EFF in the News
Taken together, these bits of data produce a unique "fingerprint" that works even in the absence of cookies or other traditional Web tracking tools. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, concerned about the issue, has just wrapped up its own study on browser fingerprinting, and it finds that even the privacy conscious have made themselves simple to track.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation today warned that more than 80 percent of browsers reveal identifiable "fingerprints" that could allow a user's Web surfing to be tracked. The privacy watchdog urged that greater attention be paid to this by the public and policy makers.
In December, 2009, the Electronic Frontier Foundation in conjunction with the Samuelson Law, Technology, & Public Policy Clinic at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law filed suit against a half-dozen governmental agencies for refusing to disclose their policies for using social networking sites for investigations, data-collection, and surveillance.
Marcia Hofmann, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the fact that Google collected the data by accident would probably protect the company from liability under the federal wiretap law, which prohibits unauthorized access of communications.
"To violate the law requires that the interception was intentional," said Hofmann.
"These new 'privacy' changes are clearly intended to push Facebook users to publicly share even more information than before," said the EFF's Kevin Bankston at the time. "Even worse, the changes will actually reduce the amount of control that users have over some of their personal data."
When Facebook was incorporated five years ago, it was a “private space for communication with a group of your choice,” writes Kurt Opsahl, senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Today, it has become a platform where you have no choice but to make certain information public.
Viacom accused Google and YouTube in March 2007 of encouraging copyright infringement and now much of the film industry is telling the judge that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provisions don't protect YouTube, acquired by Google in 2006, from responsibility for the infringement on the site.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Library Association filed their own amicus documents on behalf of Google, which on Tuesday defended its legal position.
Nonetheless, critics such as privacy advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) say Facebook makes it hard for users to restrict the information they share.
Luckily, the people over at the Electronic Frontier Foundation made a video (see below) about completely opting out of this feature (a four-step process) because Facebook just wasn't going to make this easy.
If you ever wanted a one stop shop for false DMCA takedowns, YouTube has no shortage of these. We previously covered YouTube in our previous edition of False Accusations and YouTube is once again being mentioned in this edition.
The page located on EFF details 19 cases of false DMCA takedowns. The cases show perfect examples how tight copyright laws can have a negative impact on free speech. We don’t mean, “I uploaded this feature length film, it’s free speech” but rather, “I produced this clip and someone didn’t like it, so they use copyright to take down my video!”