English

On July 10 a delegation from the FSFE Berlin office will be present at Richard Stallman's talk in Dresden. We are looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible. The event will take place in the Technical University of Dresden, and will start at 2 PM.

Torsten Grote gives a talk about how to regain control of your Android device and your data by running (almost) exclusively Free Software on your phone at the LinuxTag Berlin, Saturday 26.05.2012, 10:30 am. Torsten Grote is a member of FSFE and initiator of FSFE's freeyourandroid.org campaign. LinuxTag Berlin is a Free Software conference and exhibition in Berlin.

Matthias Kirschner, Coordinator of the German team, will represent the advantages of Free Software in a panel discussion at Treffpunkt WissenWerte in the Amerika-Haus Berlin. Participation is free of charge but limited by its size. Therefore, registration is requested. The panel discussion will be recorded by Inforadio (rbb) 93,1; broadcast is on 27 May at 9.22 a.m.

This month, the Vienna Fellowship meeting will be in the Metalab, located in the Rathausstraße 6 in the 1st district of Vienna. We'll be there from 18:00, with agenda related discussions starting at 19:00. As usual, this invitation is for everyone interested in the FSFE or Free Software. We're looking forward to seeing you there!

Fellowship meeting at 19.00 in MadLab. Jonathan Porter will present ways to combine data with Free mapping, including powerful Free Software geographical information systems (GIS) such as Quantum GIS. All Fellows and non-Fellows welcome.

FSFE Fellows will run a booth at the LinuxTag event in Berlin. Information, merchandise, and a friendly chat will be available. The event will take place at "Messegelände unter dem Funkturm"

Matthias Kirschner, Coordinator of the German team, will held a public lecture on June 11th, 2012, in the HTWG Hochschule Konstanz. Topic of the lecture will be "An endangered species: computer as a universal machine" and it deals with different aspects that endanger users Freedom in the digital era. The lecture will begin at 17:30 in the Thurgau-Saal in the library of the HTWG Konstanz. Admission is free.

In July, FSFE will be at RMLL (Libre Software Meeting) the yearly non commercial conference with talks, workshops and round tables about Free Software and its uses. The RMLL goal is to provide a place for exchange between Free Software developers, users and stakeholders. For the first time, RMLL will be in Switzerland; at Geneva's Plainpalais. We're looking forward to meeting many of you!

Fifty leading U.S. legal scholars cast fresh doubt on the constitutionality of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement in an open letter to the Senate Finance Committee today. (Press Release). At issue is whether the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) had authority to enter into the controversial IP enforcement agreement on behalf of the United States when the Deputy U.S. Trade Ambassador signed ACTA in October 2011. The law professors say no, and call on the Senators to “exercise your constitutional responsibility to ensure that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is submitted to the Senate for approval as an Article II treaty, or to the Congress as an ex-post Congressional-Executive Agreement.”  

We, too, have wondered about the USTR’s authority to enter into this agreement. That’s why we made a request under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to the State Department in February for key documents that set out the State Department’s analysis of the constitutional basis for ACTA – the “Circular 175” memorandum, and the accompanying Memorandum of Law.

As the State Department’s website states, the Circular 175 procedure is the way that the State Department “seeks to confirm that the making of treaties and other international agreements by the United States is carried out within constitutional and other legal limitations, with due consideration of the agreement's foreign policy implications, and with appropriate involvement by the State Department.”  Circular 175 memoranda must be accompanied by a Memorandum of Law prepared by the Office of the Legal Advisor in the State Department, which generally includes a discussion of the appropriate legal analysis underlying implementation of the treaty at issue.

The State Department is required to prepare these documents for all treaties and other international instruments that bind the United States as a matter of international law under 22 CFR Part 181.  No agencies can conclude an international agreement in the name of the United States without first consulting with the State Department, and the determination of whether an agreement is an international agreement for this purpose must be made by the Office of the Legal Advisor to the State Department.

We have now received the State Department’s response. It’s short:  the State Department has not created a Circular 175 memorandum and accompanying Memorandum of Law for ACTA:

“Based on the subject matter of your request, we consulted with subject matter experts in the Office of the Legal Advisor. These officials advised us that no Circular 175 Memorandum or Memorandum of Law were ever issued for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The officials also told us that USTR has lead within the U.S. Government for this issue.”

This suggests that ACTA was not submitted to the normal State Department review process to determine its constitutionality before it was signed by the Deputy Trade Ambassador.

Since the State Department’s Legal Office must decide whether a proposed instrument is an “international agreement” for this process, it’s possible that the State Department was consulted but decided that ACTA was not an “international agreement”.  If so, where is the Memorandum explaining why ACTA should not be considered an “international agreement” despite all appearances to the contrary?

Given that, the FOIA response appears to confirm what we’ve long suspected – that USTR was acting on a folly when it negotiated and signed ACTA, in the absence of Trade Promotion Authority which had expired on July 1, 2007, and without consulting the US government agency that is entrusted with ensuring that international agreements abide by appropriate constitutional process.

It is important to understand that the way that ACTA was negotiated and subsequently signed by the USTR raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers set out in the U.S. Constitution. ACTA deals with powers over subject matter – intellectual property and foreign trade –that the Constitution’s Article I gives exclusively to Congress. Specifically, there are three ways that the U.S. can bind itself to international agreements dealing with Article 1 subject matter. First, an agreement can be ratified under the Treaty Clause, which requires a vote by two-thirds of the Senate. Second, Congress can pass a law that authorizes the negotiation of an international agreement (ex ante authorization). Third, Congress can approve an agreement that has been negotiated by the Executive Branch after the fact, or “ex post”, by passing the agreement, subject to amendment, through both houses of Congress and having the President sign it into law. These agreements are known as ex-post Congressional-Executive Agreements.

As we’ve reported before, during the ACTA negotiations, the USTR consistently maintained that it was a Sole Executive Agreement dealing with matters delegated to the President and, on that basis, did not need Congressional review and approval. Then, in a surprising about-face, the Executive changed its explanation of the constitutional basis for ACTA. In a letter responding to a request from the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee's Trade Subcommittee, Senator Wyden, the Legal Advisor to the State Department, Howard Koh, implied that Congress had authorized the Executive to negotiate ACTA in response to the 2008 Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act (PRO-IP Act).  On March 7, the U.S. Trade Ambassador followed that line, and testified in a Senate hearing that ACTA was negotiated with the authorization of Congress, quoting directly from Koh’s letter.

As we noted at the time, it seemed implausible that Congressional authorization was granted in legislation that was enacted the year after ACTA negotiations were announced, on October 23, 2007. In addition, as the legal scholars’ letter notes, the provision cited in the State Department Legal Advisor’s letter – section 8113(a)(6) of the PRO-IP Act  – does not actually direct the USTR to negotiate an international agreement, let alone one with ACTA’s far-reaching characteristics. ACTA requires creation of an unelected ACTA Committee that has the final say on ACTA implementation in U.S. law, ousting any role for Congress. If Congress had intended to grant ex ante authorization to the USTR to negotiate an international agreement that would limit Congress’ role and impede its ability to legislate, it seems more likely that it would have chosen to do so expressly.

The legal scholars conclude that:

“..the Administration currently lacks a means to constitutionally enter ACTA without ex post Congressional approval. The present issue reaches far beyond the topical matters covered by ACTA, into the fundamental Constitutional issue of separation of powers. If Congress allows the executive to claim that ACTA was authorized by language that clearly does not authorize the agreement, it will be ceding unprecedented power to the executive."

We agree.

The legal scholars also call on the members of the Senate Finance Committee to act, noting that:

“Remedying this state of affairs is uniquely within Congress’s province. Congress, and specifically the Senate as the Constitutionally recognized chamber with responsibilities for the approval of treaties, should secure from the administration a public pledge to send ACTA to the Senate as a treaty, or to the Congress as an ex-post Congressional-executive Agreement. Absent a pledge to this effect, we encourage the Committee to hold hearings and to pass legislation that would prevent the United States from binding itself to ACTA without express Congressional consent.”

Now it’s up to the members of the Senate Finance Committee to rectify this unconstitutional power grab by an unaccountable Executive Branch agency, and protect the fundamental separation of powers embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

Meanwhile, the process of ratifying ACTA has noticeably slowed down in the rest of the world.  As Sean Flynn from American University’s Program on Information Justice and the Public Interest notes, the fresh doubt about ACTA’s constitutionality under U.S. law is “one component of the larger context casting increasing doubt that ACTA can ever go into force.” In recent months we’ve witnessed growing concerns about ACTA’s impact that have led to delays in the signing and ratification of ACTA in the EU, Switzerland, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand. Let's hope that the members of the Senate Finance Committee heed the law professors' call to action and ensure that the U.S. undertakes the same rigorous public process that is underway in other countries.

Related Issues: Intellectual PropertyInternationalAnti-Counterfeiting Trade AgreementFOIA

Iran Continues March Towards “Halal Internet”

This past weekend, Iran’s minister of telecommunications announced that domestic institutions including banks, telecom companies, insurance firms, and universities are now prohibited from dealing with emails that do not come from an “.ir” domain name. This means that customers who use foreign email clients such as Gmail, Yahoo!, and Hotmail will have to switch to domestic Iranian accounts, which are subject to Iranian legal jurisdiction.

While the announcement suggests that the use of foreign email clients leaves Iranian data vulnerable security breaches, the forced move to domestic email services makes it easier for the government to monitor its own citizens. The Telecommunications Ministry that “that the crackdown is an attempt to ensure confidential information is safe” from foreign email providers who allegedly collect user data, making them insecure for Iranian institutional use.

The foreign email ban is the latest development in what is widely thought to be a transition towards a “Halal” Iranian Internet. The Iranian Telecommunications Ministry has denied “shutting off the Internet” for its residents, but what differentiates this email limitation from previous ones such as the restriction on secure (HTTPS) traffic is its overt nature.

Ustream Adds Russian-Language Option In Response to Crippling DDoS Attack

Livestreaming website Ustream.tv received a massive distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on the morning of May 9 that reportedly targeted the prominent user “reggamortis1,” a Russian citizen journalist who covers opposition protests and rallies, and is associated with Occupy Moscow. The attack rendered Ustream unavailable for about 10 hours—and the reggamortis1 channel continued to be inaccessible for several hours afterwards.

This most recent attack is consistent with other DDoS attacks launched at Russian opposition websites and social networks, but it is difficult to prove a direct link between these attacks and the Kremlin. In interviews following the episode, UStream’s CEO Brad Hunstable revealed that two similar attacks have previously taken the site offline for around 9 hours each time.

UStream has become an international household name among activists, as citizen journalists use it to cover protests in places as far flung as Oakland and Tunisia. Immediately after the attack, Ustream underscored its commitment to freedom of expression in Russia by adding a Russian-language option to the website.

Brazilian Paper Uses Trademark Law to Silence Parody Website

Falha de São Paulo, a parody website of the major Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo, has been engaged in an ongoing legal struggle with its object of its satire. In September 2010, Folha filed a lawsuit against the Falha website for “moral damages” to its reputation as a news organization. Folha also sought financial compensation for Falha’s mimicry of their layout and copy-editing. This case resulted in a “tie” for both parties: Falha’s domain remained frozen for unauthorized use of Folha’s intellectual property, but the rest of the suit was dropped in accordance with existing Brazilian legal precedent.

Falha is now suing Folha in return, in order to unfreeze its domain: falhadespaulo.com.br. A new injunction from Folha against the domain name registrar Regirstro.br led to the current website freeze. Folha describes its position as an intellectual property issue, rather than one of freedom of expression, by claiming that critical bloggers cannot use domain names or logos resembling its own. On the other hand, Falha’s appeal responds that other Brazilian websites continue to use logos and copy similar to those of Folha.

Intellectual property claims have often been invoked to curtail free expression, not just in the Brazil, but in the United States. In 2008, the EFF represented the activist duo The Yes Men when the South African diamond conglomerate De Beers, the target of a critical fake ad on an online spoof of the New York Times, sued the website’s domain name registrar for trademark infringement. Meanwhile, The Brazilian blogosphere has been strongly supportive of Falha’s cause as they continue to take on the country’s largest newspaper.

Indian Government Demands VoIP Interception Capability In the Next Month

Indian government has ordered Internet service providers to provide a way to intercept and identify the end user on unregistered VoIP calls within the next month. Currently, ISPs do not have to keep track of real-time user data, which, according to the government, exacerbates security risks in a world of proliferating VoIP service providers who use varying connection frequencies.

India’s decree is steeped in national security rhetoric: The government is targeting its request towards ISPs in the states of Jammu and Kashmir, a move based on allegations that members of Lashker-e-Taiba, a Pakistani Islamist organization that supports the integration of these states with Pakistan, frequently communicate through VoIP. This move is part of the ongoing erosion of civil liberties in India, a trend that includes Internet censorship of religious and political content and the collection of biometric data for India’s national ID program, which raises considerable privacy and security concerns.

Ayatollah Ali Khameni Victim of Iran’s Internet Censorship

Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khameni has become the latest victim of Iran's Internet censorship regime. Indeed, the keywords that Khameni chose for the fatwa announcement last week against anti-filtering tools led to his own decree being blocked along with the Iranian websites where it was published.

In response to this Kafkaesque turn of events, the conservative opposition website Tabnak wrote:

“The filtering of a [religious] order is so ugly for the executive [branch] that it can bring into question the whole philosophy of filtering.”

Currently, the Iranian Ministry of Telecommunications is choosing ignore these questions while looking for ways to improve its filtering and censorship systems. Khameni’s announcement has serious press freedom implications for journalists in the country who often need access to blocked websites.

Related Issues: Free SpeechAnonymityContent BlockingIntellectual PropertyInternationalPrivacy

The U.S. content industry will try anything to preserve its profit margin and power over the creative content market at the expense of the Internet. They will use any tactic that circumvents democratic processes to make new rules for the Internet that favor their interests and not the interests of Internet users or the technical community that actually builds the Internet as we know it. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is yet another example of these tactics.

The TPP is a secretive plurilateral1 agreement that includes provisions dealing with intellectual property, including online copyright enforcement, anti-circumvention measures, and Internet intermediary liability. Due to the secrecy of the negotiations, we do not know what is in the current version of the TPP’s IP chapter; the general public has only seen a leaked February 2011 version of the U.S. IP chapter proposal [pdf]. Based on the one-sided nature of the groups directly involved, and the content of what has already leaked, we should all be concerned about the prospect of the TPP including provisions that will harm online expression, privacy and innovation on the Internet.

TPP rally outside the Dallas Intercontinental Hotel where negotiaitons are taking place(Image credit: Twitter user @RigoHC)

There has been a big push to raise global awareness of the TPP as the latest round of negotiations kicked off last week. Public Citizen released a parodic video criticizing the secrecy surrounding the process. On Saturday, more than 500 hundred people held a rally and marched to the Dallas Intercontinental Hotel where negotiations are underway behind closed doors. People gathered there to explain their concerns with the leaked TPP provision on Internet freedom, access to educational materials, access to affordable medicines and national sovereignty over public health policy, and impacts on labor and the environment.

Culture jamming activist group, The Yes Men, staged a fake award ceremony for U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk following his keynote address at Friday evening’s official reception. Dressed as business stakeholders, two actors awarded the USTR negotiators the “2012 Corporate Power Tool Award” for negotiating the TPP despite what the U.S. public thinks, and invited Ambassador Kirk to the stage to accept the award on behalf of the USTR. Activists scattered throughout the reception began to chant “TPP” and dance, before security staff escorted them all off the premises. Activists also installed “TPP TP” throughout the hotel’s bathrooms, which had alternative definitions of “TPP” printed on toilet paper.

(Image credit: Flickr user TX Corporate Power Partnership)

The U.S. joined the TPP negotiations in 2010. Since then, many countries who have hosted negotiation rounds have organized a stakeholder forum alongside the formal negotiations, providing civil society with a useful opportunity to present their views of the agreement to the assembled TPP country negotiators in one session.

This time around though, there was no official stakeholder forum. Stakeholders who registered to attend were instead given the opportunity to register to stand at a table for several hours at a “Stakeholder Direct Engagement Event” on Saturday, whereby they could explain their concerns to negotiators and other stakeholders present. This was an optional event for the TPP negotiators on their half-day off from negotiations.

Since the official planned event was scarcely sufficient to make a significant impact, Public Knowledge and American University’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property co-hosted a side event for negotiators to learn about the threats of harsh copyright enforcement. The panel included EFF’s International IP Director, Gwen Hinze, who spoke about the unbalanced outcomes non-U.S. Internet users and innovators would face if the current version of the IP chapter were passed. While the event was well-attended, civil society were ultimately forced to bear all the costs to put on this event.

Last week, 32 legal scholars sent a letter to the office of the USTR demanding transparency in the process. Including the release of the text and demand for real participation from civil society, they demanded the immediate release of “reports on US positions and proposals on intellectual property matters that are currently given only to Industry Trade Advisory Committee members under confidentiality agreements.” This is key because there is nothing that could justify the withholding of such reports that simply outline the U.S. position on intellectual property from the public. This is especially true given the fact that the U.S. government’s proposals could impede Congress from engaging in domestic legal reform of legislation regulating IP.

The USTR sent them a preliminary response the following day. Ambassador Kirk essentially blew them off, claiming that they have taken “extraordinary efforts” to have the whole negotiation process inclusive of civil society and the public. In the letter, he compared the level of transparency to Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) meetings, which indeed have always been top secret and therefore offer a laughably low bar of comparison.

International venues such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) already exist to address issues regarding the Internet and intellectual property. Like ACTA, TPP is being negotiated as a plurilateral agreement with a handful of like-minded countries outside of the checks and balances of such multilateral institutions. The U.S. Trade Representative's office recognizes that it could never obtain international agreement from the 182 member countries of WIPO to many of the proposals in TPP. Initiatives like the TPP allow the content industry to work within privileged channels of communication with the USTR to skirt open democratic processes that would likely prevent them from getting the IP regulations of their dreams.

The content industry can and will continue to buy and lie to get their way to an agreement that protects their interests, and what they want more than anything is for us to remain passively ignorant. If we do, they will continue to negotiate plurilateral agreements like TPP, ACTA, and the failed Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement. These agreements will unquestionably chill online expression, prevent access to knowledge, and impede our freedom to innovate. The way to fight back is to make our voice heard: to demand an open transparent process that allows everyone, from experts to civil society members, to analyze, question, and probe any initiatives to regulate the Internet. The secrecy must be stopped once and for all.

~

Click here to take action. Tell Congress that you refuse any more backroom deals to regulate the Internet.

Use the hashtag #TPP and #TPPA to keep talking and raising awareness on the agreement on Twitter.

• 1. A plurilateral agreement is an agreement between more than two countries, but not a great many, since that would make it a multilateral agreement.

Related Issues: Intellectual PropertyInternationalTrans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

Documents just released by US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) in response to one of EFF’s Freedom of Information Act requests show that DHS is considering collecting DNA from kids ages 14 and up—and is exploring expanding its regulations to allow collection from kids younger than that.

The proposal appears to be working its way through DHS in the wake of regulations from the Department of Justice that require all federal agencies—including DHS and its components such as ICE—to collect DNA from individuals arrested for federal crimes as well as “from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States,” whether or not they have been involved in criminal activity.  While the law specifically exempts a few classes of “aliens,” the documents we received show DHS may start DNA collection from anyone it fingerprints.  Currently, that’s any child over 14 who’s detained, but we also found records that show ICE could lower that age even more.

DHS estimates that as many as 1 million people who are subject to administrative detention or arrest annually could now be subject to DNA collection.  But it’s important to note that many of these people are not involved in criminal activity.  Collecting DNA from anyone detained by the government for any number of non-criminal reasons—especially juveniles—seems to be yet another step on the slippery slope to collecting DNA from everyone in the United States, no matter their status.

ICE is the first component within DHS to collect DNA under the new DOJ regulations. ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) offices in San Diego, St. Paul, and San Juan, Puerto Rico are part of a 6-month pilot program to test out the new procedures and were set to start collecting DNA around July 2010. After the pilot program, the rest of HSI’s offices (more than 200 throughout the US and abroad) will start collecting DNA and presumably all other DHS components will follow suit shortly thereafter.

When the DOJ expanded its DNA collection regulations in 2009, it specifically required agencies to collect DNA from all populations they fingerprint. DHS regulations allow the agency to collect biometrics from aliens coming into the US who are 14 and older, so DHS can currently collect DNA from kids this age as well. However, the agency may also be considering collecting biometrics from kids younger than 14. A slide presentation from March 2011, titled “Working Group on Expanding the Biometric Age Range” notes that some DHS programs are already collecting biometrics from kids younger than 14 and proposes expanding the age range for more DHS entities (including ICE). Because of the DOJ regulations, this would mean that DHS could collect DNA even from very young kids.

It turns out that DHS is not the first federal or even state agency to collect DNA from juveniles. The records ICE released show that the US Marshals are required to collect DNA from juveniles whenever the Marshals collect fingerprints. And the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) internal regulations make clear that “Both adults and juveniles who are fingerprinted are subject to DNA sample collection.” Its agents may also collect DNA from non-United States persons who are merely detained (not formally arrested). And according to the Council for Responsible Genetics, twenty-eight states already collect DNA from juvenile offenders, as well.

However, a DNA collection program run by DHS feels very different because it could affect so many people who have no involvement with the criminal justice system. EFF has strongly criticized warrantless DNA collection in criminal contexts, as we’ve discussed here, here and here. The DOJ argues that collecting DNA from all people arrested and non-US persons detained will allow it to find and identify more criminals, solve more crimes, and “prevent and deter subsequent criminal conduct.” but it is hard to see how that argument couldn’t be extended to apply with equal force to mandated DNA collection from everyone.

DNA reveals an extraordinary amount of private information about you, including family background, medical history, predisposition for disease, and possibly even behavioral tendencies and sexual orientation. Once the federal government collects a DNA sample—no matter which agency does the collection—the sample is sent to the FBI for storage, and the extracted profile is incorporated into the FBI’s massive CODIS database, which already contains over 10.5 million “offender” profiles. It is next to impossible to have your DNA expunged from the database once it’s already in there, and once it’s in CODIS it is subject to repeated warrantless searches from all levels of state and federal law enforcement.

For the short term, DHS’s DNA collection program may be quite limited. ICE has redacted most concrete information about the timetable for implementation, but it is not clear that DHS has begun collecting any DNA. The documents ICE released indicate some agency infighting between the DOJ (which requires the DNA collection) and DHS (which considers this requirement to be an expensive unfunded mandate), and it is not clear if the two agencies have yet worked this out.

DHS also appears to recognize the political costs of collecting DNA from people outside the criminal justice system. In a March 22, 2010 letter from DHS Secretary Napolitano to Attorney General Holder, Napolitano sought an exemption to DNA collection from juveniles under 18. Hidden text within one of the documents1 recognizes that collecting DNA from juveniles could increase “ICE's exposure to criticism” and notes:

[t]here is a high likelihood that ICE would face litigation and other opposition from community and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) if ICE were to sample all juvenile detainees.

Further, it appears DHS is trying to avoid publicizing the roll out. Hidden text on another page of the documents notes that “OCR and OPA [ICE's Office of Congressional Relations and Office of Public Affairs] intend to respond to inquiries, rather than making announcements of the DNA sampling pilot program.”

DHS’s stalling is good for privacy in the short run. However, given the hard line the DOJ has taken in past court cases challenging DNA collection, the expansion of DNA collection from an ever-broader array of Americans and immigrants appears imminent.

Follow these links to view all the documents we received from ICE:

- ICE DNA Collection Documents - pages 1-92

- ICE DNA Collection Documents - pages 93-201

- ICE DNA Collection Documents - pages 202-297

- ICE DNA Collection Documents - pages 298-353

• 1. While the second and third pages of this document look blank, there is actually text hidden within the blank sections. If you download the pdf file and open it in Acrobat or another pdf reader, you should be able to select the text and then copy and paste it into a new document to view it.

Related Issues: BiometricsPrivacyTransparencyFOIA

This position is now closed for applications. Thank you to everyone who applied.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF), a 501(c)(3) charity with a worldwide mission to protect freedoms critical to the computer-using public, seeks a motivated and organized Boston-based individual to be its full-time Operations Assistant.

This position works closely with the Executive Director and Business Operations Manager to ensure all administrative functions of the FSF run smoothly and efficiently, preserving our 4-star Charity Navigator rating and boosting all areas of our work.

In addition to handling phone calls and being a friendly face for visitors to our office at the center of Boston's Downtown Crossing, these functions include:

• fulfilling orders for FSF merchandise,
• blogging about merchandise-related news,
• processing incoming donations,
• coordinating volunteers,
• updating our contact database,
• organizing fundraising mailings,
• diverting sales calls to the appropriate fake voicemail box,
• assisting with occasional local events,
• maintaining a few areas of our Web site, and
• looking after the office space.

This is a great position for a recent graduate who thrives on multitasking, has an eye for detail, lives in the Boston area, and wants to make a difference. With our small staff of ten, each person makes a clear contribution. We work hard, but offer a humane and fun work environment.

Because our mission is worldwide, language skills and a demonstrated ability to interact with people across cultures and age groups will be highly valued. While the position does not require advanced computer skills, a willingness to learn and work with new software is a must. We use free software like CiviCRM, Plone, Emacs, and LibreOffice, all running on GNU/Linux.

The FSF is a growing organization and provides great potential for advancement; existing staff get the first chance at any new job openings. Previous Operations Assistants have often gone on to hold other positions within the organization.

Benefits and salary

This job is a union position. The salary is fixed at $49,140/year and is non-negotiable. Other benefits include the following:

• full family health coverage through Blue Cross/Blue Shield's HMO Blue program,
• subsidized dental plan,
• four weeks of paid vacation annually,
• seventeen paid holidays annually,
• public transit commuting cost reimbursement,
• 403(b) program through TIAA-CREF, and
• yearly cost-of-living pay increases.

This position is now closed for applications. Thank you to everyone who applied.

The FSF is an equal opportunity employer and will not discriminate against any employee or application for employment on the basis of race, color, marital status, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, handicap, or any other legally protected status recognized by federal, state or local law.

About the Free Software Foundation

The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software -- particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants -- and free documentation for free software. The FSF also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of freedom in the use of software, and its Web sites, located at fsf.org and gnu.org, are an important source of information about GNU/Linux. Donations to support the FSF's work can be made at http://donate.fsf.org. Its headquarters are in Boston, MA, USA.

When I set an alarm, my clock, now running on the computer in my pocket, is smart enough to tell me how much time will pass until the alarm is scheduled to sound. This has eliminated the old problem of sleeping past meetings before being surprised by an alarm precisely half a day after I had originally planned to wake.

The price has been having to know exactly how little I will sleep: a usually depressing fact that had previously been obscured by my difficulty doing time arithmetic in my most somnolent moments.

I3?I2?I1?SI2?SI1?VS2?VS1?VVS2?VVS1?IF?FL

The GIA diamond clarity scale, shown above, is rather opaque.

On April 18, the Global Network Initiative (GNI) released its annual report documenting third-party assessments conducted in 2011 and 2012 for GNI’s three founding corporate participants: Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft. GNI was formed to bring major Internet companies together with human rights organizations to improve practices around human rights, privacy and freedom of expression on the Internet. In the past year, GNI expanded to include two more corporate participants—Evoca and Websense—and Facebook has recently joined the organization as an observing member. GNI has also added seven new non-corporate members—NGOs and investors from all over the world.

Phase I of GNI’s long-term strategy for improving free speech and human rights policies consisted of self-reporting by the companies. Phase II took the much more meaningful step of recruiting independent assessors to crack open company records and “determine whether the companies had the systems, policies and procedures in place to support the implementation of the Principles within their organization,” according to the report.

Those principles—which establish guidelines on freedom of expression, privacy, responsible decision-making, multi-stakeholder collaboration, accountability and transparency—can be found here.

“For the first time, third-party assessors received unprecedented access to these ICT sector companies to assess their policies and processes,” the annual report explains, referring to information and communication technology companies. However, this unprecedented access apparently will not result in the public release of any new information about company practices, since the assessors’ reports were redacted before the full GNI board was allowed to review them.

Since the assessors were only meant to conduct “an initial set of assessments” and “not audits or attestations,” according to the report, no real conclusive opinions were formed around company practices—and the tech firms were given the opportunity to handpick their own independent assessors, based on criteria set forth by GNI.

GNI's report concluded that the three participating companies (Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft):

• Have processes in place for reviewing government requests relating to freedom of expression and privacy

• Practice senior-level oversight of these issues

• Are engaged in conducting human rights impact assessments

• Communicate with staff on human rights issues

• Strive to apply GNI Principles to relationships with their partners, suppliers and distributors where they have operational control.

GNI’s report describes the development of an assessment process as “challenging,” and goes on to detail issues that emerged during the third-party assessments relating to companies’ unwillingness to divulge certain kinds of information:

One issue that had already been identified in GNI’s Governance Charter was the recognition that companies may be prevented from disclosing certain information by law, or may choose not to disclose information in order to preserve attorney-client privilege or protect trade secrets. Having met with the assessors and reviewed the reports, GNI’s Board concluded that despite these challenges the assessments were rigorous and credible.

While the “challenging” assessment process and vague report conclusions may leave something to be desired, GNI’s goal of strengthening tech company standards in these areas is laudable, and the initiative represents an opportunity to significantly raise the bar for leading tech titans whose business dealings put them into contact with governments throughout the globe that run the gamut from democratic to authoritarian.

However, GNI’s relatively slow pace of progress suggests that it is only part of the solution. Change requires a mix of grassroots activism —like the successful campaign spearheaded by Pakistan’s Bolo Bhi to secure commitments from Silicon Valley firms not to bid on the Pakistani government’s request for Internet-censoring software—in addition to formalized partnerships with major companies and nonprofit organizations.

EFF also conducted its own survey of Internet companies’ privacy practices with our ongoing Who Has Your Back? campaign, which focuses on the steps companies take to protect user data from government and law enforcement agencies.

Efforts to improve international standards on free speech, human rights, and privacy among major Internet companies are now more important than ever, especially given revelations that prominent tech companies have been quietly peddling surveillance software to governments with deplorable human rights track records.

And while the process is not perfect, the tech giants participating in GNI deserve credit for willing to open their books in order to improve their policies in partnership with human rights advocates. Later this year, GNI will begin Phase III of its assessments, which will produce a report on how the organizations Principles are being applied to real world cases its corporate members.

Related Issues: Free SpeechInternationalThe Global Network InitiativePrivacyTransparency

A New York judge's broad opinion, ordering Twitter to comply with a subpoena (PDF) and turn over account information about one of its users arrested for disorderly conduct in connection with an Occupy Wall Street protest, is worse the deeper you dig into it. 

The judge ruled (PDF) that the user, Malcolm Harris, lost ownership of his tweets once he posted them online, and therefore had no legal standing to challenge the subpoena. This decision prompted several worried responses, including our own, because our Fourth Amendment privacy rights should not be surrendered simply because we use online service providers that store information remotely. Even Twitter stepped in to defend Harris, filing a motion to quash (PDF) the subpoena.

But two other troubling legal rulings in the opinion have received less scrutiny, even though they also put basic privacy rights in jeopardy. The court threw away one of the most important procedural protections enshrined in our constitution -- the Fourth Amendment's search warrant requirement -- by lowering the standard for government access to both the contents of communication, and information about a person's location.

First, the court allowed the government to get the contents of communication -- in this case, Harris' tweets -- with a mere subpoena. But consistent with the Fourth Amendment, Congress made clear that the contents of communication can only be accessed by law enforcement with a search warrant. The Stored Communications Act (SCA) details how the government can obtain certain types of information from electronic storage providers. And while there has been debate about the legal standard that applies for obtaining non-content records like cell phone location information -- we think a search warrant is required, and the government does not -- the SCA is absolutely clear that a search warrant is required for content that is less than 180 days old. For that reason, when we first wrote about this case we predicted that the government's request for tweets was unlikely to succeed because consistent with the SCA, Twitter's law enforcement guidelines required a search warrant in order to access this information.

Unfortunately, the Court was led astray by the government, who argued (PDF) that the SCA didn't even apply because the tweets were public, although the text of the SCA doesn't distinguish between public and non-public content. (The government's argument makes us wonder, if the tweets were public, then why did the government need a subpoena anyway?) As a result, the court allowed the government to access content -- the tweets -- without a search warrant, even though some of the content was less than 180 days old. And although the SCA suggests content older than 180 days old can be obtained without a search warrant, we helped convince the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Fourth Amendment's search warrant requirement applied to email regardless of how long its been in electronic storage. The same rule should apply with respect to tweets too.

But its not just about privacy. Allowing government access to the content of communication without the judicial oversight that comes with a search warrant also presents real First Amendment problems too. Just like we said when we previously challenged the government's attempts to get information from Twitter, allowing access to all of a person's tweets, whether related to Occupy Wall Street or not, chills free speech. That's abundantly clear here where the government is pursuing a criminal charge about as serious as a speeding ticket (disorderly conduct has a maximum punishment of 15 days in jail, or a $250 fine) during an internationally reported political protest and rally.

Unfortunately, there are other problems with the Court's order. The judge also allowed the government to get access to location information without a search warrant. Twitter keeps a record of a user's IP address when he logs in to post a tweet. Since the majority of Twitter users access the site through mobile phones, these IP addresses are keys that help unlock a person's location.  As the order states, the government wants the information

to refute the defendant’s anticipated defense, that the police either led or escorted the defendant into stepping onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge. The People claim the defendant’s anticipated defense is contradicted by his public statements, which identifies the @destructuremal account as likely belonging to the defendant and indicates that while on the Brooklyn Bridge the defendant may have posted Tweets that were inconsistent with his anticipated trial defense.

When we first wrote about this case, we believed it was all about location, location, location. The real reason NYC prosecutors wanted this information was to get location data that would give the government information about the workings of the Occupy Wall Street movement and its members. That explains why Harris was singled out: he had over 1,500 followers, 7,200 tweets and was outspoken about his involvement in the Occupy movement.

But as we've explained many times before, the government needs a search warrant to get location information. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking opinion in United States v. Jones that found attaching a GPS device to a car to track a person's movements for 28 days was a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, and thus could only be done with a search warrant. In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor questioned "whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that enables the Government to ascertain, more or less at will, their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so on."

That's precisely what's happening here. While the NYC prosecutors may be interested in Harris' movement on the day of his arrest, the subpoena requested three months of information from Twitter, far more than the 28 days at issue the Supreme Court found violated the Fourth Amendment. And by figuring out where Harris was for three months, the government can learn much about him and the Occupy movement. A search warrant ensures that location information can be an effective law enforcement tool in cases where there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found, but strikes a balance with a person's right to privacy, and ensures that this information won't be misused for politically motivated witch hunts based on trivial criminal charges.

The court's acceptance of the government's arguments for disclosure has resulted in a broad opinion that has far reaching consequences to free speech and privacy. The judge now has an opportunity to correct this error and grant Twitter's motion to quash the subpoena. If he doesn't, we hope that the New York appeals court will follow the direction of the Sixth Circuit with respect to contents of communications, and the Supreme Court with respect to location information, and insist on the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Related Issues: Free SpeechPrivacyCell TrackingLocational PrivacySocial Networks

Who’s playing fast and loose with your data? The Big Brother Awards, billed as the “Oscars for data leeches” by the hackers and privacy advocates who hand out the prizes, shine a high-intensity spotlight on companies and individuals with poor privacy track records. Since 1998, Privacy International and a host of affiliated organizations have singled out the worst privacy violators in various countries including the UK, Austria, France, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, Japan, New Zealand and the U.S. The title evokes the totalitarian cult personality featured in George Orwell’s 1984, set in a dystopic world of mass surveillance.

In Germany, privacy advocates held their annual edition of the Big Brother Awards in April. The panel of judges was made up of representatives from privacy advocate FoeBuD and other organizations campaigning for data protection and human rights. Curious to know who made Germany’s list of privacy offenders? Here’s the rundown.

Markus Ulbig, Saxon Minister of the Interior

Markus Ulbig, Saxon Minister of the Interior, snagged a Big Brother Award in the category “Government and Administration” for presiding over a veritable data tsunami that swept up mobile phone data belonging to hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens.  Police filed data requests with cell phone service providers for connection logs over a 12-hour period in Dresden, resulting in the staggering release of more than a million phone records associated with some 55,000 identified subscribers. The requests were filed in the wake of a February 2011 mass demonstration against a Dresden Nazi parade.  The police were targeting the anti-Nazi protesters.

The Cloud

 “The Cloud” won a Big Brother Award in the communication category, with the panel of judges characterizing it as “a trend that deprives users of control over their own data.” Almost all cloud storage providers are American companies, they point out, and are therefore obliged by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow US authorities access to all data, even if the server farms are situated on European soil. EFF hit on this point when we mentioned that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) “seems to be trying to placate international concern by saying one thing in international fora; but something quite different in the US courts … The DOJ's position in its court filings is that very little, if any, privacy protection is available against US government access to the records of users of US-based cloud computing services.”

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.

In the consumer protection category, video game company Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. won a Big Brother Award for a change of terms that raised a host of privacy concerns, including a scan of the computer’s working memory to prevent cheating, chat recording that captures text communications, game recording and player rankings that reveal how often and how long players have been playing. “Our reason to give today’s Big Brother Award is the full interaction between numerous components, under the label ‘Real ID,’” the judges noted.

Dr. Hans-Peter Friedrich, Federal Minister of the Interior

In the “Politics” category, Dr. Hans-Peter Friedrich, Interior Minister in the German federal government, became a Big Brother Award recipient for spearheading joint security projects judges described as violations of the constitutional principle of separating the police, intelligence services and military. The projects created a "national cyber-defense center" and a defense center against right-wing extremism – both of which were established without consulting the Parliament. These security initiatives “cause police, secret services and the military to be networked and integrated in a troublesome way,” the judges wrote. “This is a violation of the German constitution’s historically rooted imperative that these security authorities must work independently and in strict separation.”

Gamma International & FinFisher

In this day and age, what technology is most deserving of a Big Brother Award? Judges settled on surveillance software produced by Gamma International subsidiary FinFisher, which made headlines last year following revelations that it had been deployed under Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak. One of the most controversial investigation tools marketed by FinFisher “enables government agencies to search [a personal computer’s] contents remotely and covertly, snoop through e-mails, or record passwords. Even the computer’s microphone and web cam can be activated for surveillance,” noted the Big Brother Award announcement. EFF spotlighted Gamma International as part of a profile of spy tech companies and their authoritarian customers. 

Bofrost

German-based frozen foods manufacturer Bofrost earned a Big Brother Award in the “workplace” category for accessing a file on a computer belonging to the Bofrost staff council (in Germany, staff councils are “shop-floor” organizations representing employees in labor negotiations). On another staff council computer, Bofrost installed Ultra VNC – a kind of software that allows a user to display the screen of another computer on his or her own screen – without the staff council’s consent. The workplace espionage was carried out in connection with industrial law court cases, which Bofrost initiated and ultimately lost.

Brita

In the “Economy” category, water filtration company Brita GmbH was singled out for marketing water vending machines for schools that dispense water only when a student taps them with a bottle containing an RFID chip. Judges were extremely critical of the practice. They wrote, “This water bottle system is a glaring example of the industry’s attempts to establish a culture of overtechnisation, surveillance and blatant paternalism from early childhood.”

Related Issues: Video GamesInternationalPrivacy

At an event earlier today in Barcelona, Spain, FSF president Richard Stallman was not feeling well and paramedics were called.

He was in the hospital but has been discharged. He did not have a heart attack, as has been reported in some places.

Copyright Office to Hear Public Testimony in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles

Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles - Experts from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will testify at public hearings held by the U.S. Copyright Office this month, urging officials to renew and expand the critical exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that the Copyright Office granted in 2009 in response to EFF's requests to protect the rights of American consumers who modify electronic gadgets and make remix videos.

EFF Staff Technologist Dan Auerbach will testify on Friday, May 11th, in Washington, D.C., demonstrating the technology of "jailbreaking" – liberating gadgets to run operating systems and applications from any source, not just those approved by the manufacturer. On Thursday, May 17th, in Los Angeles, EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann will testify about why it's important to clarify the legality of jailbreaking smart phones, tablets, and videogame consoles. At the same hearing in Los Angeles, EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry will testify to why artists and critics deserve legal protection for creating and using short excerpts of video content to make new works of commentary and criticism. Hofmann and McSherry will testify again on June 4 and June 5 in Washington, D.C., to respond to opponents of EFF's exemption requests.

EFF's testimony is part of the Copyright Office's rulemaking process, convened every three years to consider exemptions to the DMCA's prohibitions on "circumventing" digital rights management (DRM) and "other technical protection measures" used to protect copyrighted works. While this ban was meant to deter copyright infringement, many have misused the law to chill competition, free speech, and fair use. Exemptions are meant to mitigate the harms the law has caused to legitimate, non-infringing uses of copyrighted materials. In 2009, EFF won exemptions for jailbreaking smartphones and for artists who remix videos. EFF filed new exemption requests in 2011, seeking to renew and expand the 2009 rulings.

WHAT:

Public hearings on DMCA Rulemaking

WHEN AND WHERE:

May 11 – 10 a.m.
Copyright Hearing Room, LM-408
James Madison Building, Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave. SE.
Washington, D.C.

May 17 – 9 a.m.
Moot Courtroom, Room 1310
University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, CA

For more on the DMCA rulemaking and EFF's testimony:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/05/2012-dmca-rulemaking-primer

Contact:

Rebecca Jeschke
   Media Relations Director
   Electronic Frontier Foundation
   press@eff.org