Prepared Remarks of EFF Policy Director for Global Privacy Katitza Rodriguez
Group 5, 6, 
August 29, 2023

I am honored to address you on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a non-profit organization dedicated to safeguarding civil liberties in the digital realm, representing over 30,000 members across 86 nations.

We stand here today to offer our firm endorsement of Uruguay's proposed amendment to Article 5 that includes protections on gender identity, a proposal backed by an array of Latin American countries, the U.S., Brazil, Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and others. The unity displayed by a diverse coalition advocating for human rights is both remarkable and inspiring.

Shifting our focus to Article 23 and the scope of procedural measures, EFF fully endorses the inclusion of the term "specific" within the context of criminal investigations. This precision is pivotal in ensuring that the conferred powers are strictly utilized for targeted criminal inquiries, safeguarding against indiscriminate data collection that runs contrary to international human rights principles. This echoes the Budapest Convention's stance, where the explanatory memorandum clarifies the restricted application of production powers to “specific” criminal investigations, expressly prohibiting broad data-mining practices that encompass groups of subscribers.

As we delve into Article 24, EFF lends its support to the proposed amendment that substitutes "chapter" with "Convention" in paragraphs 1 and 3.

Our strong backing extends to the amendment on effective redress mechanisms in paragraph 2. The principle of justice requires the existence of remedies in case of violation of rights. To empower individuals in challenging government arbitrary demands of data, it is paramount to ensure that victims are notified of their status. This notification mechanism, along with transparency and independent oversight, collectively forms a robust framework for effective redress.

Our commitment to enhanced safeguards is evident in our support for proposals advocating the deletion of Articles 29 and 30, until robust protective measures are established. These measures include prior judicial authorization, access to effective remedy, user notification, oversight, and transparency and grounds for refusal for human rights grounds. 

Article 25 is another arena where our advocacy finds alignment, as we applaud the incorporation of a maximum 90-day limit—a suggestion EFF initially put forth.

In conclusion, we implore member states to collaboratively shape a treaty that incorporates checks and balances to counterbalance the extensive surveillance powers at hand. The amendments we advocate for today hold the potential to resonate through history as a testament to states' shared commitment to human rights, justice, transparency, and the preservation of our global community's core values.

Thank you for your attention.

EFF Policy Director for Global Privacy, Katitza Rodriguez

Apple comment on NY SB 4104A

Joint Civil Society Briefing on Private Messaging - U.K. House of Lords 

Signed by EFF, Liberty, Big Brother Watch, Fair Vote, Article 19, Open Rights Group, and Global Partners. 

Changes Under Consideration to Discretionary Institution Practices, Petition Word-count Limits, and Settlement Practices for America Invents Act Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Related links: 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/21/2023-08239/changes-under-consideration-to-discretionary-institution-practices-petition-word-count-limits-and

https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/anprm-proposals-information-session-05092023.pdf

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-P-2020-0022/comments

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/our-right-challenge-junk-patents-under-threat

EFF joins with 11 other civil society groups to send a letter to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary opposing S. 1080, the Cooper Davis Act. 

The bill and the manager’s amendment would weaken an already insufficient privacy law and would provide a roadmap for more sweeping and overbroad carveouts. Its vague requirements and criminal penalties would result in companies over-reporting users to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for innocent, protected speech. History shows it may also encourage companies to engage in dragnet scanning of user communications, which would result in even more errors and sweep up the same voices Congress is trying to protect.

Congress should also be highly skeptical about giving law enforcement broad access to our conversations without judicial oversight. This bill contains no warrant requirement, no required notice, and limited user protections. Congress should vote No.

The other signers of the letter include:
Advocacy for Principled Action in Government
American Civil Liberties Union
Center for Democracy & Technology
Chamber of Progress
Defending Rights & Dissent
Fight for the Future
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Government Information Watch
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
R Street Institute
S.T.O.P. - Surveillance Technology Oversight Project

Arturo Castañares v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego/City of Chula Vista Case no. D082048 Letter Brief of Amici Curiae First Amendment Coalition, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Electronic Frontier Foundation in Support of Petition for Extraordinary Writ under the California Public Records Act.

2021-2022 Audited Financial Statements

Top reasons to vote no on Texas S.B. 896

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) writes to strongly oppose S. 1207, the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2023 (EARN IT Act), and S. 1199, the Strengthening Transparency and Obligation to Protect Children Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment Act of 2023 (STOP CSAM Act). We opposed the original and amended versions of EARN IT in the two previous Congresses, and we are concerned to see some of the same problems in the text of the STOP CSAM Act. While we appreciate the robust conversations we’ve had with the staff of the sponsors of both bills, our concerns have not been adequately addressed. We oppose both bills, and urge the Committee to vote No.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Asserted Patents are invalid as addressed to patent-ineligible subject matter, and hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

19-CV-3084

19-cv-03084

E.D. New York

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

Case No. 17-cv-02824-JST

4:17-cv-02824-JST Document 540 

4/21/23

District Judge affirms Magistrate's decision to award Nokia $44,866.27 in attorneys' fees. 

EFF's Amicus Brief in Jack Daniels v. VIP Products

Letter sent by carious California organizations and companies expressing support for the landmark broadband infrastructure law. 

Section 230 embodies that principle that we should all be responsible for our own actions and statements online, but generally not those of others. The law prevents most civil suits against users or services that are based on what others say. That’s why the U.S. Congress passed a law, Section 230 (originally part of the Communications Decency Act), that protects Americans’ freedom of expression online by protecting the intermediaries we all rely on.

Digital Verification Systems v. Encyro

Defendant's Responsive Claim Construction Brief

12/23/2022 

22-cv-01354, C.D. California

Update April 10, 2023: EFF has decided to no longer host this data, since the regularly updated data is now available on the Open Justice website.

The California Department of Justice provided us with electronic search warrant data from across the state for 2016 through 2021 as required by the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act. As noted in this blog post, the CADOJ is supposed to publish this data online and update it regularly. However, CADOJ took the data down in summer 2022 and as of February 2023 has still not posted it online.

Update, Feb. 8, 2023: The California Department of Justice has provided EFF with updated search warrant data for 2020, 2021, and 2022, with personal information redacted. We have uploaded the data below accordingly. An agency spokesperson said via email, "We are currently reviewing our procedures and we will follow up once the datasets are live on OpenJustice. We do not have an exact timeline, but our team is working on getting it back online as quickly as possible."

Update, Feb 1, 2023: Out of an abundance of caution, EFF has temporarily replaced the CalECPA disclosure data from 2020-2022 with new versions that do not include the "nature of investigation" and "facts giving rise to the emergency" columns. Following our publication of the data, the California Department of Justice (CADOJ) contacted alerted us that staff had failed to properly redact potentially personal information from these fields. The agency has committed to reviewing the data and providing updated information. We will update the files on this page when we receive the data. For more information and the CADOJ's statement please see our blog post. In the meantime, journalists and researchers can email dm@eff.org with any immediate data requirements.

Amicus brief of EFF, CCIA, Library Associations, Authors Alliance, and OTW in Hunley v. Instagram (9th Circuit)

EFF Oral Intervention on Criminal Procedural Measures  - Informals Article 47 & 48 & 49 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation Oral Statement jointly with Derechos Digitales and Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales on Articles 41, 43 & 46(4), 47 & 48 during the fourth session of the UN proposed Cybercrime Treaty.

A dataset provided to EFF by the South Carolina Department of Public Safety

EFF’s oral intervention was delivered by George Wong, EFF Legislative Assistance, and written by Katitza Rodriguez, EFF Policy Director for Global Privacy, during the Ad Hoc Session to elaborate on a Cybercrime Treaty from 29 August to 9 September 2022, New York.

Order Denying Nimitz Tech Petition for Writ of Mandamus

In re: NIMITZ TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Petitioner

2023-103

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Nos. 1:21-cv-01247-CFC, 1:21-cv-01362-CFC, 1:21-cv-01855- CFC, and 1:22-cv-00413-CFC, Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly.

ON PETITION 
Before LOURIE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

Backertop Licensing LLC v. August Home Inc. , 22-cv-00573-CFC

Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect Inc. , 22-cv-0572-CFC

Thursday, November 10, 2022 10:00 a.m. Evidentiary Hearing

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE COLM F. CONNOLLY

United States District Court Judge

Related to: In Re Nimitz Technologies

In Re: Nimitz Technologies Bloomberg response brief

In re: Nimitz Technologies

Amicus brief by Acushnet, Garmin International, Red Hat, SAP America, SAS Institute, and Symmetry LLC

Mellaconic IP LLC v. Hi Bob, Inc.

22-cv-07185, S.D.N.Y.

Nimitz Technologies LLC v. CNET Media LLC, Civ. No. 21-1247-CFC

Nimitz Technologies LLC v. BUZZFEED, INC., Civ. No. 21-1362-CFC

Nimitz Technologies LLC v. IMAGINE LEARNING, INC , Civ. No. 21-1855-CFC

Nimitz Technologies LLC v.  BLOOMBERG L.P., Civ. No. 22-413-CFC