Feb. 24, 2004, New York Times
"On the Net, Unseen Eyes"
By Patrick DiJusto
It is illegal to gain access to a secured computer without the proper authorization, even if the computer's password is publicly known. But is it legal to look at unsecured Webcams discovered as a result of a Google search, through the back door, so to speak? "It's probably not illegal, but you never know," said Annalee Newitz, policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocacy group. "That would be the court case - would a reasonable person consider these cameras to be public?"
. . . "The real scandal is why these Webcams are insecure," Ms. Newitz said. "This is just really, really sloppy. It is one thing for an employer to place employees under surveillance, but to take no effort to keep the Webcam access limited just to the workplace is really reprehensible."
Feb. 22, 2005, TechNewsWorld
"Customers Should Read Before Clicking 'I Accept'"
By John Mello
Caution: Click-through agreements may be hazardous to your rights of privacy and free speech.
Those are the sentiments expressed in a white paper released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) as part of a campaign to raise consumer awareness of some of the dangerous terms found in End User Licensing Agreements (EULAs), commonly found on the Internet as "click-through agreements."
According to the author of the white paper, EFF policy analyst Annalee Newitz, overly broad EULAs in the high tech industry are one of the greatest threats to consumer rights . . .
Feb. 18, 2005, BBC
"Gizmos Under Threat of Extinction"
Endangered animals lists are familiar to those who care about nature, but now technology has its own list of gadget "species" under threat of extinction.
High on the endangered list is the file-sharing network, Morpheus, which is about to fight for survival in court.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) list highlights what it says is the grip industry holds over gadgets.It says pressure from the entertainment industry for legal action over devices and technologies stifles innovation . . .
Feb. 18, 2005, The Inquirer
"Software Licenses Steal Your Freedom"
By Nick Farrell
US civil rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has warned that software houses are taking liberties with their end user licence agreements.
According to the EFF, many agreements contain terms that damage consumer interests, including invitations for vendors to snoop on users' computers, prohibitions on publicly criticising the product in question, and bans on customising or repairing devices.
Author of a white paper on the subject, Annalee Newitz, said that few realise that simply visiting a website or downloading a software update may constitute 'agreeing' to allowing third parties to monitor your communications or allows a vendor to dictate what you can or cannot do with the product you've bought . . .
Feb. 17, 2005, FinalCall.com
"FBI Silent on Reports that It Watches the Web"
By William Fisher
Is the U.S. government spying on its citizens? email and Web surfing habits?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a group that defends civil liberties on the Internet, believes the answer is probably ?yes.? Earlier in January, the San Francisco-based watchdog filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI and other U.S. Department of Justice offices.
It is seeking documents that would shed light on whether the government has been using the USA Patriot Act, which curtails some civil liberties as part of the ?war on terror,? to spy on Internet users and collect secret information about their online activity without a search warrant.
?Although Internet users reasonably expect that their online reading habits are private, the (Justice Department) will not confirm whether it collects or believes itself authorized to collect URLs using pen-trap devices,? said Kevin Bankston, an EFF attorney.
Feb. 16, 2005, EWeek
"Apple Agrees to Hold Subpoenas Against Websites"
By Daniel Drew Turner
Apple Computer Inc. will stay subpoenas seeking information about unnamed individuals who have allegedly leaked trade secrets in its "John Doe" civil complaint, according to a representative of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization centered on free speech and civil rights issues.
Annalee Newitz, a policy analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told eWEEK.com that Apple, which is represented by the San Francisco law firm of O'Melveny and Myers LLP, has agreed to hold off on serving subpoenas until after the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, has held a hearing on the EFF's request for a protective order for its clients, two of the Web sites listed in Apple's suit. EFF filed the request this week; a date for the hearing has not yet been set, but it may be held in early March . . .
Feb. 15, 2005, Los Angeles Times
"New Steps to Protect DVDs in the Piracy War"
By Jon Healy
. . . Consumer advocates said Hollywood had the right to put out unrippable discs. But such a move would ignore public demand for the ability to back up DVDs and take their movie collections on the road.
"It's swimming against the tide," said attorney Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates civil liberties online. "Consumers one way or another tend to get what they want."
Feb. 14, 2005, BBC
"Apple attacked over sources row"
Civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has joined a legal fight between three US online journalists and Apple.
Apple wants the reporters to reveal 20 sources used for stories which leaked information about forthcoming products, including the Mac Mini.
The EFF, representing the reporters, has asked California's Superior court to stop Apple pursuing the sources.It argues that the journalists are protected by the American constitution.
The EFF says the case threatens the basic freedoms of the press . . .
Feb. 15, 2005, CNN Money
"Have a Blog, Lose Your Job?"
By Krysten Crawford
"Blogs are enabling people to have a conversation with a much wider audience," said Kurt Opsahl, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that monitors Internet use and privacy rights. "They're saying the same things that people would routinely say around the water cooler, only now they're saying them in a forum that can be read by millions of people."
Feb. 14, 2005, PC World
"DVD Ripping Flourishes in Hollywood"
By David Spring
. . . In the copyright war, Hollywood is losing, says Wendy Seltzer, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet civil liberties organization. The EFF says encrypting DVDs is waste of time given how bad the locks are. The EFF is supported in this view by Bruce Schneier, an expert on encryption technology, who says, "Hollywood is dreaming if they still think CSS is a piracy deterrent." . . .
Feb. 11, 2005, NBC 11 News
"Bay Area Neighborhood May Get Surveillance Cameras"
. . .Technology watch dog groups said it's a step toward a surveillance society, and cameras don't deter crime.
"It may have a displacement effect, moving it from camera areas to other areas," said Kurt Opsahl, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation . . .
02.14.05, Newsweek
"Big Brother's New Way to Watch You"
By Sarah Childress
. . . Law enforcement has long used GPS devices to keep tabs on parolees. But as the technology has become smaller and cheaper, more police nationwide are turning to GPS to monitor suspects. Numbers aren't yet kept nationally, and cops are reluctant to discuss this secret weapon. But suppliers say they've sold devices to officers in Arkansas, Utah, Illinois and Washington state. And prosecutors used data from a GPS tracker to prove Scott Peterson frequented the area where police say he dumped the body of his wife, Laci.
Privacy advocates are worried. "We all know it's one thing to be observed in public--and another thing to be tracked," says Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But until a judge says otherwise, the cops will be watching.
02.10.05, PC Pro
By Matt Whipp
The federal Judge presiding in the case between SCO and IBM has released an order in which he reveals the extent of his frustration at SCO's continued inability to produce any hard evidence of copying. . . While IBM's moves to have the case put to summary judgement were not granted, those that were denied were denied without prejudice. This means that IBM could subsequently request such an action in future when all the evidence is in.
Jason Schultz, attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation concluded the order was a fairly emphatic victory for IBM.
'I had suspected that the judge would deny IBM's motions without prejudice because discovery is still ongoing. However, it's clear from the language of the ruling that the judge would grant IBM's motion on the copyright issues if discovery were closed now. So this means that unless SCO comes up with more evidence than it currently has, it will lose its copyright claims against Linux. We'll see if SCO can manufacture more evidence, but at this point, it looks unlikely. So what this order tells us is that we may have to wait a bit longer to get the result, but the result will most likely be a win for IBM,' he said.
02.09.05, Slashdot
EFF has just released a new software tool called "logfinder" to help server admins find (and delete) unnecessary log files on their boxen. "By finding unwanted log files, logfinder informs system administrators when their servers are collecting personal data and gives them the opportunity to turn logging off if it isn't gathering information necessary for administering the system."
02.09.05, ABC News
"Blogging Can Get You in Trouble at Work"
By Jake Tapper and Audrey Taylor
. . . At companies across the country, employees are being fired for Internet postings employers do not like.
It is a new and increasingly prevalent cause for termination. The firings raise a central question: How much anonymity can anyone expect on a portal called the "World Wide" Web?
"Many people don't understand how what they're writing on a blog is not as anonymous as they think it is," said Kurt Opsahl, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group. "They feel like they're having a conversation with friends and family, when they're really having a conversation with anyone who comes by." . . .
02.07.05, New York Times
"As Piracy Battle Nears Supreme Court, the Messages Grow Manic"
By TOM ZELLER Jr.
With the Supreme Court scheduled next month to hear a pivotal case pitting copyright holders (represented by MGM Studios) against the makers of file-sharing software (Grokster and StreamCast Networks), some participants are putting their message machines into high gear . . .
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the digital rights advocacy group that is representing StreamCast Networks in the Grokster case, unveiled its Endangered Gizmos campaign to coincide with the filing of dozens of MGM-friendly amicus briefs with the Supreme Court late last month.
The campaign displays cheeky taxonomies of "extinct" or "endangered" techno-species like the original file-sharing service Napster, which was sued into submission, and the Streambox VCR, which allowed users to record streaming media off the Internet and suffered a similar fate. The foundation hopes to convince consumers and lawmakers that there are cultural costs to giving copyright holders too much power."So many of the issues that we deal with are really abstruse," said Wendy Seltzer, an intellectual property attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the principal creator of the Endangered Gizmos campaign. "And yet they touch a whole segment of the public that we want to reach out to."
02.07.05, Time Magazine
By Carolina A. Miranda
Those camera-equipped cell phones may be the latest must-have tech product, with more than 31 million sold in North America last year alone. But the ability of users to snap pictures on the sly almost anywhere they go--and even put the images on the Internet--has prompted a growing number of places to institute a ban on the devices . . .
As long as photos are not taken up someone's skirt without her knowledge, they are legal. "It's not particularly tasteful," says attorney Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online civil-liberties group, "but people need to be aware that whatever you do in a public space can be recorded."
02.06.05, Cincinnati Enquirer
"File-sharing networks examined"
By Reid Forgrave
Ferraris, guns and alcohol are all legal, even though manufacturers know their wares could be used to break the law.
So should a similar standard apply to Internet users who share - or some would say, "steal" - digital music? Legal scholars interested in copyright law discussed that question Saturday at a symposium put on by the Northern Kentucky Law Review."We're all copyright infringers, just like we all sometimes speed," said Jason Schultz, attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represents a file-sharing network that's being sued by movie studios and record companies in a case that will soon come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"To what extent should the law be like a microscope (on file-sharing networks)?" Schultz asked. "How many people have never put something on their computer that's not supposed to be there? This is just the reality we live in." . . .
02.05.05, Washington Post
"Families of Military Dead Fight for Digital Memories"
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Stationed in a remote corner of Iraq, Marine Corps reservist Karl Linn's only means of communicating with the outside world was through a computer . . .
For his parents in Midlothian, Va., the electronic updates were so precious that when he was killed last week in an ambush, one of the first things they did was to contact the company that hosted their son's account. They wanted to know how to access the data and preserve it.
But who owns the material is a source of intense debate."We might wish that our Web-based e-mail accounts were like our books and diaries, but they certainly aren't for most legal purposes," said Cindy Cohn, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a think tank in San Francisco.
02.04.05, The California Report on KQED
"The Anti-Software Bill"
Commentary by Annalee Newitz
Legislation introduced last month by Los Angeles State Senator Kevin Murray would make it illegal for California companies to manufacture, sell or freely distribute any software that might allow people to trade pirated files on line. Critics are calling it "The Anti-Software Bill." It's a notion that doesn't sit well with technology commentator Annalee Newitz.
02.02.05, Christian Science Monitor
By Randy Dotinga
. . . On the bright side for bloggers, they may get rights along with journalistic responsibilities. The Apple lawsuit will reveal just how far the California shield law extends.
Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Kurt Opsahl, who represents two bloggers targeted by Apple, insists they're protected journalists. If they're forced to give up their sources, "the public will lose out on a vital outlet for independent news, analysis, and commentary," he says . . .
02.02.05, Nashville City Paper
By Chris Lewis
Twenty years after upholding the legality of the home video recorder, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon take up the issue of copying and sharing recorded music and movies in the digital age.
The copyright infringement case pitting the motion picture and music industries against peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks has Nashville's fingerprints all over it. . . . The case has roots in Franklin, where a company called MusicCity, later renamed StreamCast Networks, made its mark on digital downloading by distributing the hot-selling Morpheus software . . .
The recording industry has argued that more than 90 percent of the P2P networks are used for illegal downloading, presenting a much more pervasive problem than home recording of videos.
"Of course, there are differences between that [VCR] technology and this one, said Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "But I don't believe they justify the dramatic reversal that the plaintiffs here are seeking."
Von Lohmann, who is defending StreamCast, and other proponents of the Sony Betamax decision say a reversal would squelch innovations in technology beyond the peer-to-peer environment.
"The rule will apply to Apple and Intel and Microsoft and every technology you can think of that's capable of infringing copyright. Of course, in the digital age basically everything is capable of infringing copyright," he said.
02.01. 05, Slashdot
EFF Asks How Big Brother Is Watching the Internet
The EFF filed a FOIA request yesterday with the FBI and other offices of the US DOJ regarding expanded powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act. The EFF is making the request in an attempt to find out whether or not Section 216 is being used to monitor web browsing without a warrant. The DOJ has already stated they can collect email and IP addresses, but has not been forthcoming on the subject of URL addresses. It seems the EFF is seeking any documentation to confirm such activity is taking place. One can only hope the automated FOIA search doesn't produce any false negatives or cost the EFF $372,999.
