EFF Appeals Dismissal of Warrantless Wiretapping Case: Via EFF.org Updates.

EFF today filed its appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals of the dismissal of Jewel v. NSA, the case EFF brought against the U.S. government and government officials on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the National Security Agency's illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing mass surveillance of their communications and communications records. The case arises from the still growing stacks of evidence confirming the surveillance, including the technical documents presented by former AT&T employee Mark Klein that describe the NSA's secret mass wiretapping facility in San Francisco. [ Read more ... ]

Senators draft plan to rework U.S. immigration policy - washingtonpost.com: Via washingtonpost.com .

Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) announced the building blocks Thursday for a new push in Congress to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, outlining a plan to require U.S. citizens and legal immigrants to obtain a new high-tech Social Security card tied to their fingerprints or other biometric identifiers and to create a system to bring in temporary workers as the U.S. economy demands.

The immigration "blueprint," outlined in an opinion column posted on The Washington Post's Web site, drew an immediate vow of support from President Obama, who urged Congress "to act at the earliest possible opportunity." [ Read more ... ]

Domain Names Can't Defend Themselves: Via Freedom to Tinker.

Today, the Kentucky Supreme Court handed down an opinion in the saga of Kentucky vs. 141 Domain Names (described a while back here on this blog). Here's the opinion.

This case is fascinating. A quick recap: Kentucky attempted a property seizure of 141 domain names allegedly involved in gambling on the theory that the domain names themselves constituted "gambling devices" under Kentucky law and were therefore illegal. The state held a forfeiture hearing where anyone with an interest in the "property" could show up to defend their interest in the property; otherwise, the State would order the registrars to transfer "ownership" of the domain names to Kentucky. No individual claiming that they own one of the domain names showed up. Litigation began when two industry associations (iMEGA and IGC) claimed to represent unnamed persons who owned these domain names (and another lawyer showed up during litigation claiming representation of one specific domain name). [ Read more ... ]

Judges Approves $9.5 Million Facebook ‘Beacon’ Accord: Via Threat Level.

A federal judge on Wednesday approved a $9.5 million settlement to a class action lawsuit challenging Facebook’s program that monitored and published what users of the social networking site were buying or renting from Blockbuster, Overstock and other locations.

The case concerned allegations Facebook’s now defunct “Beacon” program breached federal wiretap and video-rental privacy laws. Terms of the settlement, in which Facebook denied any wrongdoing, require the site to finance what the deal calls a “Digital Trust Fund” that would issue more than $6 million in grants to organizations to study online privacy.

The social networking site will have a seat on the fund’s three-member board — a fact that was a big bone of contention (.pdf) in the privacy community, but one U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Jose, California, said Wednesday was immaterial.

“There has been no pervasive showing that the foundation will be a mere publicity tool for Facebook,” (.pdf) Seeborg wrote.

Seeborg gave preliminary approval to the deal last year, but finalized it Wednesday after reviewing objections. [ Read more ... ]

Hooking Up The Big Brother Machine... And Fighting It: Via EFF.org Updates.

Here's a movie pitch: One lone telecommunications technician, going about his ordinary daily work in San Francisco, begins to realize things aren't quite what they seem. There's a "secret room" downstairs, and ordinary employees aren't allowed to enter it. Coworkers — almost casually! — remark that a government spy agency is involved, that similar facilities are being built across the country, that some of them are stamped with the government's ominous eye-and-pyramid "Total Information Awareness" logo.

Soon, the plot thickens. Mundane technical procedures produce startling revelations. He stumbles on a document that suggests the room contains a supercomputer designed to data-mine phone calls and Internet traffic. And, indeed, he soon realizes that the room is sucking up copies of electronic communications from millions of random Americans.

All this in the early 2000s, when "the political atmosphere in the country after 9/11 had a witchhunt feel to it, and even modest criticism of the administration was getting painted as disloyalty or worse."

What happens to our hero when he finally decides to go public? [ Read more ... ]

FBI Uses Fake Facebook Profiles To Spy On Suspects: Via Huffington Post.

WASHINGTON — The Feds are on Facebook. And MySpace, LinkedIn and Twitter, too.

U.S. law enforcement agents are following the rest of the Internet world into popular social-networking services, going undercover with false online profiles to communicate with suspects and gather private information, according to an internal Justice Department document that offers a tantalizing glimpse of issues related to privacy and crime-fighting.

Think you know who's behind that "friend" request? Think again. Your new "friend" just might be the FBI.

The document, obtained in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, makes clear that U.S. agents are already logging on surreptitiously to exchange messages with suspects, identify a target's friends or relatives and browse private information such as postings, personal photographs and video clips. [ Read more ... ]

Lawrence Lessig: Citizens Unite: Via Huffington Post.

There has been a growing fury about the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case, but much of that fury hangs upon an odd reading of the Court's opinion. The Court, it is said, has given corporations all the rights of "persons." It has elevated these artificial beings into entities "endowed by their Creator" (us) "with certain unalienable rights," including the right to free speech.

No doubt the Court has a long history of recognizing the "person" in "Inc." But this current wave of criticism is hard to understand, because the Court's entire Citizens United opinion hung upon the fact that the First Amendment says nothing about who or what is to get the benefit of its protection. It simply bans certain kinds of regulation. As Justice Scalia put it in his concurrence: "The Amendment is written in terms of 'speech,' not speakers." Thus, the government is blocked by the First Amendment from constraining the free speech of any entity, whether that entity is a corporation or a dolphin. [ Read more ... ]

Case Report – BCCA says aerial surveillance by telphoto zoom lens not a search « All About Information: Via A legal blog about the law of information – By Toronto, Ontario lawyer Dan Michaluk.

Today, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the police did not violate section 8 of the Charter by conducting aerial surveillance of a rural property from in excess of 1000 feet by using a digital camera equipped with a telephoto lens. [ Read more ... ]

Obama threatens to veto greater intelligence oversight: Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald.

(updated below)

One of the principal weapons used by the Bush administration to engage in illegal surveillance activities -- from torture to warrantless eavesdropping -- was its refusal to brief the full Congressional Intelligence Committees about its activities.  Instead, at best, it would confine its briefings to the so-called "Gang of Eight" -- comprised of 8 top-ranking members of the House and Senate -- who were impeded by law and other constraints from taking any action even if they learned of blatantly criminal acts. 

This was a sham process:  it allowed the administration to claim that it "briefed" select Congressional leaders on illegal conduct, but did so in a way that ensured there could be no meaningful action or oversight, because those individuals were barred from taking notes or even consulting their staff and, worse, because the full Intelligence Committees were kept in the dark and thus could do nothing even in the face of clear abuses.  The process even allowed the members who were briefed to claim they were powerless to stop illegal programs.  That extremely restrictive process also ensures irresolvable disputes over what was actually said during those briefings, as illustrated by recent controversies over what Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats were told about Bush's torture and eavesdropping programs.  Here's how Richard Clarke explained it in July, 2009, on The Rachel Maddow Show: [ Read more ... ]

EFF Asks Illinois Appellate Court to Block Unmasking of Anonymous Online Critic: Via EFF.org Updates.

Chicago - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Media Freedom and Information Access Practicum (MFIA) at Yale Law School filed a friend-of-the-court brief today urging the Illinois Court of Appeals to block the unmasking of an anonymous online critic of a local political candidate.

The critic, commenting on a story on the website of a suburban Chicago newspaper called the Daily Herald, engaged in a heated debate with other commenters. One turned out to be the son of the village trustee candidate in Buffalo Grove, Illinois, who was discussed in the article. The candidate, Lisa Stone, who eventually won her race, asked a state court to order the newspaper to release the critic's name and address without appropriately showing that the statements directed towards her son were defamatory or otherwise illegal. Stone indicated that she may choose to subsequently file a lawsuit once she determines the critic's identity through the pre-complaint procedure.

"Because of the enormous potential for abuse, the First Amendment requires litigants to demonstrate that they have a legitimate case before they can use the courts to unmask anonymous online critics," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "Insults are not enough, especially when the conversation takes place in the context of a political campaign." [ Read more ... ]

Who You Love Shouldn't Matter When You Serve: Via Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Jene Newsome served nine years in the Air Force. She was recently discharged under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy after she was outed by South Dakota's Rapid City Police Department.

On November 20, 2009, the Rapid City Police Department came to serve a warrant on Jene Newsome's wife. Jene and her wife, Cheryl, were just married in Iowa a few weeks before the police came knocking on their door.

When the police entered the house, they saw the marriage certificate sitting on the kitchen table. The marriage certificate didn't have anything to do with Cheryl's arrest; one of the officers just saw it as an opportunity to out Jene and end her career. [ Read more ... ]

EFF Posts Documents Detailing Law Enforcement Collection of Data From Social Media Sites: Via EFF.org Updates.

EFF has posted documents shedding light on how law enforcement agencies use social networking sites to gather information in investigations. The records, obtained from the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Justice Criminal Division, are the first in a series of documents that will be released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case that EFF filed with the help of the UC Berkeley Samuelson Clinic.

One of the most interesting files is a 2009 training course that describes how IRS employees may use various Internet tools -- including social networking sites and Google Street View -- to investigate taxpayers. [ Read more ... ]

Secret Document Calls Wikileaks ‘Threat’ to U.S. Army: Via Threat Level.

Wikileaks presents a “threat to the U.S. Army” and publishes “potentially actionable information” for targeting military personnel, according to a classified intelligence report posted Monday on the whistleblowing site.

The 32-page report entitled Wikileaks.org – An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups? (.pdf) indicates the government’s concern that “current employees or moles” within the Defense Department or the U.S. government “are providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.” To stop this, the 2008 report had suggested a campaign to expose and punish those who leak to the site, which was founded in 2007 by Chinese dissidents, journalists and mathematicians.

“Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the website that they will remain anonymous,” according to the report. “The identification, exposure, or termination of employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make such information public.” [ Read more ... ]

EFF to Urge True Transparency in Congressional Hearing Thursday: Via EFF.org Updates.

Washington, D.C. - On Thursday, March 18, at 2 p.m., members of the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold a public hearing on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Obama administration compliance with transparency law. The hearing comes as transparency advocates celebrate Sunshine Week, the annual celebration of our nation's open government laws that features numerous events measuring the progress made in combating official secrecy.

Senior Counsel David Sobel of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will testify at Thursday's hearing, urging the White House to fulfill its promises for open government. Despite President Obama's order to government agencies last year to renew their commitment to FOIA, EFF and other organizations still see delays in releasing relevant documents, excuses for not releasing other records, and excessive redactions, among other needless secrecy. [ Read more ... ]

Global Internet Freedom and the U.S. Government: Via Freedom to Tinker.

Over the past two weeks I've testified in both the Senate and the House on how the U.S. should advance "Internet freedom." I submitted written testimony for both hearings which can be downloaded in PDF form here and here. Full transcripts will become available eventually but meanwhile you can click here to watch the Senate video and here to watch the House video. In both hearings I advocated a combination of corporate responsibility through the Global Network Initiative backed up by appropriate legislation given that some companies seem reluctant to hold themselves accountable voluntarily; revision of export controls and sanctions; and finally, funding and support for tools, and technologies and activism platforms that will counter-act suppression of online speech.
[ Read more ... ]

The dark side of DNA: Via The Globe and Mail.

The only real evidence in a first-degree murder charge against Mr. Turner, the golden sheen of DNA appeared certain to become a silver bullet in the hands of the Crown.

"I told my lawyer, Jerome Kennedy, that there was no way in the world it was true," Mr. Turner recalled in an interview. "He believed me. He said that I was too stupid to commit that crime and leave no evidence."

A lucky hunch by Mr. Kennedy - now Newfoundland's Minister of Health - saved Mr. Turner from a life behind bars. He sought the name and DNA profile of every technician who had worked at the RCMP lab. It turned out that the technician who had tested the ring had also been working on the victim's fingernails a few inches away, creating a strong possibility of contamination.

The technician conceded at Mr. Turner's 2001 trial that she had also contaminated evidence in two previous cases. [ Read more ... ]

EFF Experts to Speak at Privacy Roundtable in Washington, D.C.: Via EFF.org Updates.

Washington, D.C. - On Wednesday, March 17, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is hosting its final public roundtable on technology privacy challenges in Washington, D.C. Two experts from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are taking part.

EFF Senior Staff Technologist Peter Eckersley and EFF Boardmember Edward W. Felten will discuss "Internet Architecture and Privacy" at the first panel of the day. Later panels will cover health information privacy and issues around other sensitive information, as well as lessons learned so far and future plans for privacy protection.

For more information on attending the roundtable including a full agenda, visit http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/privacyroundtables/index.shtml

WHAT:
FTC Roundtable "Internet Architecture and Privacy"

WHEN:
Wednesday, March 17
9:15 a.m. [ Read more ... ]

To Stop Crime, Share Your Genes: Via NYTimes.com ( Op-Ed Contributor ).

PERHAPS the only thing more surprising than President Obama’s decision to give an interview for “America’s Most Wanted” last weekend was his apparent agreement with the program’s host, John Walsh, that there should be a national DNA database with profiles of every person arrested, whether convicted or not.Emphasis added: Many Americans feel that this proposal flies in the face of our “innocent until proven guilty” ethos, and given that African-Americans are far more likely to be arrested than whites, critics refer to such genetic collection as creating “Jim Crow’s database.”

In truth, however, this is an issue where both sides are partly right. The president was correct in saying that we need a more robust DNA database, available to law enforcement in every state, to “continue to tighten the grip around folks who have perpetrated these crimes.” But critics have a point that genetic police work, like the sampling of arrestees, is fraught with bias. A better solution: to keep every American’s DNA profile on file. [ Read more ... ]

The Beginning of the End of Data Retention: Via EFF.org Updates.

Last week, the German Constitutional Court issued a much-anticipated decision, striking down its data retention law as violating human rights. It was an important victory for Europe’s Freedom Not Fear movement, which was formed to oppose the EU Data Retention Directive. But it was also a reminder of the political work which remains to be done to defeat it.

When the European Union first passed the Data Retention Directive in 2006, despite a hard-fought campaign by European activists, it seemed like the beginning of the end for Internet privacy. The directive sought to require telecommunications service providers operating in Europe to retain a detailed history of each of their customers' activity for up to 2 years for possible use by law enforcement; including phone calls made and emails sent and received.

The response from European citizens was swift and outraged. Under the banner of Freedom Not Fear, mass protests were held in cities all across Europe and beyond. [ Read more ... ]

Hi-tech governments growing keener on snooping, says report | Pinsent Masons LLP: Via Pinsent Masons LLP at Out-Law.com .

Western industrial countries are becoming more willing to spy on their citizens, according to an analysis of snooping that says that the UK is sixth in a world ranking for electronic state surveillance.

Privacy technology company CryptoHippie has produced its second annual report on surveillance trends and says in it that countries that previously showed restraint in their monitoring of individuals have lost some of that self-control.

"When we produced our first Electronic Police State report, the top ten nations were of two types: those that had the will to spy on every citizen, but lacked ability [and] those who had the ability, but were restrained in will," it said in its 2010 report. "This is changing: the able have become willing and their traditional restraints have failed." [ Read more ... ]

Better U.S. Net Rules for Iran, Cuba and Syria: Via EFF.org Updates.

The Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced on Monday key amendments to the regulation of United States sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Sudan.

The new provisions give a blanket license for the export of "certain services and software incident to the exchange of personal communications over the Internet, such as instant messaging, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos and movies, web browsing, and blogging, provided that such services are publicly available at no cost to the user."

This clarification is just what EFF called for last June, and will go a long way to allay concerns that online service providers based in the U.S. cannot offer their services in those countries. Previously, despite the well-known freedom-enhancing capabilities of services like Twitter and Facebook in repressive regimes like Iran, it was unclear whether those companies could even offer their services there without falling foul of the United State's broad prohibition on the export of goods and services to these regimes. [ Read more ... ]

European Parliament Rips Global IP Accord: Via Threat Level.

The European Parliament delivered a political blow to Hollywood and the Obama administration, voting Wednesday 663 to 13 in opposition to a proposed and secret intellectual property agreement being negotiated by the European Union, United States and a handful of others.

Wednesday’s developments concerning the Anti-Counterfeiting and Trade Agreement are substantial because the European Union’s 27 countries vastly outnumber the remaining countries negotiating the deal. They are Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States. Ambassador Ron Kirk, the top U.S. trade official, is spearheading the deal that began being crafted under the George W. Bush administration.

Kirk’s office declined comment.

To be sure, there is a dispute and heavy confusion concerning whether internet service providers under ACTA would be forced to punish customers deemed copyright scofflaws by reducing or eliminating service, according to a string of leaked documents. So Parliament members also agreed Wednesday to oppose the measure if it contains so-called “three strikes” or “graduated response” policies — regardless of whether that’s now in the text.

And because of the text’s secrecy, Parliament on Wednesday also demanded (.pdf) that the private agreement still under negotiation be publicly released. [ Read more ... ]

Government No-Fly List Includes the Dead: Via Threat Level.

You may be dying, figuratively, to get off the government’s no-fly list, but death won’t guarantee removal.

The government’s no-fly list includes the names of dead suspects, according to government officials who spoke with the Associated Press, to help catch people who may try to assume the suspect’s identity.

The no-fly list has been shrouded in mystery since it was first developed after the 9/11 attacks. How people get on the list or get off it has been a closely guarded secret, with only bits of information made public during congressional hearings.

The AP has pieced together the broad steps it takes for someone to get on the list, and some of the changes the list has undergone since it was first created nine years ago. [ Read more ... ]

The majestic petulance of John Roberts: Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald.

The petulance and sense of self-importance on display here is quite something to behold:

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" . . . . Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case. . . . Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.
"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.
"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

The N.Y.P.D. Is Watching Certain People: Via NYTimes.com .

From 2004 through 2009, in a policy that has gotten completely out of control, New York City police officers stopped people on the street and checked them out nearly three million times, frisking and otherwise humiliating many of them.

Upward of 90 percent of the people stopped are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. And yet the New York Police Department is compounding this intolerable indignity by compiling an enormous and permanent computerized database of these encounters between innocent New Yorkers and the police.

Not only are most of the people innocent, but a vast majority are either black or Hispanic. There is no defense for this policy. It’s a gruesome, racist practice that should offend all New Yorkers, and it should cease. [ Read more ... ]