We're experimenting with a new schedule, so welcome to the last Tuesday edition of Codebook (at least, until we decide to change the schedule again). Starting next week, Codebook will move to a once-a-week schedule, publishing on Thursday mornings.
Tuesdays are for chumps.
Situational awareness: Kaspersky Lab released a third-party research report Tuesday arguing that the U.S.' publicly announced logic behind a federal ban on Kaspersky's wares is based on a faulty understanding of Russian law.
Protestors took to the street in Frankfort on March 23. Photo Michael Debets/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
As a controversial EU copyright directive nears its final passage, opponents are already hoping the European courts will thwart it. Don't hold your breath, say experts.
Why it matters: Last week we covered how the copyright directive has the potential to fundamentally change how European citizens use the web and what services companies like Google can offer them. The directive has already passed the European Parliament and is likely to next win approval from the EU Council. Once that happens, it will take years for the courts to respond.
Driving the news: The EU copyright bill includes provisions that would require aggregation services — think Google News — to pay for copyrighted content they link to. It also requires platforms to monitor content that users upload to sites like YouTube for copyrighted material.
The intrigue: There's a lot of motion among opponents of the directive to suggest that the part of the bill requiring sites to monitor uploads is incompatible with earlier EU laws. That's a position held by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, opponents in the European Parliament and several academics across Europe.
Also: There may be problems resolving the monitoring aspect of the directive with the Charter of Fundamental Rights — particularly the right "to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority."
The catch: There may be legitimate grievances that citizens might have with the rules, said Vincenzo Tiani, EU affairs analyst for the Center for Democracy and Technology. But the realities of waging these kinds of fights make them unlikely.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is looking to rush through laws penalizing internet companies for not taking down videos of violent attacks fast enough.
Driving the news: An Australian bill would punish companies that didn't take down videos like those of last month's shootings in Christchurch with penalties of up to 10% of yearly revenue and imprisonment of executives of up to 3 years.
The bill is already being criticized as impractical, hard to enforce and dangerous to Australia's standing in the tech world.
The Department of Justice's Inspector General released a new report blaming typos, tech problems and other oversights for the FBI not notifying many victims of cybercrime that they were in danger.
The big picture: The issue was brought to light after the 2016 election hacking scandal, where many targets identified by the FBI only found out they were in Russia's crosshairs when contacted by reporters months later.
Details: The Cyber Guardian system designed to coordinate contact with victims across various agencies failed because of several problems:
Yes, but: Cyber Guardian is already being replaced by a new system, CyNERGY, which will debut this fiscal year.
A supporter rallies for a mayoral candidate in Taiwan. Photo: Chris Stowers/AFP/Getty Images
Citing fears that Beijing will use Baido and Tencent streaming services to impart propaganda to sway a contested nation, Taiwan announced it may ban the video services ahead of the election, according to the Nikkei Asian Review.
What they're saying: Taiwan could block two services, according to Chiu Chui-Cheng, deputy minister of Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council: Baido's iQiyi, which is already available on the island, and Tencent, which planned to introduce its streaming service later this year.
See you Thursday (and only Thursdays).