joe, beta

Cell phone tracking comes in two forms: police obtaining retrospective historical data kept by mobile providers for their own billing purposes that is typically not very detailed, or prospective tracking--which CNET was the first to report in a 2005 article--that reveals the minute-by-minute location of a handset or mobile device.

. . .

The Obama administration argues that no search warrant is necessary; it says what's needed is only a 2703(d) order, which requires law enforcement to show that the records are "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." Because that standard is easier to meet than that of a search warrant, it is less privacy-protective.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia heard oral arguments on Friday, 12 February 2010 about the legality of the government demanding cell tracking records from service providers.

As I understand it, the government has been asserting authority under a very loose statutory provision allowing them to get these records without a search warrant, requiring only that the records be shown "relevant" to an ongoing investigation.

The records used are produced when your cell phone company pings your phone, which it does at regular intervals (sometimes less than two minutes apart), to determine which cell tower is closest to you.

The phone company uses that data to ensure that incoming and outgoing calls are routed to the nearest tower, resulting in the clearest signal and the fewest possible dropped calls.

The government can use it to triangulate your position to within 150 meters (less than 500 feet).

That's enough to know when you're at home and in many large buildings, like churches and employer offices, and that level of accuracy without the requirement for a warrant showing probable cause concerns many privacy advocates and clearly does not sit well with the presiding judge in the Third Judicial Circuit's Court of Appeals, Judge Sloviter.

Read the excerpts of the argument transcript that CNET included in their article (particularly the section they end the article with) and you'll know what I mean.

Third Judicial Circuit's website:

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/

"The notion that an infringer who does not make a profit should automatically be entitled to better treatment than an infringer who does make a profit is found nowhere in the law," the Recording Industry Association of America said this week in papers rejecting U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis's decision to slash the damages Jammie Thomas-Rasset must pay from a "monstrous and shocking" $1.92 million to a "significant and harsh" $54,000.

No commentary on this one. Just a reminder that this case will likely go to a third trial, solely on the question of damages.

Ars Technica's policy blog, Law & Disorder, has a really good artcile on this story, as well. It ran a couple of days ago.

Also check out Google News for more information on the third trial. And, of course, you can see my previous coverage of the RIAA, which includes both of the cases mentioned in the MediaPost story quoted above.

I’d like to set the record straight regarding Boxee’s access to Hulu. Boxee uses a web browser to access Hulu’s content – just like Firefox or Internet Explorer. Boxee users click on a link to Hulu’s website and the video within that page plays. We don’t “take” the video. We don’t copy it. We don’t put ads on top of it. The video and the ads play like they do on other browsers or on Hulu Desktop. And it certainly is legal to do so.

Boxee is an incredible little application, available on Mac, Windows, and Linux systems. It aggregates streaming content providers from all over the web in one convenient, shiny interface. You can access everything from YouTube to CNN Video to music streaming services like Last.fm.

The quote above is from Boxee CEO and co-founder Avner Ronen, in response to testimony Comcast and NBC executives gave before Congress recently as they try to push their merger deal through the modern-day antitrust minefield.

Boxee has been battling the executives over at Hulu--where I consume the overwhelming majority of television programs I view--about Hulu's refusal to allow its content to be included in Boxee's interface. Presumably, Hulu wants the page visits that they wouldn't get if people were sucking their content out of their site and into Boxee.

As NBC's Zucker told Congress, Hulu has distribution deals with several outlets that use its content, and probably pay a pretty licensing fee to do so.

A November 2009 Techdirt article talked about how annoyed Hulu has been that people are using the code it provides to embed their videos in other web sites to, well, embed their video in other web sites.

But these "serial embedders," who just put all of Hulu's content on their own web page and reap the ad revenue that Hulu should have had, are the real problem. "Specialized browsers"--like Boxee--as Techdirt's Michael Masnick points out in the article, access the video from Hulu's web site, and thus don't engage in all the nasty revenue stealing that serial embedders do. In fact, Boxee is looking at a subscription model of its own, partly with an eye toward paying content provider for premium access to their libraries.

That's why the Boxee folks argue that, since 1) they're accessing Hulu via a browser interface instead of just embedding video on their own site; 2) Boxee serves no ads anywhere in its interface, ever; 3) Hulu's ads are embedded within the videos and thus not lost when Boxee includes their content; and 4) they're looking at paid content delivery models--just like Hulu--there's no reasonable basis for prohibiting Boxee from including Hulu in their offerings.

It sounds to me--and I'm by no means an expert on the details--that Hulu just wants all the money it can get, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. After all, they want to avoid charging viewers for as long as they can, and that's why they're setting up distribution deals where they can, and to turn a profit that they're not quite turning on ad sales alone. And, since Hulu's models is arguably the future of television, for better or worse, it's important that Congress and, really, the world, looks closely at their successes and failures.

Not to mention the fact that if and when their merger with Comcast goes through, the cable giant will own a huge physical content delivery infrastructure as well as NBC's content creation arm and Hulu's internet content delivery system.

That kind of consolidation, while it may not violate any laws or portend any ill intent on Comcast's part (benefit-of-the-doubt alert...), warrants substantive conversation about the consumption models that will be available to consumers. It therefore, in this humble blogger's opinion, behooves us all to pay close attention in the coming months.

Hopefully, we'll see some of the negotiations to which NBC claimed they are open in their testimony--which, by the way, Boxee refutes, implying that they've been given the cold shoulder before--and those negotiations will lead to a system that works for both parties. Even if it costs consumers some money, the convenience of anywhere, anytime web delivery of television content seems infinitely more valuable than a television anchored to one or two licensed cable connections in your home.

A good primary source for information on this issue as the merger progresses through regulatory hurdles is C-SPAN's Archives. You can drill down to Comcast coverage using their Cable Television tag.

This was cross-posted at The Rotten Word.

I started watching hockey and the Flyers with my dad as early as I can remember. We had a game plan for a couple seasons at the old spectrum and witnessed Bobby Clarke’s and also Bill Barber’s number retirement. I’ve been lucky enough to find a woman who shares my passion for the game and for a team (Red Wings).

I started Ice The Puck to get away from the major market web sites. I've grown tired of the insincere and inconsistent drivel spewed by beat writers and "sports news" sites. I can only say so much in a comment on those sites anyway. I figured I needed a larger megaphone - Welcome to Ice The Puck.

My long-time friend and co-conspirator Jonny B. recently opened his own site at Ice the Puck, making up for the same-old-same-old coverage offered by sports sites and beat writers. His blog over there will provide quality coverage from a Flyers fan who literally bleeds orange and black. I've seen it. It's kind of nasty. And awesome.

Nasty-awesome.

Anyway, get your read on, hockey fans!:
http://www.icethepuck.net/

Copy and paste the link below to add Ice the Puck to your RSS reader:
http://www.icethepuck.net/?feed=rss2

This was cross-posted at The Rotten Word.

It stems back to Kyle Cassidy and photo blogging," says Krumm, noting that the West Philadelphia photographer's various Photo-A-Week projects, dating back to 2000, set a template for Photoist, the picture-a-day arm of Phillyist. "And with 400 members of Phillyist's Flickr group, [online] is a natural place to pull from.

Erica and Allison are wonderful writers who do a lot of great work for Phillyist, and I'm excited that they got to talk to the Philadelphia City Paper about Phillyist's upcoming photo show, Phillyist Framed. It really is their baby, and it's going to be awesome.

The show, which which will have its opening reception tomorrow, Friday, January 29, from 7pm to 9 p.m., is located at Studio 34, 4522 Baltimore Avenue and will run through February 5th. Admission is free.

Get more information about Phillyist at http://phillyist.com

This was cross-posted at The Rotten Word: http://wp.me/p82Ly-rk