EFF in the News
"In the U.S., there are now states where jail sentencing guidelines are being set by data," said Jeremy Gillula, a staff technologist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Data has a huge impact on people's lives, and that's only going to increase."
Much of today's data collection happens on the websites people visit, and it's done both by the websites themselves and by the advertising networks that power them. That, in turn, can spill over into surveillance by governments as well, Gillula said, such as when organizations like the National Security Agency tap Internet backbones.
“Not only is it extremely unlikely that there is any copyright, the chances of those tweets then not being considered fair use seems small,” said Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyer Vera Ranieri, in response to an email query about certain tweets Ashley Madison has sought to remove.
Ranieri added, however, that courts have traditionally been reluctant to apply the punishment for copyright misrepresentation. This could change, however, in light of a recent court order and in response to the EFF’s ongoing attempts to seek lawyers’ fees and damages on behalf of the mother in the “dancing baby” case (a long-running dispute over a short YouTube clip showing a toddler dancing to a Prince song).
"The exciting thing about platforms like Twitter when politicians and public officials are using them is that it can provide more accountability and more transparency," said Parker Higgins, an activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Twitter's action, he said, cripples that ideal. The EFF typically advocates for privacy online.
“The problem is you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have it be some super-secret national security terrorist finder and then use it to solve petty crimes,” Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyer Hanni Fakhoury said.
Ultimately it is hard to hold Facebook responsible for the copyright infringement on its site, says Kit Walsh, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online civil liberties group. There is a safe harbor protecting websites under copyright law.
"An intermediary that accepts content from users is not responsible for copyright infringement that they commit," Walsh says.
The bill does a lot of things right, said Lee Tien, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for the protection of civil liberties online. The legislation notably acknowledges the risk of spying by law enforcement but may place too much faith in consent policies, he said.
"Notice is not consent," Tien said.
“His videos are so personal, they’re like DIY make-up tutorials,” says Andrew Crocker, a lawyer at Electronic Frontier Foundation who works with hackers, including Kamkar, to help them disclose vulnerabilities to companies without getting in trouble. “He embodies the hacker’s glee without being devious or malicious.”
The ongoing debate about the role of governments in regulating digital currencies isn’t going away anytime soon. While the dustup over New York’s BitLicense program continues, another front has opened up in California where a member of the state assembly has introduced a bill to regulate California’s digital currencies businesses.
The Washington, D.C.-based Coin Center and the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) each have lobbied hard against the New York Department of Financial Services attempts to regulate New York businesses with its controversial BitLicense program.
But with the proposed California law, the two organizations have taken two separate forks in the advocacy road, with Coin Center supporting the California legislation and EFF adamantly opposed.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil liberties group, is now hoping that the new documents will bolster their claims in a long-running case, Jewel v. NSA. “We will be presenting this information to the court,” said Cindy Cohn, executive director of the foundation. A Department of Justice spokesman declined to comment.
A spokesman with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights organization, said the group remains concerned about use of mobile biometric technology such as facial recognition software, as well as allegations of misuse of the technology, despite apparent flaws in the Times’ story.
“They start with the technology fairly low-level, saying it only involves mug shots, but once you get the system into place, it can expand quite easily,” said foundation spokesman Dave Maass. “It’s mug shots today, then DMV photos tomorrow, then open source photos the day after. This technology, once in place and once they start relying on it, can be expanded hugely, and if there aren’t strong policies in place saying what the limits are, there are many opportunities for abuse.”