EFF in the News
The Electronic Frontier Foundation maintains a list of color laser printers that, it says, lay down light yellow code-patterns on every print; the dots are viewable in blue light or under magnification. These codes were developed to help the federal government track down criminals who were printing counterfeit cash. But the EFF fears that the codes could also be used to track and monitor anyone who uses those printers. Monochrome laser printers and inkjets don't appear to leave such markings.
Ed Bayley, an adjunct attorney for the EFF, in a blog post Dec. 21 said e-readers collect "substantial information about their users' reading habits and locations" and report back to the companies that build or sell these technologies. To educate users, the EFF created a Buyer's Guide to E-Book Privacy to shed some light on what information existing e-readers "reserve the right to collect and share."
If you're concerned about the privacy implications of reading digital books, take a look at a nice guide put up yesterday by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The EFF's guide includes a chart with answers to questions such as "Can they monitor what you're reading?" for Google Books, Amazon Kindle, B&N Nook, Sony Reader and FBReader.
Today, employers expect employees to be available and working well beyond the hours of nine to five. In fact, the increasingly porous boundaries between work and personal time may be one of the defining characteristics of the last decade.
The Real ID Act united in opposition groups that normally oppose each one another, including the NGA, the National Rifle Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and numerous religious and privacy organizations.
The analysis under scrutiny, known as an intelligence note, was prepared in October 2007 by Homeland Security's office of intelligence and analysis, according to department officials and the documents, which were released Wednesday by the Obama administration in response to freedom of information lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy and civil liberties group.
The intelligence gathering violated domestic spying rules because analysts took longer than 180 days to determine whether the U.S-based group or its American members posed a terrorist threat. Analysts also disseminated their report too broadly, according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group.
The documents were released by the Justice Department in connection with a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation. It had sought reports to the Intelligence Oversight Board, a watchdog panel appointed by the president, by various agencies documenting violations of law, executive orders or presidential directives.
Marcia Hofmann, a staff lawyer with the foundation, praised agency officials for destroying the reports but said the public needed to know about such incidents.
“I think it’s a positive sign that these agencies responded to this and took steps to correct the situation,” Ms. Hofmann said, adding, “We would never have known that this happened had we not seen these internal reports.”
The latest release of government documents were the result of separate Freedom of Information lawsuits from two civil liberties groups — the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union.
David Sobel, the EFF's senior counsel, said, "There remains a lot of material that continues to be withheld. To the extent that today's disclosures indicate a new approach to the Freedom of Information Act, we welcome it."
Even among the pages released, there were many sections blacked out or otherwise redacted, including a section about a congressional spending bill marked "talking points" that is entirely redacted.
The most vocal opponent has been the consumer watchdog group Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The fact that Facebook's 350 million users are being forced to grapple with their privacy settings is a good thing," says EFF staff attorney Kevin Bankston. "That doesn't justify the incredibly broad defaults that they're trying to get people to accept or the transformation from personal data into publicly-available information."