EFF in the News
The Electronic Frontier Foundation published a scathing analysis Tuesday of a bill designed to combat online piracy, calling it "a censorship bill that runs roughshod over freedom of speech."
A clamour of protest is growing against a bill titled the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" that was introduced in the US Senate to hand over more power to the entertainment industry cartels, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) calling the bill, with considerable restraint, "flawed"
"The core function of the cookie is to link what you do on Web site A to what you do on Web site B," said Peter Eckersley, a technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The Flash cookie makes it harder for people to stop that from happening."
In what could be a showdown over Righthaven's lawsuit campaign, two attorneys for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation have signed on to represent the Democratic Underground LLC in one of the high-profile Righthaven lawsuits.
"The government can't regulate speech content, even to protect children, if there are reasonably effective private rating systems and parental control tools that don't interfere with our First Amendment rights," said EFF senior staff attorney Lee Tien in a statement.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation see more nefarious implications of the instruments, known as Radio Frequency Identification Devices. The groups wrote Tuesday to the inspector general for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, asking questions about the decision to track little kids with devices they said be read up to 300 feet away, making them “more vulnerable to stalking and kidnapping.”
But Julie Samuels, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says such technologies seem overly invasive. "Taking a photo of the user from their phones without the user knowing, reading someone's heartbeat -- that sounds crazy to me. Apple talks in the patent about storing that information, which they call highly sensitive data. They can store it and wipe your phone out if someone steals it. But what if someone doesn't steal it? What do they do with that sensitive data?"
"Through this now years-long struggle, Craigslist's legal position has been and remains absolutely, unequivocally correct: the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (or CDA) grants providers of 'interactive computer services' an absolute shield against state criminal law liability stemming from material posted by third parties," EFF senior staff attorney Matt Zimmerman wrote in that blog post. "Put simply, the law ensures that the virtual soapbox is not liable for what the speaker says: merely creating a forum in which users post ads that may violate state law plainly does not lead to liability for a Web site operator.
While privacy advocates see it as a victory, there are still outstanding issues. "What the court didn't rule on was whether or not the fourth amendment always protects cell phone tracking data records. The court didn't rule whether government always needed a warrant to obtain this data," said Kevin Bankston, senior staff attorney of the EFF. "There isn't a clear nationwide standard on this yet. It's been constitutional avoidance. In this case, the court didn't answer that question."
Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group that had filed an amicus brief in the case, welcomed the verdict.
"The SCA allows the government to obtain cell location data without a warrant. This ruling holds that under the statutes, courts have the discretion to instead require the government to show probable cause and get a warrant [when needed,]" Bankston said.
"This decision gives the front-line judges new tools to exercise oversight and to raise the bar when the government seeks cell phone location data," he said.