Deeplinks
It's been a mixed year for open access but we've seen some real victories and a steady march toward a comprehensive federal open access policy.
We entered January with a bad taste still in our mouth: the previous month, the academic publisher Reed Elsevier sent thousands of copyright takedown notices to researchers, universities, and scholarly startups that were all hosting the researchers' own works. In doing so, the lumbering giant alienated a significant swath of its readership—who also happen to be its content providers.
EFF submitted an amicus letter to the California Supreme Court urging the justices to review a case that has significant implications for the free speech rights of anonymous online speakers under California law.
Three major vulnerabilities rocked the world of Internet security this year, including two high-profile bugs that jeopardized the security of HTTPS encryption itself. These vulnerabilities may have each cost sysadmins around the world some sleepless nights, but they also reinforced the idea that best security practices can protect users even where the software has bugs.
2014 has seen a flurry of events surrounding the issues of privacy and security when it comes to mobile devices. Here are some highlights.
EFF started the year by releasing HTTPS Everywhere on Firefox for Android. Before, HTTPS Everywhere could only protect web browsing on desktop platforms, but with the release of HTTPS Everywhere for Firefox for Android, that same protection became available for Android devices as well.
A draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership's (TPP) Intellectual Property chapter from May 2014 leaked this past fall, confirming what previous leaks had suggested: this so-called trade agreement would bring copyright enforcement provisions that threaten users' right to free expression, privacy, and unfettered access to knowledge online.
EFF was suing the NSA before it was cool. We filed our first lawsuit against the NSA for mass spying in 2008, after the NSA butted into our lawsuit against AT&T for helping the NSA do mass spying. We’ve also been doing Freedom of Information lawsuits trying to ensure you know what the NSA is up to for many years before that. But when it comes to fighting unconstitutional spying, the more the merrier. And 2014 was awfully merry: litigation challenging NSA surveillance moved forward in multiple cases, giving the government plenty of time to demonstrate exactly how outrageous its arguments in defense of mass spying are.
Last month we were very pleased to announce our work with Mozilla, the University of Michigan, Cisco, Akamai and IdentTust on Let's Encrypt, a totally free and automated certificate authority that will be launching in summer 2015. In order to let mainstream browsers seamlessly connect securely to your web site, you need a digital certificate. Next year, we'll provide you with that certificate at no charge, and, if you choose, our software will install it on your server in less than a minute. We've been pursuing the ideas that turned into Let's Encrypt for three years, so it was a great pleasure to be able to share what we've been working on with the world.
DNA can reveal an extraordinary amount of private information about you, including familial relationships, medical history, predisposition for disease, and possibly even behavioral tendencies and sexual orientation.
At EFF, we think people ought to be able to understand how their devices work and repair them without asking permission of the manufacturer. We also think independent repair companies should to be able to compete with manufacturers in the aftermarket. Simply put, you should be able to fix your stuff or choose someone you trust to do it for you.
This past year, EFF has been on the road, traveling from country to country across Latin America to share our message of freedom to local partners and friends. While we enjoyed the opportunity to talk about our lawsuits against the NSA, as well as the dangers of location tracking and biometric data collection practices, the best part of the trip was learning about all the inspiring advocacy happening everyday on the local level.
We first stopped in Mexico, where we met local advocates and security researchers who courageously fought against the country's newest data retention law. (For those who are not familiar, last year the Mexican government approved a law compelling telecom providers to retain, for two years, the details of who communicates with whom, for how long, and from where. It also allows authorities access to these details without a court order, exposing geolocation information to reveal the physical whereabouts of Mexicans).
You must comply with a new law that was just passed, but doing so means you are probably violating one of our patents. So you might as well pay up now.
Dear smartphone users: great news. We’re launching our first-ever EFF mobile app. This app will tell you when there are breaking issues related to digital rights that need your help. You'll get a quick notification and be able to one-click connect to the EFF action center to speak out and help us fight for freedom online.
Today we launched a new app that will make it easier for people to take action on digital rights issues using their phone. The app allows folks to connect to our action center quickly and easily, using a variety of mobile devices.
Sadly, though, we had to leave out Apple devices and the folks who use them. Why? Because we could not agree to the outrageous terms in Apple’s Developer Agreement and Apple’s DRM requirements.
EFF is stunned and deeply saddened by the attack on Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper. As free speech advocates, we mourn the use of violence against individuals who used creativity and free expression to engage in cultural and political criticism. Murder is the ultimate form of censorship.
In the nearly 25 years that EFF has been defending digital rights, our belief in the promise of the Internet has only grown stronger. The digital world frees users from many limits on communication and creativity that exist in the offline world. But it is also an environment that reflects the problems in wider society and grants them new dimensions. Harassment is one of those problems.
Online harassment is a digital rights issue. At its worst, it causes real and lasting harms to its targets, a fact that must be central to any discussion of harassment. Unfortunately, it's not easy to craft laws or policies that will address those harms without inviting government or corporate censorship and invasions of privacy—including the privacy and free speech of targets of harassment. But, as we discuss below, there are ways to craft effective responses, rooted in the core ideals upon which the Internet was built, to protect the targets of harassment and their rights.
The Sony hack is beginning to leave its mark on lawmakers in Washington, DC. Right before leaving for their winter vacation, politicians touted cybersecurity bills as the silver bullet to stopping future Sony-like hacks. The specific cybersecurity bills don't focus on advancing research and development, but on the sharing of computer threat information between the public and private sector. What these lawmakers neglect to tell the public is that the bills wouldn't have solved the Sony hack and that companies can already share information concerning computer threats.
Information Sharing would not Have Stopped the Sony Attack
Secrecy is trade negotiators' stock-in-trade, and it has allowed them to sneak through rules on topics such as copyright and patents that would never pass muster under public scrutiny. EFF has not hesitated to call them out over this, whether the trade agreement in question is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between Europe and the United States, or the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA).
Normally when you buy a product that has a hidden defect, consumer protection law in your state or country comes to the rescue. For example, if you purchase a product—say, a book—it comes with an implicit promise that it will be fit for the ordinary purposes that books are used for, such as allowing you to read it, quote from it, lend it to others, summarize it on your blog, and donate or recycle it when you're done.
If the book can't be used in these common-sense ways, and you weren't warned about that before handing over your money, consumer protection laws will generally give you the right to a remedy such as a refund of what you paid.
Just two days after issuing a condemnation of the terror attack on the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris, the government of Saudi Arabia began carrying out a public flogging against blogger Raif Badawi, who in May was sentenced to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for insulting Islam.
PEN America published a report this week summarizing the findings from a recent survey of 772 writers around the world on questions of surveillance and self-censorship. The report, entitled "Global Chilling: The Impact of Mass Surveillance on International Writers," builds upon a late 2013 survey of more than 500 US-based writers conducted by the organization.
The latest survey found that writers living in liberal democratic countries "have begun to engage in self-censorship at levels approaching those seen in non-democratic countries, indicating that mass surveillance has badly shaken writers' faith that democratic governments will respect their rights to privacy and freedom of expression, and that—because of pervasive surveillance—writers are concerned that expressing certain views even privately or researching certain topics may lead to negative consequences."
Following a terrorist attack, it is not uncommon to hear calls from politicians and government officials for increased surveillance. Fear and grief can lead to quick “solutions” that have significant consequences; as we pointed out last week, some of the most far-reaching surveillance and law enforcement powers around the world were devised in the wake of tragedies.
Despite the fact that there is no conclusive evidence that camera surveillance is an effective deterrent against crime, the movement towards a pervasive surveillance state continues in many Latin American countries. Surveillance technologies such as drones are gaining popularity, raising significant concerns for privacy and civil liberties.
Drones Across The Continent
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is considering amping up its regulation of online political speech—an idea that should be rejected from the get-go. Back in 2006, the FEC adopted a limited approach to regulating the Internet. Some FEC commissioners feel that its approach has grown outdated. But increased regulation of the Internet would threaten both free speech and privacy.
More needs to be done to protect cyberspace and enhance computer security. But President Obama's cybersecurity legislative proposal recycles old ideas that should remain where they've been since May 2011: on the shelf. Introducing information sharing proposals with broad liability protections, increasing penalties under the already draconian Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and potentially decreasing the protections granted to consumers under state data breach law are both unnecessary and unwelcome.
Information Sharing
Senators are now working around the clock to re-introduce a bill that would put trade agreements on the fast track to passage in the US after those deals are finalized. Deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have been negotiated in almost complete secrecy, except for private industry advocates serving on trade advisory committees who can read and comment on these texts. That has enabled these agreements to include extreme copyright and other digital policy provisions that would bind all signatory nations to draconian rules that would hinder free speech, privacy, and access to knowledge.
One year ago today, a federal appellate court struck down a set of rules, crafted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), that were supposed to protect the open internet. That ruling, ironically enough and only after a huge effort from Internet users, may have finally set the FCC on the path toward new, better, and legally sustainable neutrality rules. To stay on that path, though, we need your help.
We’ve been saying for months that while the FCC may have a role to play in promoting and protecting an open Internet, Internet users shouldn’t rely entirely on the FCC. That’s because, at root, the “neutrality” problem is a competition problem. Internet access providers, especially certain very large ones, have done a pretty good job of divvying up the nation to leave most Americans with only one or two choices for decent high-speed Internet access. If there’s no competition, customers can’t vote with their wallets when ISPs behave badly. Oligopolies also have little incentive to i
Update 2014-01-16: Turn announced today they will suspend their zombie cookie program by early February, but left open the possibility to resume in the future. We ask that they end the program permanently.
Verizon advertising partner Turn has been caught using Verizon Wireless's UIDH tracking header to resurrect deleted tracking cookies and share them with dozens of major websites and ad networks, forming a vast web of non-consensual online tracking. Explosive research from Stanford security expert Jonathan Mayer shows that, as we warned in November, Verizon's UIDH header is being used as an undeletable perma-cookie that makes it impossible for customers to meaningfully control their online privacy.
Mayer's research, described in ProPublica, shows that advertising network and Verizon partner Turn is using the UIDH header value to re-identify and re-cookie users who have taken careful steps to clear their cookies for privacy purposes. This contradicts standard browser privacy controls, users' expectations, and Verizon's own claims that the UIDH header won't be used to track users because it changes periodically.
Today, EFF and the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) filed joint comments to the FEC, urging the agency to leave its current Internet rules in place. As we blogged about earlier this week, the FEC is considering whether or not to develop new Internet rules. But as we note in our earlier post—and in our comments to the FEC—increased regulation of the Internet could chill speech and harm privacy and anonymity.
Increased regulation of online political speech may also undermine two goals of campaign finance reform: protecting freedom of political speech and expanding political participation. As we explain in our comments:
Research from Stanford's Jonathan Mayer and ProPublica has shown that Verizon's undeleteable UIDH mobile tracking header is being used by advertising and tracking company Turn.com to respawn deleted cookies. The only complete protection from being tracked by Verizon's injected headers is to follow the advice in Verizon's privacy policy, and not use their product at all:
If you do not want information to be collected for marketing purposes from services such as the Verizon Wireless Mobile Internet services, you should not use those particular services.
We’re usually very happy to see the government release documents shed light on unconstitutional surveillance. We’re less happy when the release is done Christmas week, in an attempt to ensure that they will get as little attention as possible.
The Obama Administration is on a roll with proposing legislation that endangers our privacy and security. Over the course of two days, President Obama proposed a cybersecurity bill that looks awfully similar to the now infamous CISPA (with respect to information sharing), a computer crime bill that is the opposite of our own proposed computer crime reform, and a data breach law weaker than the current status quo. All three of the bills are recycled ideas that have failed in Congress since their introduction in 2011. They should stay on the shelf.
Zombie Bill Dead in 2013, Stumbles from the Grave in 2015
Note: The bulk of the research in this post was compiled prior to Attorney General Eric Holder's surprise announcement that he is curtailing the federal equitable sharing program. The post may be updated as further ramifications of the policy decision become clear.
“You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the f*** it's gonna take you.”
This oft-cited wisdom comes from Detective Lester Freamon, a character in the classic HBO series The Wire, which tracked how an elite task force of (fictional) Baltimore cops used electronic surveillance to bring down criminal networks. But, the sentiment is ironic to a fault: if you keep following the money, it might take you right back to the police.
Riseup, a tech collective that provides security-minded communications to activists worldwide, sounded the alarm last month when a judge in Spain stated that the use of their email service is a practice, he believes, associated with terrorism.
Advertising network Turn announced today that they will suspend their zombie tracking cookie program. Turn was recently caught using Verizon Wireless' invasive UIDH header to undelete tracking cookies that web visitors had previously deleted. This unacceptable practice means that users who delete cookies to avoid Turn's and others' tracking will continue to be tracked against their will, using information associated with their previous activity through a permanent identity.
Riseup, un colectivo tecnológico que proporciona comunicación segura a activistas de todo el mundo, dio la voz de alarma el mes pasado cuando un juez en España declaró que el uso de su servicio de correo electrónico era una práctica, según él, asociada con el terrorismo.
We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of the law, and addressing what's at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.
We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of the law, and addressing what's at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.
From phones to cars to refrigerators to farm equipment, software is helping our stuff work better and smarter. But those features come at a high hidden cost: the rapid erosion of ownership. Why does that matter? Because when it comes to digital products, owners have rights. Renters on the other hand, have only permission.
It may seem odd to say so during Copyright Week, but copyright in itself isn't very important. Sure, EFF expends a lot of time and energy arguing about copyright law, and some of our adversaries spend even more. But we don't do so because copyright has any independent value. Rather, its value is derived from its ability to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” (in the words of the US Constitution), as well as to promote other important values such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, education, and participation in cultural life.
The Associated Press reports that healthcare.gov–the flagship site of the Affordable Care Act, where millions of Americans have signed up to receive health care–is quietly sending personal health information to a number of third party websites. The information being sent includes one's zip code, income level, smoking status, pregnancy status and more.
The National Academy of Sciences has released Bulk Collection of Signals Intelligence: Technical Options, a report on technical solutions to the problem of bulk collection. The report, which was made public on January 15, was the result of Barack Obama's Presidential Policy Directive 28 (PPD 28). PPD 28 mandated an assessment of “the feasibility of creating software that would allow the Intelligence Community more easily to conduct targeted information acquisition rather than bulk collection.”
Over the past two years, as talk of copyright reform has escalated, we’ve also heard complaints about the supposed expansion of fair use, or "fair use creep.” That kind of talk woefully misunderstands how fair use works.
Last year, we identified European copyright reform as one of the main developments to watch for in 2015, and barely a month into the year this debate is already heating up. Coinciding with the release of a draft European Parliament report written by Julia Reda, Member of the European Parliament for the German Pirate Party, Copyright for Creativity (C4C) have also released their own new Copyright Manifesto this week.
En los casi 25 años que la EFF ha estado defendiendo los derechos fundamentales en el entorno digital, nuestra creencia en la promesa de la Internet solo se ha fortalecido. El mundo digital libera a los usuarios de muchos límites a la comunicación y la creatividad que hay en el mundo offline. Pero también es un entorno que refleja los problemas de la sociedad en general y les otorga una nueva dimensión. El acoso es uno de esos problemas.
Policy makers intending to promote creativity have always overemphasized the importance of "copyright protection" without addressing the wide range of other concerns that are necessary to consider when making comprehensive innovation policy. In an era where everyone, with the use of their computer or mobile device, can easily be a consumer, creator, and a critic of art, we can not afford to ignore this digital ecosystem of artistry and innovation. Yet copyright remains completely out of touch with the reality of most creators today, while the rules that do pass seem to stray even further from addressing their needs.
Terrorists, hackers, and journalists. According to a recent Guardian article covering new Snowden documents, British spy agency GCHQ considers all of these individuals threats—various levels of threats, but threats nonetheless. One intelligence report goes so far as to say, "Of specific concern are 'investigative journalists' who specialise in defence-related exposés either for profit or what they deem to be of the public interest."
U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay sentenced Barrett Brown this morning to 63 months in federal prison, minus the 31 months he has already served to date. He was also ordered to pay $890,000 in restitution. EFF is disappointed to see that Brown wasn’t released today, after having spent nearly three years in prison on charges stemming from his work as an independent journalist.
Update: You did it! After a forceful debate on Monday 26 January, in which many peers protested the introduction of these amendments, Lord Blair withdrew them from consideration.
Pages
Deeplinks Topics
- Fair Use and Intellectual Property: Defending the Balance
- Free Speech
- Innovation
- International
- Know Your Rights
- Privacy
- Trade Agreements and Digital Rights
- Security
- State-Sponsored Malware
- Abortion Reporting
- Analog Hole
- Anonymity
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
- Biometrics
- Bloggers' Rights
- Broadcast Flag
- Broadcasting Treaty
- CALEA
- Cell Tracking
- Coders' Rights Project
- Computer Fraud And Abuse Act Reform
- Content Blocking
- Copyright Trolls
- Council of Europe
- Cyber Security Legislation
- CyberSLAPP
- Defend Your Right to Repair!
- Defending Digital Voices
- Development Agenda
- Digital Books
- Digital Radio
- Digital Video
- DMCA
- DMCA Rulemaking
- Do Not Track
- DRM
- E-Voting Rights
- EFF Europe
- Encrypting the Web
- Export Controls
- FAQs for Lodsys Targets
- File Sharing
- Fixing Copyright? The 2013-2015 Copyright Review Process
- FTAA
- Genetic Information Privacy
- Hollywood v. DVD
- How Patents Hinder Innovation (Graphic)
- ICANN
- International Privacy Standards
- Internet Governance Forum
- Law Enforcement Access
- Legislative Solutions for Patent Reform
- Locational Privacy
- Mandatory Data Retention
- Mandatory National IDs and Biometric Databases
- Mass Surveillance Technologies
- Medical Privacy
- National Security and Medical Information
- National Security Letters
- Net Neutrality
- No Downtime for Free Speech
- NSA Spying
- OECD
- Online Behavioral Tracking
- Open Access
- Open Wireless
- Patent Busting Project
- Patent Trolls
- Patents
- PATRIOT Act
- Pen Trap
- Policy Analysis
- Printers
- Public Health Reporting and Hospital Discharge Data
- Reading Accessibility
- Real ID
- RFID
- Search Engines
- Search Incident to Arrest
- Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
- Social Networks
- SOPA/PIPA: Internet Blacklist Legislation
- Student and Community Organizing
- Stupid Patent of the Month
- Surveillance and Human Rights
- Surveillance Drones
- Terms Of (Ab)Use
- Test Your ISP
- The "Six Strikes" Copyright Surveillance Machine
- The Global Network Initiative
- The Law and Medical Privacy
- TPP's Copyright Trap
- Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
- Travel Screening
- TRIPS
- Trusted Computing
- Video Games
- Wikileaks
- WIPO
- Transparency
- Uncategorized
eff.org/nsa-spying
