EFF in the News
In the United States, where many cloud companies are based, legal standards make it much easier for law enforcement to obtain data for criminal or other investigations, said Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based digital rights group.
"Data stored in the cloud is substantially easier for the government to obtain than the data you store yourself because of lower legal standards," Bankston said. "And it is easier to do it secretly. We think this is a serious security concern, and the law needs to be updated."
Overstatement? Maybe not, said attorney Lee Tien with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's really very clear, both under the Constitution, the 4th Amendment, the privacy of the home is really the most important value," Tien said.
And Tien said those meters could tell the government, even the police, what's going on in your home. "Inside your home is where the government isn't supposed to intrude without some kind of a warrant usually. And yet when this data is flowing freely outside your home, then the information gets outside that protected boundary and you start to have a problem."
In the wake of the DMCA takedown notice that forced Cryptome offline, the EFF is pointing out yet another massive in with the DMCA's notice-and-takedown setup: it leads to a ton of collateral damage in getting legitimate, authorized, non-infringing content blocked by overzealous takedowns.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation reported Monday evening that it gained access to a March 2009 version of the agreement. EFF noticed that NASA had developed an iPhone app, so the cyber-rights foundation then used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the agreement from NASA. The space agency judged that the FOIA trumps the Apple agreement, so they turned the Apple document over to EFF.
Apple's developer agreement -- recently unearthed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation -- severely limits the company's liability and enables them to kill any application.
"Overall, the Agreement is a very one-sided contract, favoring Apple at every turn," the EFF wrote. "That's not unusual where end-user license agreements are concerned (and not all the terms may ultimately be enforceable), but it's a bit of a surprise as applied to the more than 100,000 developers for the iPhone, including many large public companies.
"How can Apple get away with it? Because it is the sole gateway to the more than 40 million iPhones that have been sold. In other words, it's only because Apple still "owns" the customer, long after each iPhone (and soon, iPad) is sold, that it is able to push these contractual terms on the entire universe of software developers for the platform."
Apparently, copies of the “iPhone Developer Program License Agreement” have been hard to come by - until now. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, spotting a NASA App for the iPhone, filed a Freedom of Information Act request for a copy of the agreement “so that the general public could see what rules controlled the technology they could use with their phones.”
Cindy Cohn, the San Francisco-based legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation who spoke at the court hearing in opposition to the book plan, said the group has repeatedly urged Google to incorporate many of the same privacy standards that public libraries have, such as never turning over library records to police without a warrant.
Google wanted to make such decisions on a case by case basis.
"It's tremendously important" for Google to adopt the library standards, Cohn said. "The ability to be able to engage in intellectual inquiry without somebody being tracked — it's an important piece of free expression."
Rebecca Jeschke of the Electronic Frontier Foundation pointed out to us...truth can rip through cyberspace as quickly as lies.
"Before the ink is dry on net neutrality regulations, we already see corporate lobbyists and 'public decency' advocates pushing for loopholes," said EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick. "A loophole like this could swallow network neutrality, with ISPs claiming copyright enforcement as a pretext for all sorts of discriminatory behaviour."