Press Releases
GPS Inventor Joins EFF in Fight Against Warrantless GPS Tracking
Coalition Urges Supreme Court to Block Government Abuse of Surveillance Technology
Washington, D.C. - The principal inventor of the Global Positioning System (GPS) and other leading technologists have joined the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in urging the U.S Supreme Court to block the government from using GPS tracking without first getting a warrant, arguing that the massive collection of sensitive location data should require court oversight.
Roger L. Easton is considered the father of GPS as the principal inventor and developer of the Timation Satellite Navigation System at the Naval Research Laboratory. The current GPS is based on Timation, and its principles of operation are fundamentally identical. In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court Monday in United States v. Jones, EFF, Mr. Easton, along with other technology experts, pointed out the many ways in which GPS tracking is fundamentally different from and more invasive than other surveillance technologies the court has allowed before, and how law enforcement use of GPS without a warrant violates Americans' reasonable expectations of privacy.
"This is the first case where the Supreme Court will consider automatic, persistent, passive location tracking by law enforcement," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "The government can use location information over time to learn where you go to church, what sort of doctors you go to, what meetings and activities you participate in, and much more. Police should not have blanket permission to install GPS devices and collect detailed information about people's movements over time without court review."
In Jones, FBI agents planted a GPS device on a car while it was on private property. Agents then used the GPS to track the position of the vehicle every ten seconds for a full month without obtaining a search warrant. An appeals court ruled that the surveillance was unconstitutional without a warrant, but the government appealed the decision.
"If police are allowed to plant GPS devices wherever they please, that's essentially blanket permission for widespread, ongoing police surveillance without any court supervision," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "It's not hard to see how that kind of leeway would be abused. We hope the Supreme Court takes a close look at how this technology works and act to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans."
The brief was authored by Andrew Pincus of Mayer Brown LLP and The Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic. It was also signed by the Center for Democracy and Technology, Professor Matt Blaze of the University of Pennsylvania, Professor Andrew J. Blumberg of the University of Texas at Austin, and Professor Norman M. Sadeh of Carnegie Mellon University.
For the full amicus brief in U.S. v. Jones:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/US_v_Jones/10-1259bsac_eff_cdt_amicus...
For more on this case:
https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-maynard
Contacts:
Marcia Hofmann
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
marcia@eff.org
Cindy Cohn
Legal Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
cindy@eff.org
California's Reader Privacy Act Signed into Law
EFF-Backed Bill Will Protect Californians' Reading Habits
Sacramento, CA - California Governor Jerry Brown has signed the Reader Privacy Act, updating reader privacy law to cover new technologies like electronic books and online book services as well as local bookstores.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) were sponsors of the bill, authored by California State Senator Leland Yee. It had support from Google, TechNet and the Consumer Federation of California, along with the Internet Archive, City Lights Bookstore, and award-winning authors Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman. The Reader Privacy Act will become law on January 1, and will establish privacy protections for book purchases similar to long-established privacy laws for library records.
"This is great news for Californians, updating their privacy for the 21st Century," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "The Reader Privacy Act will help Californians protect their personal information whether they use new digital book services or their corner bookstore."
Reading choices reveal intimate facts about our lives, from our political and religious beliefs to our health concerns. Digital books and book services can paint an even more detailed picture -- including books browsed but not read, particular pages viewed, how long spent on each page, and any electronic notes made by the reader. Without strong privacy protections like the ones in the Reader Privacy Act, reading records can be too easily targeted by government scrutiny as well as exposed in legal proceedings like divorce cases and custody battles.
"California should be a leader in ensuring that upgraded technology does not mean downgraded privacy," said Valerie Small Navarro, Legislative Advocate with the ACLU's California affiliates. "We should be able to read about anything from politics, to religion, to health without worrying that the government might be looking over our shoulder."
"California law was completely inadequate when it came to protecting one's privacy for book purchases, especially for online shopping and electronic books," said Yee. "Individuals should be free to buy books without fear of government intrusion and witch hunts. If law enforcement has reason to suspect wrongdoing, they should obtain a court order for such information."
Contacts:
Cindy Cohn
Legal Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
cindy@eff.org
Rebecca Jeschke
Media Relations Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
press@eff.org
Who's on the Intelligence Oversight Board? Government Won't Say
Federal Officials Withhold Records on Obama Appointments
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit today against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) demanding records of who is on the Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB) -- the presidentially appointed, civilian panel in charge of reviewing all misconduct reports for American intelligence agencies.
The IOB is supposed to alert the president and attorney general when it spots behavior that is unlawful or contrary to executive order. However, in his nearly three years in office, President Obama has not yet announced any appointments to the IOB. EFF's suit comes after the ODNI refused to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for membership, vacancies, and other information about the IOB made earlier this year.
"The IOB has a critically important mission – civilian oversight of America's intelligence activities. The board exists to make sure government agencies are not overstepping their authority and abusing citizens' rights," said EFF Open Government Legal Fellow Mark Rumold. "History has shown that intelligence agencies overseeing their own behavior is like the fox guarding the henhouse. If the IOB is ineffective, impaired, or short-staffed, that's information Americans need to know."
EFF's ongoing FOIA litigation work has already uncovered widespread violations in intelligence investigations. Most recently, EFF revealed that the U.S. Army issued three National Security Letters (NSLs) for phone records, even though the law authorizes only the FBI to make these extraordinary requests for information. EFF also obtained documents detailing how the Army improperly attempted to investigate participants at a law school conference on Islamic law.
"We're trying to create a picture of the federal government's intelligence violations as Congress considers updates and changes to current surveillance law and oversight," said EFF Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch. "Part of that picture is who is on the IOB. We're asking the government to follow the law and release the records on IOB membership."
For the full complaint in EFF v. ODNI:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/FOIA_IOB/ODNIIOBComplaint_92711.pdf
For more on the Defense Department intelligence violations:
https://www.eff.org/foia/intelligence-agencies-misconduct
Contacts:
Mark Rumold
Open Government Legal Fellow
Electronic Frontier Foundation
mark@eff.org
Jennifer Lynch
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
jlynch@eff.org
Government Violates Free Speech Rights with Domain Name Seizure
EFF Urges Appeals Court to Scrutinize Seizure Campaign
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urged a federal appeals court in an amicus brief today to order the return of two domain names seized by the U.S. government in violation of the First Amendment.
The domain names -- Rojadirecta.com and Rojadirecta.org, owned by Spanish company Puerto 80 -- were seized by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of "Operation in Our Sites," an initiative ICE claims will help stop piracy. It appears ICE targeted the sites because they contained links to live sport video streams, but the domain seizures impeded access to all of the content on the websites, including obviously non-infringing content like user-created forums, discussions, and technical tutorials. Prior to the seizure, Spanish courts found that Puerto 80 had not violated copyright law.
"Domain name seizures are blunt instruments that cause unacceptable collateral damage to free speech rights," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "Web site operators must have the confidence that government actions ostensibly targeting copyright infringement are undertaken legally. We urge the Court of Appeals to ensure that that happens."
Puerto 80 first tried to work with ICE and other U.S. government authorities to resolve the matter without court involvement, but when that was unsuccessful, petitioned the district court to return the domain names. The judge rejected the request, and so Puerto 80 appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"ICE's domain name seizures, including this one, are occurring without meaningful court oversight, with no chance for the targets to defend themselves before their websites are taken down and a highly cumbersome process for challenge afterwards," said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry. "The government should stop these seizures until they comply with the law."
The Center for Democracy and Technology and Public Knowledge joined EFF's amicus brief.
For the full amicus brief:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/puerto80_v_US/rojaamicus92311.pdf
For more on Puerto 80 v. U.S.:
https://www.eff.org/cases/puerto-80-v-us
Contacts:
Corynne McSherry
Intellectual Property Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
corynne@eff.org
Matt Zimmerman
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
mattz@eff.org
Whistleblowers, Intelligence Experts, and Veterans Join EFF in Fight Against 'State Secrets'
Coalition Urges Appeals Court to Block Government Attempts to Hide Illegal Surveillance
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a coalition of whistleblowers, intelligence experts, and veterans urged a federal appeals court Wednesday to reject government attempts to bury yet another lawsuit challenging illegal surveillance with baseless claims of "state secrets."
"This group includes experts from throughout America's intelligence community, and they are all concerned about the government's abuse of the state secrets privilege," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "If courts cannot review potentially illegal behavior by the government, then there's no meaningful oversight. That's unconstitutional. America needs to be able to protect against officials who abuse their power."
EFF's amicus brief, filed in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama, was joined by Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI agent who blew the whistle on intelligence failures before the September 11th attacks, and Thomas Drake, a former NSA executive and whistleblower about systemic privacy violations in intelligence programs.
Also signing the brief was James Bamford, author of three important books on the NSA, and the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower organization. Other signers include a counterterrorism deputy from the Bush Administration, a senior CIA analyst, a former intelligence officer from the U.S. Army, and other military veterans.
The Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation alleges in its lawsuit that federal agents illegally wiretapped calls between the charity and its lawyers. The government has refused to confirm or deny any court order authorizing surveillance, arguing only that the state secrets privilege protects the government from any litigation. A district judge disagreed, and ruled that the government violated federal surveillance law.
The government appealed that ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In the brief filed today, EFF and other signers asked the court to uphold the district judge's decision, and allow the court to do its job.
"Congress has already provided the courts with strong, clear security procedures for handling evidence related to secret government surveillance. Letting the courts do their job and judge the legality of government wiretapping will not risk national security," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "The real risk is in allowing government officials to shield their conduct from judicial scrutiny based on broad assertions of state secrecy, which is a recipe for abuse."
EFF has two cases of its own aimed at obtaining court review of warrantless domestic surveillance: Hepting v. AT&T was the first lawsuit against a telecom over bulk interception of Americans calls and emails; Jewel v. NSA is directed against the government and government officials. Both Hepting and Jewel are currently at the appeals court, which heard oral arguments in each case last month.
For the full amicus brief:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/AlHaramainAmicus92111.pdf
For more on this case:
https://www.eff.org/cases/al-haramain
Contacts:
Kevin Bankston
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
bankston@eff.org
Cindy Cohn
Legal Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
cindy@eff.org
EFF to Court: Don't Let Government Hide Illegal Surveillance
Lawyers Fight for the Future of Lawsuits Challenging Massive Spying Program
Seattle - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urged the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today to preserve lawsuits challenging the government's illegal mass surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. In oral arguments today, EFF asked the court to block the government's attempt to bury the suits with claims of state secrecy and an unconstitutional "immunity" law for telecoms that participated in the spying.
Appearing before the court in Seattle, EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn and Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston argued against the dismissal of EFF's two lawsuits, Hepting v. AT&T and Jewel v. NSA, along with the 32 other cases against various telecommunications carriers. At stake is whether the courts can judge the legality and constitutionality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) bulk interception of Americans' phone calls and emails, accomplished through back-door access to AT&T's domestic telecom network and its databases of communications records.
"The scope and legality of the NSA program has been the subject of widespread reporting and debate for half a decade -- it is hardly a secret. And Congress long ago crafted balanced and comprehensive security procedures to govern courts' handling of secret evidence about electronic surveillance to ensure that the Judicial Branch is always able to watch over Executive Branch spying while preserving national security," said Bankston. "Yet the government still claims that any judicial scrutiny of the NSA program would disclose 'state secrets' and harm national security. It's time for these lawsuits to proceed and for the courts to be allowed to do their job and determine the legality of the NSA program."
EFF also argued that the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) -- the 2008 legislation aimed at getting telecoms participating in the NSA program off the hook for breaking the law -- violates the Constitutional separation of powers.
"The FAA effectively allows the President to grant favored companies a 'get out of jail free' card even though the law prohibits telecoms from violating their customers' privacy," said Cohn. "We can't allow the government to stack the deck against ordinary Americans. We need to protect against officials who overstep limits on their power."
More than five years ago, EFF filed Hepting v AT&T, the first lawsuit against a telecom aimed at stopping the government's dragnet domestic wiretapping. In 2008, when Congress passed legislation that threatened to end the Hepting case, EFF filed Jewel v. NSA -- a case directly against the government and government officials.
For more on NSA spying:
https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
Contact:
Rebecca Jeschke
Media Relations Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
press@eff.org
Encrypt the Web with HTTPS Everywhere
Firefox Extension Defends Against Search Hijacking Schemes and Improves Web Security
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), in collaboration with the Tor Project, has launched an official 1.0 version of HTTPS Everywhere, a tool for the Firefox web browser that helps secure web browsing by encrypting connections to more than 1,000 websites.
HTTPS Everywhere was first released as a beta test version in June of 2010. Today's 1.0 version includes support for hundreds of additional websites, using carefully crafted rules to switch from HTTP to HTTPS. HTTPS protects against numerous Internet security and privacy problems, including the search hijacking on U.S. networks that was revealed by an article published today in New Scientist magazine. The article, entitled "US internet providers hijacking users' search queries," documents how a company called Paxfire has been intercepting and altering search traffic on a number of ISPs' networks. HTTPS can prevent such attacks.
"HTTPS secures web browsing by encrypting both requests from your browser to websites and the resulting pages that are displayed," said EFF Senior Staff Technologist Peter Eckersley. "Without HTTPS, your online reading habits and activities are vulnerable to eavesdropping, and your accounts are vulnerable to hijacking. Today's Paxfire revelations are a grand example of how things can go wrong. EFF created HTTPS Everywhere to make it easier for people to keep their user names, passwords, and browsing histories secure and private. With the revelation that companies like Paxfire are out there, intercepting millions of people's searches without their permission, this kind of protection is indispensable."
HTTPS Everywhere 1.0 encrypts connections to Google Image Search, Flickr, Netflix, Apple, and news sites like NPR and the Economist, as well as dozens of banks. HTTPS Everywhere also includes support for Google Search, Facebook, Twitter, Hotmail, Wikipedia, the New York Times, and hundreds of other popular websites.
However, many websites have not implemented HTTPS at all. On sites that are HTTP-only, users still have to live with lower levels of privacy and security.
"More websites should implement HTTPS to help protect their users from identity theft, viruses, and other security threats," said Senior Staff Technologist Seth Schoen. "Our Firefox extension is able to protect people using Google, DuckDuckGo or StartingPage for their searches. But we currently can't protect Bing and Yahoo users, because those search engines do not support HTTPS."
HTTPS Everywhere has been downloaded millions of times since last year's initial beta release.
To download HTTPS Everywhere for Firefox:
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
For more on implementing HTTPS in websites:
https://www.eff.org/pages/how-deploy-https-correctly
Contacts:
Peter Eckersley
Senior Staff Technologist
Electronic Frontier Foundation
pde@eff.org
Seth Schoen
Senior Staff Technologist
Electronic Frontier Foundation
seth@eff.org
Vague Anti-Stalking Law Threatens Protected Speech Online
EFF Files Amicus Brief to Defend Free Speech on Social Networks
San Francisco - EFF filed a friend-of-the-court brief today urging a federal court to block the government's use of the federal anti-stalking law to prosecute a man for posting criticism of a public figure to Twitter.
At issue is a federal law originally enacted to criminalize traveling across state lines for the purpose of stalking. In 2005, the law was modified to make the "intentional infliction of emotional distress" by the use of "any interactive computer service" a crime. In this case, the government has presented the novel and dangerous theory that the use of a public communication service like Twitter to criticize a well-known individual can result in criminal liability based on the personal sensibilities of the person being criticized.
"Wielding the threat of criminal sanctions to punish the pointed, online criticism of public figures is not only bad policy, it is unconstitutional," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "While true threats can and should be opposed, public speech about prominent people must be vigorously protected."
In the brief, EFF argues that an indictment of a Twitter user pursuant to the federal anti-stalking statute violates the First Amendment, not only because the speech is protected, but also because the language of the statute is unconstitutionally vague.
"The idea that the government should police every inflammatory word spoken online chills freedom of speech and goes against decades of First Amendment case law," said EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury. "The court must recognize social network users' right to speak freely online, even if that speech is unpopular or offensive to some."
For the full amicus brief in US v. Cassidy:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/us_v_cassidy/eff_amicus_cassidy.pdf
For more on this case:
https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-cassidy
Contacts:
Matt Zimmerman
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
mattz@eff.org
Hanni Fakhoury
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
hanni@eff.org
Forced DNA Collection Without Search Warrant Violates Privacy Rights
EFF Urges Appeals Court to Block Unconstitutional Federal Law
San Francisco - The forced collection of DNA samples from arrestees without search warrants violates their Fourth Amendment right to privacy, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) told a federal appeals court in an amicus brief filed Monday.
A federal law mandates DNA collection as a condition for bail for people who have been arrested for felonies. The FBI receives the DNA samples, conducts an analysis, and places a profile into CODIS, a national database. Those who are not eventually convicted of a crime must make a request if they want their information removed from the FBI's system, while the data collected without cause from other individuals remains permanently. In its amicus brief filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, EFF argues that this collection and storage is unconstitutional, violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on baseless search and seizure of private information.
"DNA reveals an extraordinary amount of private information about you—your family background, your current health, your future propensity for disease, and possibly even your behavioral tendencies," said EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury. "This data is bound to get even more sensitive as technology advances and we learn more about DNA."
The widespread data collection mandated by this unconstitutional law was upheld by a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit. If the law is not struck down by the en banc court, it could open the door to other expansions of warrantless DNA collection.
"The government is collecting these genetic profiles without warrants and storing them in a database freely accessed by federal and state law enforcement agencies across the country," said EFF Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch. "We urge the 9th Circuit to reverse the opinion and strike down this sweeping law."
The Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and Generations Ahead joined EFF in Monday's amicus brief.
For the full amicus brief in US v. Pool:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/usa_v_pool/eff_pool_amicus.pdf
Contacts:
Hanni Fakhoury
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
hanni@eff.org
Jennifer Lynch
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
jlynch@eff.org
Prosecutors Demand Laptop Password in Violation of Fifth Amendment
EFF Urges Court to Uphold Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urged a federal court in Colorado today to block the government's attempt to force a woman to enter a password into an encrypted laptop, arguing in an amicus brief that it would violate her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
A defendant in this case, Ramona Fricosu, is accused of fraudulent real estate transactions. During the investigation, the government seized an encrypted laptop from the home she shares with her family, and then asked the court to compel Fricosu to type the password into the computer or turn over a decrypted version of her data. But EFF told the court today that the demand is contrary to the Constitution, forcing Fricosu to become a witness against herself.
"Decrypting the data on the laptop can be, in and of itself, a testimonial act -- revealing control over a computer and the files on it," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "Ordering the defendant to enter an encryption password puts her in the situation the Fifth Amendment was designed to prevent: having to choose between incriminating herself, lying under oath, or risking contempt of court."
The government has offered Fricosu some limited immunity in this case, but has not given adequate guarantees that it won't use the information on the computer against her.
"Our computers now hold years of email with family and friends, Internet browsing histories, financial and medical information, and the ability to access our online services like Facebook. People are right to use passwords and encryption to safeguard this data, and they deserve the law's full protection against the use of it against them'" said EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury. "This could be a very important case in applying Americans' Fifth Amendment rights in the digital age."
For the full amicus brief:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/us_v_fricosu/fricosuamicus7811.pdf
Contacts:
Hanni Fakhoury
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
hanni@eff.org
Marcia Hofmann
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
marcia@eff.org
Want to learn how you can defend free speech, stand up for privacy, fight for government transparency, support consumer rights, and protect your right to innovation in the digital world? Visit http://eff.org/fight to find ways to help.
