The Next Hurrah: Lieberman's Internets Problem

« Polls: Terror Plot Doesn't Help Bush | Main | The Shrillification of the Moderates »

August 16, 2006

Lieberman's Internets Problem

by emptypockets

Call him Public_html Enemy #1: It seems Sen. Lieberman can't stick his finger into the series of tubes that make up the internet without getting his arm stuck -- and, apparently, breaking the law.

I wrote on Monday that his new joe2006.com website improperly claims endorsement by the AFL-CIO, which endorsed him for the primary election but not the general. The information was stashed away in his site's metadata, a part of the page visible to search engines but usually not shown in your web browser. Just a simple goof, right? An embarrassing one, to be sure -- improperly claiming the endorsement of a group that barely endorsed you in the primary and has pulled their endorsements page and excludes you from the "Important Links" on their home page is clearly a political blunder, and after being reported here Monday the story circulated more widely yesterday after being picked up by mcjoan on the front page of dailykos.com, by Ned Lamont's campaign blog, on politicalwire.com, and on the front page "newsfeeds" section of The Nation. So, an embarrassing political blunder for the fledgling "Connecticut for Lieberman" party of one, but how bad is it really to erroneously put words in some obscure source code portion of your web page? Well, turns out, it's illegal.

As Blue Meme and moltencarbon pointed out here and at DailyKos, Sen. Lieberman's slip-up may have violated the Lanham Act, which protects federal trademarks like "AFL-CIO" from improper use. From Blue Meme:

The Lanham Act is the name for the main body of federal trademark law. "AFL-CIO," in addition to being the name of a powerful union [coalition], is also a registered trademark. It has been several years since I looked at the law on this, so it is entirely possible that things have changed, but I think that sticking someone else's trademark in your website's hidden text for the purpose of suggesting a non-existent affiliation is still against the law.

And, as moltencarbon writes, getting sued for improperly using someone else's trademark in your website's metadata has plenty of precedent:

Oppedahl & Larson v. Advanced Concepts
The defendants had no clear reason for using the name of Oppedahl & Larson, a law firm that has dealt in domain name disputes, in their meta tags.
Insituform Technologies Inc. v. National Envirotech Group, L.L.C.
Insituform sued National Envirotech for the using its name and a product name Insituform in its meta tags. While it was also alleged that some slogans and images from Insituform were also used, meta tags were central in the judge's mind. The words only appeared in the meta tags, not in page copy at all.

Playboy vs. AsiaFocus and Internet Promotions
Playboy sued the operators of now-defunct web sites for using "Playboy" and "Playmate" in their URLs and meta tags, among other things.

And the list goes on -- there are more details on each case, and other legal articles on the misuse of website metadata at the link.

This is the second week in a row that Sen. Lieberman has opened himself to prosecution for internet sloppiness. As David Sirota reminds us on DailyKos, Sen. Lieberman's campaign improperly accused bloggers of hacking his website when it crashed on primary day from too many hits and, in absurdly asking the FBI to investigate, may have committed a crime by making false statements to an FBI agent:

The major verifiable evidence that has been uncovered (here and here) shows that Lieberman's campaign skimped on its web service, and that its claims of losing email service on election day may have been lies. And as TPM Muckraker reported, the FBI said that if Lieberman's hacking allegations prove false, "the FBI and federal prosecutors could pursue charges against those who reported them." Specifically, if the charges were fabricated to slander the Lamont campaign, "there's Title 18, Section 1001, which is providing false statements to an FBI agent. That can be prosecuted at the discretion of the U.S. Attorney's Office."

It's one thing if Sen. Lieberman doesn't know his HTTP from his BUTT, and it's reasonable that if a sitting Senator hears that his Apache has crashed that his first thoughts may be of a helicopter in the mideast rather than the web daemon on his linux box. That is what campaign staff is for (unfortunately, he fired most of his campaign staff after losing the primary and just before a block of them were to resign in protest over his independent run).

But it's another thing if a campaign is so incompetent at using the internet that they open themselves to prosecution twice in two weeks. it is particularly absurd that Sen. Lieberman chose to ignore the web when his opponent, now the Democratic nominee, is so strongly backed by the netroots. As I wrote last week, bloggers bring to any story three essential elements: skepticism, expertise, and research, or to put it even more bluntly, "We are motivated, and we are multitudes." Sen. Lieberman remains ignorant of the web at his political peril -- and, apparently, at his legal peril as well.

August 16, 2006 at 09:03 in Blogs Internet and New Media, Contributor--emptypockets, Elections--2006 | Permalink

Comments

Thanks for helping Joe-nertia see the light at the end of the tube, emptypockets ;-) That light could very well be an oncoming FBI train, no?

Posted by: Plutonium Page | August 16, 2006 at 10:27

Good job getting this flushed out into the open as it's pretty obvious this is just a snapshot of what is to come this Fall & '08.

What we learned is that HackedJoe got a last minute message out in front of voters. Last minute hack attacks by bloggers is now a page in the play book. The ability to respond, so that Chris Matthews, et al are STOPPED in their tracks before they carry the lie to the airwaves will be the next challenge.

Posted by: mainsailset | August 16, 2006 at 10:41

A classic Greek-scale dilemma. To fix all of his internets problems, he would have to hire someone who knows his ass from his e-elbow. But that's getting frighteningly close to hiring a blogger. Can't do that--it'd violate the raison d'etre of the entire CT for Lieberman party.

Posted by: emptywheel | August 16, 2006 at 12:18

Posted by: emptywheel | August 16, 2006 at 12:25

EW: Lieberman and Bush are both suffering from similar Greek dilemas, Bush can't acknowledge the weather patterns that are killing off hundereds of Americans this summer, thousands in China, or 2005 Katrina summer because then he'd have to acknowlege Gore's global warming premise and the solutions he poses. mumble mumble

Quote of the day from Jim Hightower's newsletter: "On May 21, 1999, reacting to some satiracal criticism of him, Bush snapped, "THERE OUGHT TO BE LIMITS TO FREEDOM"

Posted by: mainsailset | August 16, 2006 at 13:58

www.CT4Joe.com or
www.WhinyJoe.com

Posted by: Wilson46201 | August 16, 2006 at 14:40

Just to let you know, the AFL-CIO ISN'T a union. It's a coalition of unions.

Posted by: logan | August 16, 2006 at 14:54

Not sure I agree with your use of the word "criminal" here. It may be a trademark infringement to be sure, and Joe could be sued for damages. But "criminal" means "crime" and jail time.

Posted by: Libby Sosume | August 16, 2006 at 14:58

8/16/06 3:10 pm: slight edits made at logan's & libby's suggestion.

Posted by: emptypockets | August 16, 2006 at 15:07

To be fair, I don't think he was ever on the important links list: I saw a list with Dodd on it, and looked at the internet archive to see if an older one had Joe. It didn't.

Or, one could just say they never liked him that much in the first place. :)

Posted by: matt | August 16, 2006 at 15:59

Stevens and Loserman for 2008. They will definitely solve all the Internet tube problems we are experiencing today.

Their first step will be an Executive Order making it illegal to "view source."

Posted by: steve949 | August 16, 2006 at 16:05

Matt, thanks for that, I hadn't looked in the internet archive -- I just made the assumption that if they had one Senator on their list, they'd have them both. Funny, that. I'll reword the post for accuracy. (god bless the self-correcting blogosphere.)

Posted by: emptypockets | August 16, 2006 at 16:21

This is NOT a criminal matter. Trademark infringement can lead to civil suits for damages by the trademark owner (AFL-CIO), but this is not likely.

Posted by: Rich | August 16, 2006 at 18:06

This is NOT a criminal matter. Trademark infringement can lead to civil suits for damages by the trademark owner (AFL-CIO), but this is not likely.

Posted by: Rich | August 16, 2006 at 18:08

Rich, first version of this post ended with "Well, turns out it's criminal" but was corrected to "Well, turns out it's illegal" at Libby Sosume's suggestion, above. Point is, it shows that Lieberman's campaign still can't seem to go near a computer without running afoul of the law.

Unfortunately, as you point out, stupidity is still not a crime.

Posted by: emptypockets | August 16, 2006 at 18:43

Thanks for the shout out, EP. I agree with your comment on the previous thread that what Lieberman's team did here is reprehensible whether or not the AFL-CIO goes after them for it. I hope your effort to publicize the story succeeds, but I fear this issue is too obscure and technical to get most folks to care about it -- if they don't get disgusted when Joe calls Lamont supporters al Qaeda enablers, this ain't likely to move their meters, either.

Posted by: Blue Meme | August 16, 2006 at 20:42

Don't be stupid. I'm a Lamont supporter but there's no chance in hell anyone would sue over such a minor way, especially when it's a former ally. Now if it violated election laws, that would be something, but come on, what does the AFL have to gain by doing such?

Posted by: Fred in PA | August 16, 2006 at 22:10

I think this is the nutbar at Peace Corps Online and his discus program. He sells the information off to foreign powers for cash. He is paid by PC to run his blog.

The blogs.net got shut down too and now there is a new pop up box that has a new agreement. There is no explanation for the 8/10 crash.

Lieberman may have done nothing illegal, depending on what type of agreement he chose to use on the internet. Blogs share alot of information.

Posted by: Intern Nets | August 17, 2006 at 11:54

I think this is the nutbar at Peace Corps Online and his discus program. He sells the information off to foreign powers for cash. He is paid by PC to run his blog.

The blogs.net got shut down too and now there is a new pop up box that has a new agreement. There is no explanation for the 8/10 crash.

Lieberman may have done nothing illegal, depending on what type of agreement he chose to use on the internet. Blogs share alot of information.

Posted by: Intern Nets | August 17, 2006 at 12:00

I think this is the nutbar at Peace Corps Online and his discus program. He sells the information off to foreign powers for cash. He is paid by PC to run his blog.

The blogs.net got shut down too and now there is a new pop up box that has a new agreement. There is no explanation for the 8/10 crash.

Lieberman may have done nothing illegal, depending on what type of agreement he chose to use on the internet. Blogs share alot of information.

Posted by: Intern Nets | August 17, 2006 at 12:05

Comments a little messed up. Remote server.

Sorry

Posted by: internet | August 17, 2006 at 12:11

Comments a little messed up. Remote server.

Sorry

Posted by: internet | August 17, 2006 at 12:12

Comments a little messed up. Remote server.

Sorry

Posted by: internet | August 17, 2006 at 12:14