Press Releases: September 2014
No Single Country Should Have Veto Power Over Global Search Results
Vancouver, Canada - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a brief with the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Canada on Monday weighing in on a ruling that Google must block certain entire websites from its search results around the world.
EFF intervened in Equustek Solutions v. Morgan Jack after a trial court ruled in June that Google must remove links to full websites that contained pages selling a product that allegedly infringed trade secret rights. The injunction not only applied to Google's Canada-specific search, Google.ca, but to all of its searches around the world. Google had offered to remove 345 URLs but would not block the entire category of websites, because they contained pages that "may be used for any number of innocent purposes."
Such a broad injunction sets a dangerous precedent, especially where the injunction is likely to conflict with the laws of other nations. In its brief, EFF explains how the trial court's injunction decision would have likely violated the U.S. Constitution and constituted an improper "mandatory injunction" under case law in California, where Google is based. By blocking entire websites, Canadian courts potentially censor innocent content that U.S. Internet users have a constitutional right to receive.
"The scope of the Canadian court's order could chill speech across the Internet," EFF Staff Attorney Vera Ranieri said. "If a Canadian court is able to block search results around the world, it sets a precedent that nations with authoritarian restrictions on speech can also impose their own rules on the global Internet."
"We hope the court considers how the ruling affects the public interest in free expression," EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry said. "No single country should have veto power over Internet speech."
EFF filed the brief with the assistance of pro bono counsel David Wotherspoon of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, LLP. The appeal will be argued over three days in the last week of October.
For the filing:
https://www.eff.org/document/eff-factum-equustek-v-morgan-jack
Contacts:
Vera Ranieri
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
vera@eff.org
New Jersey Prosecutors Issue Flawed Subpoena for Tidbit Source Code
Newark, NJ - Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury will appear before a New Jersey Superior Court judge on Monday, Sept. 22 to oppose a subpoena issued to MIT students over their prize-winning Bitcoin mining program, Tidbit.
Tidbit was designed to serve as an alternative to viewing online advertising by allowing website users to help mine Bitcoins for the site they're visiting instead. It was developed in late 2013 by Jeremy Rubin and fellow classmates at MIT for the Node Knockout Hackathon, where the program ultimately won an award for innovation. The creators never made the program fully functional, serving only as a "proof of concept."
In December 2013, the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs issued a subpoena to Rubin, requesting he turn over Tidbit's past and current source code, as well as other documents and agreements with any third parties. It also issued 27 formal written questions requesting additional documents and ordering Rubin to turn over information such as the names and identities of all Bitcoin wallet addresses associated with Tidbit, a list of all websites running Tidbit's code, and the name of anybody whose computer mined for Bitcoins through the use of Tidbit.
EFF represents Rubin and Tidbit in opposing the unjustifiably broad subpoena. In court, Fakhoury will argue three points:
- The State of New Jersey's attempts to target out-of-state activity is unconstitutional.
- New Jersey has no jurisdiction over Rubin or Tidbit.
- If the subpoena is upheld, Rubin and Tidbit must receive immunity. Otherwise, the court would be forcing Rubin and Tidbit to testify against themselves in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and New Jersey state law.
"While the state certainly has a right to investigate consumer fraud, threatening out of state college students with subpoenas isn't the way to do it," Fakhoury said. "The students have disbanded their award-winning project. As MIT students and faculty have warned, the fear that any state can issue broad subpoenas to any student anywhere in the country will have a chilling effect on campus technological innovation beyond Tidbit."
What: Motion Hearing in Rubin v. New Jersey
Who: Hanni Fakhoury, EFF Staff Attorney
Date: Monday, Sept. 22
Time: 1:30 p.m. ET
Location: Courtroom of the Honorable Gary Furnari
Essex County Historic Court House, Courtroom 211
470 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Newark, NJ 07102
For the motion: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/02/03/rubin_v._nj_brief.pdf
Contacts:
Hanni Fakhoury
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
hanni@eff.org
EFF Takes on Net Neutrality's Critics in New Comments to FCC
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today to see through misinformation from Internet service providers (ISPs) and protect the open Internet.
EFF's formal response to the ISPs' claims are part of the FCC's public comment period for its proposed new rules that would allow for so-called "Internet fast lanes" – a dangerous plan that would allow unfair Internet traffic discrimination and undermine net neutrality. The FCC has received over 1.7 million comments on the issue, with over 127,000 delivered through EFF's DearFCC.org comment tool.
"The FCC is going down a dangerous path, risking future Internet expression and innovation, and the big ISPs are encouraging the commission every step of the way," said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry. "Will the FCC respond to the pleas of more than a million Internet users and do its part to protect net neutrality? Or will it open the door to a tiered Internet, with ISPs serving as gatekeepers for their subscribers?"
In comments submitted today, EFF reiterated that the FCC must reclassify broadband as a "common carrier" service, which would allow the commission to enforce rules like the ones that insure fair and equal telephone service. Some ISPs, including cable Internet provider Comcast, have argued against the reclassification, telling the FCC that a recent court decision gives the commission all it needs to protect the open Internet. But that claim is based on a complete misreading of the court's ruling.
"What the court actually said was that the current classification of the Internet would not allow the FCC to ban unreasonable discrimination of network traffic," said EFF Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz. "The court gave the FCC a roadmap for protecting the open Internet, and it starts with reclassification, not preserving the status quo."
ISPs' comments to the FCC also fought against service-performance transparency, claiming detailed information about network traffic would confuse consumers instead of helping them—essentially arguing that consumers were too uninformed to know what was good for them. Another outrageous claim came from cell phone providers responding to calls from EFF and others to handle mobile Internet traffic without discrimination. The providers argued that there was no current problem in the mobile space, despite obvious examples like AT&T blocking the FaceTime app.
"The Internet is an unprecedented global platform for free expression, commerce, and communications of all kinds. We can't let a few powerful companies throttle it," said EFF Staff Technologist Jeremy Gillula. "The FCC must correct its course and protect our access to this invaluable resource."
For the full comments to the FCC:
https://www.eff.org/document/reply-comments
For more on net neutrality:
https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
Contacts:
Corynne McSherry
Intellectual Property Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
corynne@eff.org
Mitch Stoltz
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
mitch@eff.org
Jeremy Gillula
Staff Technologist
Electronic Frontier Foundation
jeremy@eff.org
'Anti-Circumvention' Provisions Harm Users, Researchers, Innovators, and More
Washington, D.C. - Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry will testify Wednesday at a congressional hearing on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the dangerous "anti-circumvention" provisions that harm users, researchers, innovators, and more.
The anti-circumvention language of Section 1201 of the DMCA has been used to threaten those who unlock or jailbreak their phones, block aftermarket competition in toner cartridges and video came console accessories, and narrow the public's fair use rights. In her testimony Wednesday, McSherry will argue that the costs of this law far outweigh the benefits, and that best way to fix Section 1201 is to get rid of it entirely. Short of that, the anti-circumvention provisions should be reformed so that it is focused clearly on copyright infringement.
Wednesday's hearing is part of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.
WHO:
Corynne McSherry
Intellectual Property Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation
WHAT:
"Chapter 12 Under Title 17"
The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet
WHEN:
10 a.m.
Wednesday, September 17
WHERE:
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
For more on the hearing:
https://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2014/9/hearing-chapter-12-of-title-17
Contact:
Rebecca Jeschke
Media Relations Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
press@eff.org
eff.org/nsa-spying
