EFF in the News
“It’s a little piece of SOPA wrapped up in a bill that’s supposedly designed to facilitate detection of and defense against cybersecurity threats,” the EFF writes.
Big dogs like Google, Facebook, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and now the Motion Picture Association of America have all filed briefs in an obscure copyright case currently being heard by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. At stake: what does a service have to do when a takedown notice is filed, and should that site have an additional burden to block repeat offenders?
Some digital rights groups, including the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have raised privacy and civil liberties concerns about CISPA.
Privacy and online speech advocate Electronic Frontier Foundation attacked the proposed bill last month, claiming that it unfairly targets anti-government whistleblower sites. “The language is so broad it could be used as a blunt instrument to attack Websites like The Pirate Bay or WikiLeaks,” wrote EFF’s Rainey Reitman.
Rainey Reitman and Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation released a statement outlining their concerns about the inclusion of intellectual property in CISPA.
Jillian C York is director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. Here she writes about " Fighting online censorship when legal action fails".
According to the EFF, the language in CISPA is worded so broadly that it could be interpreted to allow Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and companies such as Google and Facebook to intercept your messages and transmit them to the government.
''You wouldn't intentionally store sensitive data on a console,'' Parker Higgins, a spokesman for the online privacy group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says. ''But I can think of things like connection logs and conversation logs that are incidentally stored data. And it's even more alarming because users might not know that the data is created.
According to the digital right website Electronic Frontier Foundation, what this means is that “a company like Google, Facebook or Twitter could intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination if it fits into their plan to stop cybersecurity threats.”
Meantime, the Electronic Frontier Foundation worried that Judge Hernandez was dangerously overreaching. The EFF’s Tervor Timm says that the ruling against Cox set an uncomfortable precedent that could have far-reaching effects on all bloggers.