When Trump’s FCC decided to “streamline” complaints by adding a fee in 2018, it was widely reported and condemned:

• https://futurism.com/the-byte/isp-problem-fcc
• https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/fcc-wants-to-charge-225-fee-for-filing-complaints/
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fcc-wants-charge-225-look-consumer-complaint-n890881
• https://www.extremetech.com/internet/273212-fcc-may-gut-informal-complaint-process-force-consumers-to-pay-225-fee
• https://gizmodo.com/fcc-ditches-plan-to-screw-with-its-complaint-process-bu-1827538871
• https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/ajit-pais-fcc-wants-to-stop-reviewing-your-complaints-unless-you-pay-225/
• https://uk.pcmag.com/software/116326/fcc-adopts-controversial-rules-on-handling-consumer-complaints

In 2026, I have put this 2018 anti-consumer horse shit to the test. Sent the FCC informal complaint, which costs nothing. It was not over some subjective poor service. A telecom bluntly and violated the law in a way that’s manifestly indefensible. They even admitted to it. Would be a trivial win -- if only someone in the FCC would lift a finger.

Of course if the FCC were to act on a gratis informal complaint, there would be no incentive for me to pay them $225 to take a formal complaint. So of course they ignore it. Not even so much as an acknowledgement.

This would not happen in Europe, because of human rights

Europeans have a right to good administration. If the US had the same, it would then be illegal for the FCC to simply ignore complaints. In the very least the FCC would have to acknowledge your complaint, read it, make a decision, and if the decision is adverse they would have to provide rationale.

There’s been plenty of talk by judges about imposing sanctions on ICE and DOJ lawyers who have routinely violated court orders and constitutional rights, and straight up lied in court (or allowed agents and officers to lie in court). But not much has actually been done about this. So far, it’s mostly been threats of future punishment. But if there’s a sign of hope for the future, it’s this, even if “this” is a bit underwhelming. (h/t Kyle Cheney)

Sanctions are coming. Slowly. And almost comically. But it’s better than nothing, if only barely. A federal court in Arizona is finally going to “punish” an ICE lawyer for misconduct. The targeted wrist may barely feel the slap, but here it is, as delivered by federal judge Diane Humetewa in this recent court order [PDF].

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/59848347

This post mentions that Europeans have a “right to good administration”. When I dug further, it means (for example) that apparently if you file a report, request, or complaint with a European government, they cannot simply ignore you. They must acknowledge you. And if they need to make a decision on how to handle your request, they must inform you of their decision and also state the reason for their decision.

It all seems like basic common sense stuff. But in Trump’s US, consumers just get ignored. Telecoms have no incentive to comply with the law under Trump’s FCC and FTC. So there are plenty of things to complain about to the FCC and FTC, but they simply ignore the complaints now.

Is the only recourse to file a lawsuit? It would seem silly to sue the FTC or FCC for ignoring complaints. But AFAICT, the FCC and FTC answer only to Trump. Correct?

While the court “agreed with our core legal arguments” that Oregon carefully evaluates the needs and proper placement of transgender inmates, “we strongly disagree with the court’s harmful language,” said Jenny Hansson, spokesperson for the state attorney general’s office. “It does not reflect our brief or our values.”

I have to be vague and perhaps this ruins whether answers can be helpful.. but I’ll try anyway.

A VOIP provider in state X violated the laws of that state by disconnecting a customer without warning. Overseas customer complains to state X. State X basically says: the telecom is not just operating locally. Your grievance is in your state; not our problem. You have to contact your own state’s regulator.

Oof. So suppose I moved to Canada. The VOIP provider does not even know I moved (though they might guess from my IP address). How could they be expected to comply with Canadian law? Suppose that’s really true. So then what? I sue them in Canada, then have the Canadian judgement domesticated in state X by a judge in that state?

Shitshow indeed. The VOIP provider operating out of state X probably has at least one customer in state X. Let’s assume that’s true. Would they only have to comply with the laws of state X specifically in the context of state X residents?

I could not find a way to reach the Council of Better Business Bureaus. So I had to dig into what happened to them. It turns out they split in 2019 into two separate orgs:

• International Association of Better Business Bureaus (IABBB)
• BBB National Programs

Confusing as fuck because I would naturally expect all the US-based BBB agencies to fall under the “BBB National Programs”. But the opposite is true. AFAICT, there is nothing international about the IABBB.

So what is the BBB National Programs? It is focused on advertising and privacy both. And w.r.t. privacy it has specifically positioned itself as some kind of authority on data movement between the EU and US.

This “BBB National Programs’ Center for Industry Self-Regulation (CISR)” has partners. When I look at the list of partners, it’s a shit-show of shitty corporations like Nestlé. I boycott about half of them. So who is partner in this non-profit effort to protect the privacy of those with EU and US digital footprints, you might ask? Here are some of them:

• Facebook (I hate to acknowledge the obnoxious “Meta” brand but write it here for searches)
• Google
• Verizon
• JP Morgan Chase (one of the most obnoxious privacy abusing banks in the US)
• Unilever (the food brand who has joined Bill Gates’ war on cash)

Indeed the wolves seem to be in charge of the hen house.

So what is the legal consequence of this org? Are they facilitating some kind of under-handed way to get a seal of approval for GDPR purposes?

Details here. I’m not a JavaScript coder but I suspect the FCC has written malicious code to block people from accessing archive.org. Is this legal? Who oversees the FCC -- Congress, or just the POTUS?

For anyone living in 1 of the 5 hard-right red states, your oppressive gov has decided that you cannot have a standard ID or driver’s license. You must Pay some high fees and go through some extra hoops in order to help the state push a xenophobic agenda.

I have never seen an Attorney General take action on a consumer complaint. The best outcome I’ve seen is they make the complaint public record, then do nothing. Other AGs reply to say “not a violation of deceptive trade practices”. And some AGs do not respond at all - they just ignore complaints.

The FTC and CFPB are also options but those are also often deadbeat agencies particularly under republican governance.

What’s the recourse? Who generally oversees a state’s AG?

(ignore the above massive preview text if you are using the shitty stock Lemmy client) The bombshell is that Elon exfiltrated the social security records of all Americans and shared it with Cloudflare, DOGE, and an outside advocacy group seeking to overturn election results. The fuckup is not just SSNs (slave surveillance numbers), it’s the whole 9 yards: “DOGE team members were given access to databases containing: * Social Security numbers * medical and mental health records * bank and credit card information * tax details * work histories * and home addresses for millions of Americans.” I suppose getting a new SSN is futile, even if permitted, because all this data is aggregated into the data breach. So change your name, move your residence, new SSN, switch banks... fuck, just leave the country perhaps. (edit) I accidentally updated an older version of my post and lost a paragraph where I conjectured that the databreach was legal since it only violates the 4th Amendment, which the US tends to brush aside as we know from the Snowden revelations. Hence the correction from @ReptilianCleric@lemmy.zip below. Sorry! No version control on Lemmy.

From the linked PDF:

Give the officers my ID?
If the ICE officer demands your ID, only show a driver’s license or another ID issued from the U.S. government. DON’T give the officer any false or foreign documents such as a passport, consular ID, or an expired visa.

In NY, the DRIVER must show any officer a driver’s license. If you are the PASSENGER, you do NOT have to show the officer an ID or give any personal information, including your name, address, or place of birth.

This seems off.

My understanding: in the US, nationals need not carry ID (while immigrants must carry their docs). Exceptionally, if you are driving a car, then the state requires you to carry your driver’s license. The DL is the property of the state. The fed does not issue driver’s licenses.

There is no such thing as a US federal driver’s license. The quote above refers to “ID issued from the U.S. government,” that would be a passport. A passport is not going to be carried daily inside the issuing country.

Traffic enforcement is not in the jurisdiction of federal ICE agents, is it? Can they really demand your driver’s license under this kind of false pretense of ensuring that drivers are permitted to drive when in fact the real reason they want to see the DL is to snoop on citizenship?

There are some interstate highways that traverse state borders. Does it make a difference whether or not someone is driving on one?

And what about cyclists? If you are cycling and happen incidentally to be carrying a driver’s license (which is not needed to cycle), must you produce it on demand?

It’s bizarre how that doc singles out New York. How does it differ from other states?

what the ACLU says

The ACLU has some advice:

https://www.acluva.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police-or-ice/

This is also a bit imprecise. Of course drivers must show their DL to “police”, but what about ICE? They just leave that up in the air.

Updated title

The first responder erroneously thought this thread was to seek advice. My title was admitedly ambiguous. In !law_us@lemmy.sdf.org, the purpose is chatter about law, not really about order.

Should ACLU’s official advice for dealing with ICE agents be “do whatever you want”? Probably not.

The linked thread shows people talking about a US regulation that requires printer makers to produce stegonographic tracker dots on every page printed

Can anyone cite the statute?

I suspect they are talking nonsense. Everything I have read on the topic mostly conceals the motivation of the printer makers. But my speculative impression is that the US gov secretly requested the feature and the printer makers were happy to accommodate because it leads to selling more yellow inks and toner. Plus it gives them a “good excuse” for blocking color printers from printing black docs when any of the color cartridges are empty.

But in any case, it would be interesting to get some concrete information about printer makers’ motivations. Why haven’t they been interviewed by the EFF?

UPDATE: someone suggested EU Directive 2014/62. But AFAICT from the wording that directive does not seem to force printer makers to watermark documents.

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/31761131

Cliff’s notes: Team GOP prevailed, the people lost on netneutrality. The only thing you can do now is cancel your broadband.. something very few people have the will power to do.

I suppose the reason they did not take it to the supreme court is Trump managed to stack that court in favor of the right-wing nutjobs. So if the case goes there, it will do the GOP’s bidding to favor big business over the people and enter an oppressive decision that is even harder to correct in the future.

(note this story was originally on Ars Technica but that site is enshitified so I found a less enshitified source to link -- something more fedi posters should do)

I received a notice that my data was leaked in a data breach from a custodian who I did not know had my data in the first place. I had never even heard of them.

One of my financial institutions outsourced to this custodian who was breached. I want to know who I am doing business with that hired the reckless custodian so I can close my account. The custodian ignored my requests for the source of the data.

The attorney general responded saying essentially: out of our purview.. nothing to do here.. we don’t give a shit.

Really? It’s such a perverse assault on data breach victims to deny them information about where the breach came from.

I would like to sue the custodian who is concealing from me the data source. Of course I would like to know if any law was broken, and I find nothing. What am I missing?