EFF in the News
The Electronic Frontier Foundation on Tuesday rebutted legal assertions by Texas Instruments that enthusiasts who figured how to install their own operating systems on TI calculators violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer for the digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the proposed settlement may encourage stakeholders to "stop worrying about control, and to start worrying about remuneration.
“That can very easily be used to track people’s location history,” said Lee Tien, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco nonprofit that supports civil liberties in the high-tech arena. “It’s something people just don’t think about, that the system knows where you are and when you pay.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation wanted to see what role telecom lobbying of the Justice Department played when the government began its year-long, and ultimately successful, push to win retroactive immunity for AT&T and others being sued for unlawfully spying on American citizens.
The feds argued that the documents showing consultation over the controversial telecom immunity proposal weren’t subject to the Freedom of Information Act since they were protected as “intra-agency” records...
I just spoke to Kevin Bankston, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s senior attorney specializing in free speech and privacy law, about his reaction to today’s Senate Judiciary Committee markup session on the Patriot Act, which resulted in passage of the Leahy-Feinstein bill, with a few amendments. Bankston, who’s been following this debate closely, was not pleased.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has elected to help SkipScreen defend itself and senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann offers this succinct response in a blog post: "It's my browser, and I can ignore your ads if I want to."
The SkipScreen developers, however, have gotten the Electronic Frontier Foundation to take up their case. In a letter that has also been sent to Mozilla, the EFF calls MediaFire's claim's "baseless," arguing, "SkipScreen, like many other add-ons, simply automates certain browser tasks in order to improve the user experience." The letter points out that only users who set up accounts agree to the company's acceptable use policy; downloaders just go straight through to the file. Furthermore, it notes, there's no real difference in total bandwidth use for downloads initiated with or without the plugin.
Civil liberties advocates quickly expressed their disappointment. The American Civil Liberties Union called it “a watered-down version” of the original Leahy bill. Kevin Bankston of Electronic Frontier Foundation similarly described it as having “even fewer PATRIOT reforms than the original Leahy bill.”
Separately, digital rights advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU objected to the deal on the grounds that Google had not guaranteed to preserve readers' privacy. They argued that the deal should not go forward without assurances from Google that it will guarantee readers the same privacy and anonymity that patrons of brick-and-mortar libraries have.
This week, the digital rights groups, along with a coalition of authors and other interested parties, asked Google to revise the settlement by including "enforceable privacy protections."
In contrast, Attorney Jennifer Granick is the Civil Liberties Director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Executive Director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School. According to her, neither Richards nor Wikileaks.org broke the law. "Based on her knowledge of this case, as well as the law, Granick said it was legal for Richards to view the Web directory on which Coleman's donor list resided. "There has to be some kind of indication that information is locked away," she said.