waiting for a company with pockets not quite as deep as Apple's.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Wall Street Journal Scores Very Limited Win In Fight With DOJ Over Sealed Surveillance Documents

The Wall Street Journal has obtained a nominal "win" in a Stingray-related legal action aimed at unsealing electronic surveillance orders, but the decision reads more like a loss. Jennifer Valentino-Devries reports:

In the order, made after a series of legal motions brought by the Journal’s publisher, Dow Jones & Co., U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the Southern District of Texas found that Dow Jones has a legal right to see government applications for surveillance, an idea the U.S. Justice Department had fought. But she agreed with the Justice Department that the requested documents shouldn't be disclosed yet because the 14 applications, dating from 2010 to 2013, all relate to continuing cases.

Yes, the WSJ has a right to see these files… but not until the DOJ decides these investigations are really and truly over -- a determination that has yet to be reached for files zooming past the half-decade mark.

The oral arguments delivered in June provide a little more insight into the DOJ's thought processes -- mainly that it should be the sole arbiter of document releases. The DOJ went past the constraints of its earlier argument -- that "open" investigations are not subject to "common law access" -- by claiming that documents used in the course of investigations, even closed ones, are not public records.

I think our position is that "ongoing" is perhaps the wrong word choice in order to determine where the common law right of access and the First Amendment right of access applies. What we would say is that there is significant authority for the government's argument that pre-indictment investigations and the warrants and the applications and the orders that are contained in the context of pre-indictment investigations are not subject to the common law right of access.

Dow Jones had asked the government to provide periodic status updates on these supposedly "open" investigations. The DOJ ignored these requests until prompted by the court, at which point it declared the files to be beyond the reach of the public. Here's the judge's recap of the events:

Dow Jones then filed earlier this year the motion for an updated status report requesting various things: the government to update the report regarding the status of the investigations, and then making public certain versions of the status report, and the sealed appendix. I believe then the government responded as I said, basically saying no updating is necessary here because there is no common presumption of access or First Amendment right.

The court didn't necessarily agree with this assertion but it did find the "balancing test" favored the government's interests. Dow Jones' legal counsel has asked for some additional transparency in docket filings, which would both provide the public with more information as well as assist the WSJ in determining the accuracy of the DOJ's assertions. (It could potentially aid in sussing out the form of surveillance being used as well.)

I would just make the one small addition that, you know, a lot of these applications have a bunch of different requests kind of all pulled together. We've got pen register, trap and trace, we've got D orders, we've got subpoenas, we've got statutory search warrants. And so I would think that an entry ought to reflect that, particularly as it relates to ongoing access issues.

You know, one -- some of these cases in which we've sought access are called In Re Sealed Application, some are called In Re Pen Register. The last one -- the most recent one is In Re Search Warrant. Well, if it's In Re Search Warrant, then the government's argument that these aren't search warrants looks a lot different. And so I think that the more specificity with regard to the basis of the application would help guide the Court as well as anyone who is seeking access to these to try and determine exactly what types of access might apply.

The DOJ, unsurprisingly, isn't a fan of this idea. The surprising part is that -- in arguing against Dow Jones' proposal -- it basically admitted it deploys multiple investigative tools and techniques using a single, apparently non-specific judicial authorization.

[F]or efficiency purposes, we've tended to bring a lot of these actions under one single document so that we don't have to keep coming back to the judge to get separate authorizations for different types of investigatory techniques in the same investigation, so we've just found it expedient to do that at one time.

There are your parallel construction and your Stingrays d/b/a pen registers, etc. And this slips by the court unquestioned.

As it stands now, the DOJ owes the Wall Street Journal a status update in two weeks… and that's about it. The paper may have won the right to unseal these documents, but apparently any future transparency will be left to the discretion of the government.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story