Facebook's Libra cryptocurrency and its Calibra wallet have rightly drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers. EFF shares the concerns of those seeking to protect people's privacy and rights from Facebook's abuses. Yet regulation must avoid onerous requirements that could entrench large companies such as Facebook, or hurt the privacy and speech of cryptocurrency users.

Amended Complaint: Lake Point Phase I, LLC and Lake Point Phase II, LLC v. South Florida Water Management District, Martin County, and Maggy Hurchalla 

Hurchalla opinion from Florida 4th District Appeals Court 

Submitted by Jen Lynch on July 15, 2019 to the Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service

Superior Court found that VoIP calls in California do not invoke the California Invasion of Privacy Act because the legislature made a legal distinction for VoIP telephone calls from traditional telephone calls.

Cell-site simulators (“CSS”), also commonly known as IMSI catchers or Stingrays, are devices that law enforcement uses to try to locate and identify suspects. CSSs take advantage of flaws in cellular communication technology (which are especially common in older technologies such as 2G) and masquerade as legitimate cell phone towers, potentially tricking all phones nearby into connecting to the device instead of the tower. These devices can log the unique identifying numbers of all mobile phones in a given area and pinpoint the location of a specific number in real time with much greater precision than cell site location information that comes from the phone company.

It is long past time to enact new laws to protect consumer data privacy. Specifically, Congress should consider the following:

• No Preemption
• Strong Enforcement
• Fairness
• Privacy Safeguards
• Notice and Consent

Commonly referred to as Section 230, this language was incorporated into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (often known as the Communications Decency Act) by then Reps. Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Section 230 provides broad — but not absolute — protection for Internet intermediaries from legal liability for user-generated content, making Section 230 the core protection for free speech and innovation online.

Keeping Section 230 intact means Internet intermediaries that host third-party content are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what their users say and do. Specifically, Section 230 provides immunity to platforms against liability under state law, whether criminal or civil, and against liability under federal civil law. But Section 230 has important exceptions — it doesn’t provide immunity against prosecutions under federal criminal law, or liability based on intellectual property law, communications privacy law, or certain sex trafficking laws.

In passing Section 230, Congress made the deliberate choice to protect online free speech and innovation, while also providing discrete tools to go after culpable companies. The world has changed in many ways, but online innovation and the speech it enables is more important, not less, than it was two decades ago.

Declarations in response to AT&T filing to block oversight over the Next Generation 911 system relying on Section 710 of the Public Utilities Code.

AT&T vs OES litigation regarding Section 710 prohibition on state regulation of broadband services including Next Generation 911.

AT&T court filing challenging the Office of Emergency Services proposal to subject Next Generation 911 applicants to the State's jurisdiction under the California Public Utilities Commission.

LBS Innovations Covenant not to Sue.

Letter details the decline in competition since the original passage of SB 1161 and explains to the California Legislature that renewing the law with AB 1366 would only cement in broadband monopolies for residents of the state.

Administrative Code - Acquisition of Surveillance Technology

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Privacy Office, and Office of Field Operations invited privacy stakeholders—including EFF and the ACLU of Northern California—to participate in a briefing and update on how the CBP is implementing its Biometric Entry/Exit Program. EFF has many concerns about the government collecting and using biometric identifiers, which we detailed in a letter sent to CBP. Below is CBP's response.

Landmark Technology Patent Demand Letter

Landmark Technology v. Learning Resources complaint for patent infringement

Complaint - Landmark Technology A LLC v. U.S. Safety Gear Inc. 

Declaration of Lawrence Lockwood

EFF identifies a handful of policy areas and laws that need either more scrutiny (such as antitrust law), rethinking (such as broadband access competition), or protection in order to preserve the entry of new competitors to dominant firms in the technology sector. 

The California Office of Emergency Services released these training materials for the use of automated license plate readers in response to a California Public Records Request filed by EFF. They include both the student guide and the annotated instructor guide. These materials are associated with the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training course number 1279-43155-18-008. 

Veripath Exhibit F

Veripath v. Didomi Complaint

Small business letter to USPTO Director Andre Iancu