Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government

How A Lobbying Firm May Have Submitted Fake FCC Comments (gizmodo.com) 44

Remember when dozens of Americans said their names were used for fake comments sent to America's FCC opposing net neutrality?

Now Gizmodo's taken a hard look at their past interviews with Dan Germain, the CTO of a company that helps lobbyists construct digital "grassroots" campaigns -- and at the conservative nonprofit Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF). Attempting to confirm or disprove the alleged link between CQ and CFIF, Gizmodo initiated its own review of the API data logs last week, focusing on comments from dozens of people who claim they were impersonated online.... [T]imestamps contained in the API logs reveal an unmistakable correlation between the use of CQ's API key and numerous identical comments containing CFIF's text... By comparing the API logs to comment data that the FCC had already made publicly available, Gizmodo found more than a dozen comments containing CFIF's boilerplate language... In each successful case, the comments were received by the FCC while CQ's API key was in use, with the logs reflecting deviations in the timestamps roughly equivalent to the blink of an eye...

Prior to CQ becoming a subject of interest in an ongoing criminal investigation, Germain explained at length that his company had created a platform specifically to direct comments to the FCC and that it had been operational since at least 2016.... Whereas many of the groups responsible for uploading millions of comments requested only one or two API keys, logs show that CQ, over a period of several months, requested no fewer than 114.

The article notes that identical comments using language from CFIF "are now suspected of having been uploaded using CQ's software" -- and that they were submitted to the FCC "several hundred thousand times."

Comment I built a Twitter-enabled litterbox months ago (Score 5, Interesting) 115

Check out the Twitter feed here.

Not only does it report the weight of my cat's droppings, but it reports the duration and total cat weight. It also generates amusing facts about Nibbler's pooping habits.

I have some basic build instructions available. I use Bluetooth, Arduino, Raspberry Pi, load cells, and an external ADC.

GNU is Not Unix

FSF Launches "BadVista" Campaign 607

FrankNFurter writes to note the launch yesterday of the FSF's BadVista campaign against Microsoft's new operating system. BadVista's aim is to inform users about the alleged harms inflicted by Vista on the user and about free software alternatives. Quoting program administrator John Sullivan: "Vista is an upsell masquerading as an upgrade. It is an overall regression when you look at the most important aspect of owning and using a computer: your control over what it does. Obviously MS Windows is already proprietary and very restrictive, and well worth rejecting. But the new 'features' in Vista are a Trojan Horse to smuggle in even more restrictions. We'll be focusing attention on detailing how they work, how to resist them, and why people should care."

Comment Re:Discovering GPL violations (Score 1) 189

Here's another (real-life) scenario:
Some time ago, I released a "Glide wrapper" under the LGPL. Glide is a proprietary 3D API created by 3dfx--my wrapper exposed the same entry points, but converted them to equivalent Direct3D calls.

Now presumably, I could have released my wrapper under the standard GPL. However, there are all these games still around that can link with my library. Obviously, it's absurd to think they need to rerelease under the GPL, just because they have the potential to link with my "implementation" of Glide, but from how I read the GPL, that's what needs to happen. So, either the GPL is broken, or it's illegal for me to license my wrapper with the GPL. The latter seems more likely, but where does that leave other library developers?

If the GPL *is* broken in this fashion, it brings up another possibility for Vidomi: to release *two* DLLs, each exposing the same pseudo-standardized interface (which would include entry points for resizing, cropping, etc.). One DLL would be developed in-house, and would just implement the functionality at the most basic (slow, buggy, but quickly developed) level. The other DLL would use the GPL code from VirtualDub and others, and would presumably do everything with much higher quality.

Now, it seems that you would be hard-pressed to fault Vidomi on this, since their package would be completely usable without the GPL code. However, most everyone would download the "enhanced" DLL, just because it would be so much better.

Of course, if it is indeed illegal to license with the GPL in this case, then the whole idea is moot.

-Scott

Slashdot Top Deals

It is better to never have tried anything than to have tried something and failed. - motto of jerks, weenies and losers everywhere

Working...