The USPTO's Reality Distortion Field: Web Filter Blocks Critics Like EFF, Welcomes Maximalist Lobbyists
from the but-techdirt's-available dept
Updated: At 5pm ET, the USPTO called Jamie to say that a contractor had set this up, and after reviewing their policies, they had stopped blocking such sites…
Well this is bizarre. Jamie Love from KEI was over at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for a meeting about “global negotiations on intellectual property and access to medicine.” The meeting itself was held in a room that it uses for the USPTO’s Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA), and there is free WiFi for people to use. Love tried to log onto his own website… and found that it was being blocked as a “political/activist group.”
Access Denied (content_filter_denied)
Your request was denied because this URL contains content that is categorized as: “Political/Activist Groups” which is blocked by USPTO policy. If you believe the categorization is inaccurate, please contact the USPTO Service Desk and request a manual review of the URL.
For assistance, contact USPTO OCIO IT Service Desk. (io-proxy4)
Love then checked a bunch of other sites… and noticed a rather distressing pattern. For public interest groups who advocate that the existing copyright/patent system is broken, the websites were all blocked. ACLU, EFF, Public Knowledge, Public Citizen, CDT… all blocked. However, if you’re a lobbyist for maximalism? No problem! MPAA, RIAA, IIPA, IPI, PHRMA, BSA… come on through. They do allow Creative Commons. Thankfully (for us, at least), they don’t seem to block blogs that talk about this stuff. Techdirt is allowed, as are things like BoingBoing, Groklaw and Larry Lessig and Michael Geist’s blogs. Though, oddly, a bunch of political sites (DailyKos, TPM, RedState, Rush Limgaugh’s site) are blocked.
It may be an “over active” filter — but it does seem particularly disturbing that all those groups who fight for the public’s rights on the very issues the USPTO is dealing with on a regular basis have their sites completely blocked.
Filed Under: advocacy, uspto, web filter
Companies: aclu, bsa, cdt, eff, iipa, ipi, kei, mpaa, phrma, public citizen, public knowledge, riaa
Comments on “The USPTO's Reality Distortion Field: Web Filter Blocks Critics Like EFF, Welcomes Maximalist Lobbyists”
Of course, unblocking the sites would only solve part of the problem. There may not be much interest among USPTO employees in reading websites so antithetical to their existing views. Eric.
Re: Re:
You mean to antithetical to their campaign contribution and revolving door favors.
Re: Re: Re:
so *
Re: Re:
Eric, I am both glad you were the 1st comment and saddened by your response – unless I take it as tongue in cheek. I am absolutely shocked at this filter message. I personally do not care what the F the individuals in the USPTO think or do not think about their particular political or other views. I DO want them to have access (even if just in case there are a few enlightened souls). I cannot believe this does not become viral. It is absolutely shocking to the senses. It also explains a great deal about the disconnect between politics and reality.
The USPTO is a real government organization, right? Not like the US Chamber of Commerce who are just a bunch of assholes who want to pretend they’re part of the government.
A US government organization not only blocks sites like the EFF and the ACLU, they have an entire category labeled “Political/Activist Groups”. That’s not an overactive filter, that’s intentional. I’m fairly sure that qualifies as a true violation of the First Amendment. Plus that shows bias to one group of people over another, something the US government should not be doing.
Re: Re:
The first thing I thought was “Why are they blocking political/activist groups at all?”
Blocks on porn at work? Sure.
Facebook and other time wasters? Fine.
General blocks on all things not directly related to work? Okay.
Political/Activist sites? Wait, what?!
It is actually a third party company called “blueshield” iirc that does the filtering.
Re: Re:
I have heard of them. However, they only block what they have been told to block. So the USPTO is still the one doing the blocking.
Re: Re: Re:
PTO sets policy, it is up to the blueshield guys to try to implement it to actual sites. They just do the best they can. Trust me, nobody in the PTO was all like “omfg the eff must be blockzored!”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Political Activists must be blocked”?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trust me,
Why?
Re: Re:
6…Just curious if the USPTO has such a WiFi policy and where a copy can be found.
Re: Re: Re:
What do you mean “such a WiFi policy”? I’m not sure what you’re asking about WiFi for.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mentioned it only because the person posting the article mentioned that the notice appeared when trying to use a WiFi system at the USPTO. Frankly, I would have been very surprised if the USPTO actually had such a policy. As it turns out, apparently things have been resolved to the person’s satisfaction.
why would it be disturbing when it is to be expected? as with almost everything, if it speaks out in public interest, it’s subversive behaviour. wont be long before all rights that were fought for are removed and the public are treated as they were 100+years ago, as slaves to the rich. the difference will be that colour will not be a prerequisite.
Re: Re:
At least all of the poor 99%’ers will all get equal treatment under the law. And no discrimination based on anything other than net worth.
Blocks
> A US government organization not only blocks
> sites like the EFF and the ACLU, they have
> an entire category labeled “Political/Activist
> Groups”. That’s not an overactive filter,
> that’s intentional. I’m fairly sure that qualifies
> as a true violation of the First Amendment.
Homeland does the same thing. Ours also have blocked categories for “Sports”, “Humor/Games”, “Personal Pages” and most bizarrely “Educational/Research”.
Re: Blocks
We talking Homeland the company or Homeland Security the government group?
When you block “Educational/Research” do you block all educational and research pages or just the ones that promote evolution while allowing all the creationist pages threw?
My point is that the USPTO is a government organization blocking one type political speech while allowing the opposing political speech. I could believe it was an oversight or just an over active filter, if it blocked all “political/activist” pages.
Probably set up to keep people from leaking information
Update on USPTO web filter
Update: At 5 pm the USPTO called and said that the public access wifi network was using a filter, provided by a contractor, to block “political activist” sites. This filter was not used by the network providing Internet access for the USPTO staff. After our meeting, the USPTO reviewed its policies, and has removed the filter. USPTO says the filter was implemented by a contractor, and no one we talked to at USPTO was aware of who was being blocked. In any event, the filter has been removed.
Re: Update on USPTO web filter
Added an update to the post…
Re: Update on USPTO web filter
I find the excuse of a contractor being quite questionable. While people usually ignore filters since they have other sources of internet access (thus nobody complains/cares), it’s not likely that a contractor would have set up network filters from opendns/websense unless the USPTO runs entirely off contractors for IT – in which case someone had to be given direction to do so – just as someone was given direction to remove the filters.
I’m guessing there’s a bit more to this story – I don’t think it’s likely a big deal, but I don’t think the USPTO is being very forthcoming here.
Re: Update on USPTO web filter
Why did they need contractors?
I would think that if the USPTO had staff skilled enough to evaluate tech patents then they should have been able to ask to have one of them set up a wireless guest network.
Should we find it concerning that the agency tasked with dictating what technologies a company can and can’t use, does not have the internal knowledge to make basic use of this technology?
Re: Re: Update on USPTO web filter
Clearly you’ve never worked for the federal government…
Re: Re: Update on USPTO web filter
“I would think that if the USPTO had staff skilled enough to evaluate tech patents then they should have been able to ask to have one of them set up a wireless guest network.”
Obviously, and indeed I would have done so myself (for a modest fee). But that isn’t how the government works bro. Everything must be official, everything must cost huge dollars.
We need contractors for lots of things though, IT is just one thing. They are paid less than examiners also.
Re: Re: Re: Update on USPTO web filter
contractors do what they are contracted to do.
So either there was an ambiguous directive given to the contractor, the contractor acted out on their own, or they were told to do this. The question is: which one?
Re: Update on USPTO web filter
“The intern did it.” Pathetic.
“This filter was not used by the network providing Internet access for the USPTO staff.”
Yeah that’s what I thought because it isn’t blocked on my machine.
Don’t you just love insecure people who lobby so much to control the populace to find self-control. We shouldn’t fear them only pity them.
No wonder why they fail so much at research
With limited information resources, no wonder why they are so bad at research and let anyone patent already implemented ideas (specially foreign technologies).
In many cases you can find precious information in some weird places and it’s our work to discern which one is correct.
Polarized Glasses
Splendid idea. Block out all dissenting voices, grassroots-efforts, groundswell and criticism. And then get totally perplexed when an issue surfaces on the mainstream press.
Not at all surprised.
No one wants to be reminded that their job is actively destructive to innovation, the economy, and liberty.