DeepLinks Archives, December 2004
Noteworthy news from around the internet.
9/11 Legislation Launches Misguided Data-Mining and Domestic Surveillance Schemes
Posted by Donna WentworthOn Friday President Bush signed into law the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA; PDF), launching several flawed "security" schemes that EFF has long opposed. The media has focused on turf wars between the intelligence and defense communities, but the real story is how IRTPA trades basic rights for the illusion of security. For instance:
~ Section 1016 - a.k.a. "TIA II" ~
A clause authorizing the creation of a massive "Information Sharing Environment" (ISE) to link "all appropriate Federal, State, local, and tribal entities, and the private sector."
This vast network links the information in public and private databases, which poses the same kind of threat to our privacy and freedom that the notorious Terrorism Information Awareness (TIA) program did. Yet the IRTPA contains no meaningful safeguards against unchecked data mining other than directing the President to issue guidelines. It also includes a definition of "terrorist information" that is frighteningly broad.
~ Section 4012 and Sections 7201-7220 - a.k.a. "CAPPS III" ~
A number of provisions that provide the statutory basis for "Secure Flight," the government's third try at a controversial passenger-screening system that has consistently failed to pass muster for protecting passenger privacy.
The basic concept: the government will force commercial air carriers to hand over your private travel information and compare it with a "consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist." It will also establish a massive "counterterrorist travel intelligence" infrastructure that calls for travel data mining ("recognition of travel patterns, tactics, and behavior exhibited by terrorists").
It's not clear how the government would use the travel patterns of millions of Americans to catch the small number of individuals worldwide who are planning terrorist attacks. In fact, this approach has been thoroughly debunked by security experts. What is clear is that the system will create fertile ground for constitutional violations and the abuse of private information. The latest Privacy Act notice on Secure Flight shows that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) still doesn't have a plan for how long the government will keep your private information, nor has it mapped out adequate procedures for correcting your "file" if you are wrongly flagged as a terrorist.
~ Section 6001 - a.k.a. "PATRIOT III" ~
Straight from the infamous "PATRIOT II" draft legislation leaked to the public last year comes a provision that allows the government to use secret foreign intelligence warrants and wiretap orders against people unconnected to any international terrorist group or foreign nation. This represents yet another step in the ongoing destruction of even the most basic legal protections for those the government suspects are terrorists.
~ Sections 7208-7220 - a.k.a. "Papers, Please" ~
Just as EFF, the ACLU, and a number of other civil liberties groups feared, IRTPA creates the basis for a de facto national ID system using biometrics. Driven by misguided political consensus, the law calls for a "global standard of identification" and minimum national standards for birth certificates, driver's licenses and state ID cards, and social security cards and numbers. It also directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish new standards for ID for domestic air travelers.
Identification is not security. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission report revealed that a critical stumbling block in identifying foreign terrorists is the inability to evaluate *foreign* information and records. Yet we are placing disproportionate emphasis on pervasive domestic surveillance, opening the door to a standardized "internal passport" -- the hallmark of a totalitarian regime.
If you care about preserving your privacy and basic consitutional freedoms, help us fight the good fight by joining EFF today.
Supreme Court to Hear MGM v. Grokster
Posted by Fred von LohmannThe US Supreme Court today granted certiorari in MGM v. Grokster. The Court will hear oral arguments in the case in March 2005. EFF represents one of the defendants in the case, StreamCast Networks, makers of the Morpheus P2P software application.
The copyright law principles set out in the Sony Betamax case have served innovators, copyright industries, and the public well for 20 years. We at EFF look forward to the Supreme Court reaffirming the applicability of Betamax in the 21st century.
For more on what's at stake, I'll refer you to a piece I wrote after the Ninth Circuit's ruling in the case.
Big Content Snubbed by Congress This Year
Posted by Donna WentworthThe public can sleep easier now that Congress has officially adjourned without passing any of the copyright lobby's biggest requests. Hollywood lost because it constantly asked for too much, rather than finding narrowly tailored solutions to specific problems. Big Content got greedy with bills like the Induce Act, asking the feds to pick up their legal tab, and trying to criminalize the activity of millions of Americans.
Kudos to groups like Public Knowledge, the librarians, the consumer electronics industry, Downhill Battle, the EFF supporters who used our Action Center, and so many others who fought the good fight. Let's hope this girds the spine of those who argue that Hollywood can't be resisted on Capitol Hill.
Artists Agree -- P2P Lawsuits Are Not the Answer
Posted by Donna WentworthCynthia Webb of the Washington Post synthesizes the discussion about the new Pew study [PDF] reporting that while many artists believe file sharing should be illegal, they don't necessarily believe that 1.) it's actually hurting them, 2.) the RIAA lawsuits are doing anything to help the situation:
While the study, released yesterday by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, found that about half of the artists it surveyed think unauthorized file sharing should be illegal, it also concluded that "the vast majority do not see online file sharing as a big threat to creative industries. Across the board, artists and musicians are more likely to say that the internet has made it possible for them to make more money from their art than they are to say it has made it harder to protect their work from piracy or unlawful use," according to the study, which also found that "two-thirds of artists say peer-to-peer file sharing poses a minor threat or no threat at all to them."
"The study by US researchers ... suggests musicians do not agree with the tactics adopted by the music industry against file sharing. While most considered file sharing as illegal, many disagreed with the lawsuits launched against downloaders. 'Even successful artists don't think the lawsuits will benefit musicians,' said report author Mary Madden," BBC News reported in its summary of the study.
"When you listen to the arguments in Washington, it's very easy to think that the internet has been a disastrous technological development for artists and musicians," said Madden, as quoted by Wired News. "We found that [artists and musicians] overwhelmingly feel that the Internet has had a positive effect on their creative lives and careers. In general they're embracing the Internet as a tool in their creative lives."
Sound like a lot of artists would like to see the labels work on a real solution to the P2P problem -- that is, one that helps them get paid for their work. We can't say we're surprised.
L'il Infringers
Posted by Donna WentworthOur own Fred von Lohmann has a new Law.com column chronicling the misadventures of Marvel Comics as it seeks [PDF] to hold NCSoft Corp. and Cryptic Studios -- the operators of an online game called "City of Heroes" -- liable for the alleged copyright and trademark infringement of people who don virtual masks and "become" their favorite (Marvel) superheros.
Writes Fred:
Marvel's assertion of copyright and trademark rights over the noncommercial expressive activities of its fans is both unprecedented and unnecessary. The fundamental justification for copyright is that we must tolerate a limited statutory monopoly on expression in order to secure an adequate incentive for the creative industries. That's an adequate incentive, not the maximum conceivable incentive. ... Does anyone believe that Marvel will fire its authors and close up shop if it can't prevent little Johnny from pretending to be Wolverine online?
When will the "content" industry begin to recognize that there are long-term rewards for letting fans be fans? A fan's gratitude and loyalty lasts a lot longer than the judgment-money from shutting down the playground.
E-voting Systems Are By Definition Beta
Posted by Donna WentworthSo writes James Fallows in a clear-eyed NYT piece on why rational people are concerned about the current state of electronic voting technology.
Snippet (emphasis, mine):
On the available evidence, I don't believe that voting-machine irregularities, or other problems on Election Day, determined who would be the next president. The apparent margins for President Bush were too large, in Ohio and nationwide. But if the race had been any closer, we could not have said for sure that the machines hadn't made the difference. That is because many electronic systems violate the two basic rules of trustworthy computing.
By definition, they have barely been exposed to real-world testing. The kind of thorough workout that Visa's or Google's systems receive every hour happens for voting machines on only a few special days a year. By commercial standards, the systems are necessarily still in "beta version" - theoretically debugged, but not yet vetted by extensive, unpredictable experience - when voters show up to choose a president.
[...]
When I voted this year, I fed my paper ballot through an optical scanner and into a storage box. In a recount, those ballots could have been pulled out and run through the scanner again. If I had used the touch screen, I would have had no tangible evidence that the vote counted or was recountable.
Is that a problem because the chief executive of Diebold, the largest maker of such systems, is a prominent Republican partisan? No. It's a problem because it defies the check-and-balance logic built into every other electronic transaction.
Well worth the read. And while you're at it, check out the the EFF/VVF petition for independent testing of e-voting machines and pass the URL along.
