EFF in the News
Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote, "Unfortunately, the parties did not add any reader privacy protections. The only nominal change was that they formally confirmed a position they had long taken privately that information will not be freely shared between Google and the Registry."
"You could make it bloody sing the national anthem, for crying out loud," says Chris Roberts, a managing director for Denver-based electronic forensics firm Cyposis and part-time calculator hobbyist. "There's no logical reason as to why you should do this besides it's there." ...
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that advocates for the free exchange of information online, is representing three other calculator enthusiasts who were sent cease-and-desist emails from Texas Instruments after they repeated or linked to details of Mr. Moody's breakthrough.
Much information about ACTA has come from leaked documents posted to such sites as http://wikileaks.org; other details have been pried out through Freedom of Information Act requests by such groups as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Knowledge Ecology International.
The new Copyright Watch site is slated to serve as a reference base for users on copyright laws around the world. Among the groups participating in the effort are the US-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Electronic Information for Libraries.
Kevin Bankston, senior staff attorney for the EFF, who originally harangued Google over Latitude, was not happy about the feature, noting that Location History for Latitude creates a whole new set of privacy risks because that history may be vulnerable to demands by the government or civil litigants.
“He who controls the past, controls the future,” said a bulletin on the case issued Thursday by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online civil liberties group. Jennifer Granick, a lawyer for the group, said the case “really is about editing history.”
"Not only was this request a plain violation of federal privacy law -- which would require the government to at least get a court order based on a factual showing to get that kind of data; not only did it violate Department of Justice regulations that require subpoenas to media organizations to be vetted by the attorney general; not only did it threaten the First Amendment right to read anonymously of all of Indymedia's users, it also violated Ms. Clair's First Amendment rights by ordering her not to disclose the subpoena's existence," EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston told FoxNews.com.
The documents, unearthed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, also suggest the administration was wary it might first have to concede that the telcos were complicit in the alleged dragnet surveillance to garner congressional support for the amnesty bill. The legislation, passed in July 2008, killed the EFF’s federal civil rights lawsuit against the companies.
In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the EFF, the government has now begrudgingly divulged thousands of pages of documents pertaining to the legislation’s development.
We will be poring through them today.
The EFF notes, “The government has said it will continue to try to block the release of additional documents, including communications within the Executive Branch and records reflecting the identities of telecoms involved in lobbying for immunity.” More litigation on the disclosure matter is set for January.
Take a look at the immunity negotiation documents and, in the comments section, report your findings.
Pamela Samuelson, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, said "It's not very often that some obscure issue of patent law can excite so much attention."
Samuelson, who was an author of a brief on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online civil liberties group, and others, said it was time for the court to tap the brakes on the business patents rush. The earlier State Street decision, her brief stated, had the effect of "knocking patent law loose from its historical moorings and improperly injecting patents into business areas where they were neither needed nor wanted."