DeepLinks Archives, April 2007
Noteworthy news from around the internet.
Stop the National ID Nightmare -- Participate Online in Town Hall Meeting TOMORROW, 10 AM - 2 PM
Deeplink by Derek SlaterThe Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is holding a REAL ID national "town hall" meeting tomorrow. Don't let DHS and legislators pretend that the public is unconcerned by a national ID and the massive privacy invasions that it will enable; if we can make a strong stand at the meeting, that will make a huge difference in pushing state representatives and Congress to do away with this unfunded federal mandate.
You can participate online by going to http://www.realidtownhall.com. The meeting will run from 10 AM - 2 PM PT and will be webcast. DHS will be taking comments starting 90 minutes before the event. For talking points about what's wrong with REAL ID, visit our info page, ACLU's Realnightmare.org, and Privacyactivism's http://stoprealid.privacyactivism.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talking_point... ">excellent wiki. You can also submit comments to DHS via our Action Center.
For those of you who live in California, please also send a letter to the Governor. The town hall will be held at UC's Davis Freeborn Hall and will put the local spotlight on this issue. If California refuses to implement REAL ID, that could be a fatal blow to the law across the country. If you'd like to attend the meeting in person, you can get directions here.
Take Action Now: Bush Admin. to Push Spying Bill on Tuesday at Key Senate Hearing
Deeplink by Derek Slater
We recently reported on a new spying bill [PDF] that could, among other things, threaten cases like EFF's against AT&T. After an initial delay, the Senate Intelligence Committee's hearing on the bill is now set for tomorrow and only the Administration will be allowed to testify.
That makes it is even more important that the public makes its voice heard loud and clear. Congress needs to know that you oppose this legislation and demand immediate investigations into the warrantless spying program.
H.R. 964: Another Misguided Spyware Bill
Deeplink by Fred von LohmannLast week a subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce reported out H.R. 964, a.k.a. the "Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act" or "SPY Act." This bill is the latest incarnation of misguided legislative language that has been resurfacing since 2003 (in 2005, it passed the House as H.R. 29).
Although badware (i.e., spyware, malware, and deceptive adware) is a serious problem for computer users, H.R. 964 is not likely to help. In fact, having been massaged by lobbyists for the software and adware industries, the bill would actually make things worse, insulating adware vendors from more stringent state laws and private lawsuits.
H.R. 964 combines a variety of redundant prohibitions on deceptive practices (Section 2) and ambiguous "notice" requirements (Section 3) with broad federal preemption of state laws (Section 6). In fact, you can essentially skip the first 15 pages of the bill -- the FTC already has the authority to police many, if not all, of the "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" prohibited therein. If anything, by creating a heightened intent requirement (Section 4(c)), this law could constrain the authority the FTC already possesses against badware vendors.
So these provisions are pure window dressing. Both the FTC and Department of Justice have said (see p. 21 of this 2005 FTC report) that they already have the enforcement authority they need. In just the last two years, the FTC has commenced 11 spyware enforcement actions, demonstrating that they've got the authority they need. Of course, more enforcement would be a good thing, but H.R. 964 allocates no new money for it. (There is one improvement tucked in Section 4 of the bill -- granting the FTC the power to seek civil penalties against those who violate the law.)
The federal preemption provisions (Section 6), meanwhile, trump most of the stricter state laws that might have been used to go after badware vendors. This is particularly disappointing, as state laws have opened a new front in the war on badware. A few categories of state laws are preserved, including trespass, contract, tort, and fraud laws. And, in an interesting twist, H.R. 964 preserves state consumer protection statutes, but only if the state's Attorney General is bringing the enforcement action.
Reading between the lines in Section 6, one thing becomes clear: this section is intended primarily to block the ability of private citizens to sue badware vendors under state laws. By consolidating all the enforcement authority against badware in the hands of the FTC and state Attorneys Generals, software and adware vendors are trying to quietly block consumer class actions that could target their misbehavior. For example, H.R. 964 would have made it impossible for EFF to use California's Business and Professions Code 17200 (which allows private citizens to sue for unfair and unlawful business practices) against Sony-BMG for its spyware-laden copy-protection software.
This is a terrible move. If Congress is serious about enacting tough anti-spyware laws, it should create incentives that would encourage private citizens to pursue the bad guys. The FTC and state AGs can't possibly take on the entire job alone.
And, perhaps most disappointingly, Congress dropped the ball on the most promising section of the statute, the "Good Samaritan" provision (Section 5(c)). The consumer's most important allies in the war on badware are the companies that make badware-removal tools. If Congress really wanted to do some good, it would protect these companies from legal harassment at the hands of the badware vendors. For example, Congress could give the good guys a legal shield with which to ward off bogus defamation, interference with contract, and DMCA claims brought by badware companies (something like the immunities that CDA 230 provides for companies that host the speech of others).
Instead, Congress crafted a "Good Samaritan" clause that only protects badware-removal tools from liability under the Spy Act itself -- something that these vendors likely don't need (it's hard to imagine the FTC going after Lavasoft, isn't it?).
Frankly, I think the testimony of Zango (formerly 180Solutions, a notorious adware vendor) before Congress tells you everything you need to know about H.R. 964: "Zango supports all provisions of H.R. 964 with the exception of subsection 5(c) [the Good Samaritan provision]."
The Great Firewall of Utah (and Banning Open Wi-Fi)
Deeplink by Peter EckersleyThe Utah legislature has been considering a proposal that would require the state's ISPs to ensure that minors are unable to access explicit material on the Internet [1] [2]. The scheme would also make open wireless networks illegal (!) unless they are restricted to only allow connections on certain, censored, "community ports".
Giving ISPs the responsibility and incentives to censor a paricular subset of the web is precisely the same architecture that the Chinese Communist Party uses for their "Great Fireall of China". The communists use it to filter news and political information as well as porn — but in neither case is it particularly effective. Users who are either knowledgeable or motivated quickly learn that there are easy ways around these filters.
The absurd Utah proposal has been pushed by the CP80 Foundation, which pedals fanatasies of a world where certain TCP ports (80, for instance) are free of any material that they consider "indecent". The group is fronted by SCO Chairman Ralph Yarro. Yes, that SCO.
The chance that a state or even federal statute could (practically or constitutionally) prevent sexually explicit content from being transmitted through port 80 is approximately zero point zero zero zero percent. The chance that politicians could pass foolish laws that cause needless headaches and court battles for ISPs and users, however, is significantly higher.
Proposed Bill Aims to Save Music Webcasters
Deeplink by Derek SlaterThe recent Copyright Royalty Board's webcasting ruling provoked an immediate backlash from webcasters and listeners, who feared that the new rate hike would crush online music radio stations. Now a new bill in Congress would reverse the ruling and change how the Board sets the royalty rates.
News.com and the Radio and Internet Newsletter have more on the bill, and SaveNetRadio.org has set up an easy way for anyone to contact Congress about the bill.
Ohio University Restricts All P2P File Sharing Software
Deeplink by Derek SlaterCiting the burdens of responding to the RIAA's flood of pre-litigation letters, Ohio University has decided to monitor its network in order to block all use of P2P file sharing software. Students caught using the software will have their network access disabled.
This policy may temporarily relieve the IT department, but it doesn't get us any closer to a long-term solution to deal with file sharing. It won't stop "piracy," as students will simply migrate towards other readily-accessible sharing tools, and it certainly doesn't put any more money in artists' pockets.
But this policy -- like related schemes implemented by other colleges -- does create yet more collateral damage to academic freedom. Want to use P2P to distribute your own writing or to acquire public domain works for class? Too bad. Meanwhile, computer science students will need to ask permission first to tinker with and study P2P software. Ohio University says it's targeting a few applications, but it's unclear whether the policy might extend to a variety of tools. For instance, there are lots of new "personal server" applications being developed for private sharing of movies, photos, and other data -- how exactly will the university draw the line?
Blocking P2P is bad not only for the university and its students, but also for innovation more generally. Today's computer science students are tomorrow's technology leaders, creating tools that can empower millions. Remember, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, and myriad other online technologies were created by students at universities, and innovative companies like Skype, Joost and BitTorrent are built on basic P2P technologies.
The University's policy is misguided, but the bottom line is that educational institutions shouldn't be put in the position of wasting resources on the RIAA's copyright nastygrams in the first place. The record labels need to get out of the business of intimidating schools and let fans keep sharing in a way that gets artists paid.
Putting Presidential Debates in the Creative Commons
Deeplink by Hugh D'AndradeWith presidential debates right around the corner, it goes without saying that many people will want to use debate footage to comment on, remix, and parody the politics of our time. But there's an unnecessary barrier standing in the way: copyright.
Television networks have traditionally retained exclusive rights to all footage of the presidential debates. While many re-uses for videos on YouTube and other sites would clearly be legally protected as fair uses, the law's uncertainty can chill individuals' ability to participate in our democratic processes in this way.
To remedy this problem, a transpartisan alliance of leading technologists, public advocates, progressive and conservative organizations and Internet entrepreneurs is calling on the Democratic and Republican parties to ensure that all debate footage is in the public domain, or provided under a Creative Commons Attribution license for re-use. Spearheaded by Stanford Law Professor and EFF Board member Lawrence Lessig, the open letters to the parties were signed by former Federal Election Commission Chair Brad Smith, Craig Newmark of Craiglist, Arianna Huffington, EFF Executive Director Shari Steele and EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred Von Lohmann, as well as many others.
You can help this cause by calling the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee in support -- learn more at Lessig's blog.
IPRED2 Slips Through, Fight to Continue
Deeplink by Ren BucholzThe European Parliament has just voted to pass the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED2) without substantive amendment, despite growing public opposition from across the European Union. The final vote of 374 to 278 with 17 abstentions points to a margin of Parliamentary support that has been narrowing ever since the Directive left subcommittee. While we are disappointed that IPRED2 was not defeated at this stage, we can see clearly the impact of the efforts of the over 8,000 Europeans who've taken action against the Directive. We were told by the two largest political parties that they felt that the Directive had not been given enough time to be properly discussed, and that our campaign had definitely contributed to the discussion.
The fight now moves to the Council of the European Union, where it will be considered by representatives of the national governments of all EU Member States. Several states have started to mount resistance to IPRED2 in recent weeks, with the UK and Holland leading the charge. Europeans worried about their right to innovate, and their ability to live under clear, fair criminal laws must now turn to their own national governments to ensure that IPRED2 doesn't set a terrible precedent for copyright law, and the EU legal process. If the Council disagrees with EuroParl's action -- which we believe is in reach -- IPRED2 would be returned for a second reading. We will be tracking these developments and providing opportunities to act at CopyCrime.eu.
miniLinks for 2007-04-24
miniLinks by Danny O'Brien
- French E-Voting Is a "Catastrophe"
Widespread complaints after the first use of electronic
voting machines in the country's presidential election.
- Pandora Chief Mourns Loss of Internet Radio
Copyright royalty board is out-of-touch and has destroyed
90% of Internet radio without understanding what it is,
says Joe Kennedy, CEO of pandora.com
- Chinese Dissident, Wife Sue Yahoo for Complicity
Foreign tort act suit alleges that Yahoo voluntarily
allowed Chinese government to track and arrest 57-year-old
Wang Xiaoning.
- Google, Wikipedia Sued By Politician Trying to Silence
Critics
Canadian public figure tries to stop a story by pouring
censorship gasoline on it.
- No Cookie For You: Government Asked to Halt Google-
Doubleclick Deal
Electronic Privacy Information Center expresses concern
about the size and reach of the database created by the
acquisition.
- RIAA Balks at Judge Hearing EFF's Silver Tongue
RIAA's lawyers are aghast that a judge might consider
reading an EFF amicus brief in their case.
- Orphan Works in Europe
Google, the British Library, and others give their views on
copyrights versus unclaimed works.
- The .ca in Broadcast Treaty
The Canadian view of WIPO's Broadcast Treaty: "We haven't
been able to identify a lot of benefit to Canadian
broadcasters from the treaty."
- Online Journalists: Protected by Law or Fair Game?
Susan Crawford documents a lively debate at Cardozo on a
topic close to EFF's heart.
- Digital Freedom University
Boston Herald writes about college students' work in
digital rights.
- Canadian ISP Throttling All Encrypted Traffic?
Please submit your packet in plaintext for better
surveillance services: thank you.
- Bloggers' Search for Anonymity
The BBC puts the case for the untraceable voice.
Podcast on Podcasting
Deeplink by Hugh D'AndradeYou?ve just started a podcast, and you want to include a musical interlude from your favorite klezmer band. But how do you do that without violating copyright laws? Now you can learn the answers to these and other questions by tuning in to Colette Vogele's podcast, Rules for the Revolution.
Every few days, Colette posts a new show covering everything you were afraid to ask about copyright, new media, and podcasting. Past shows have covered fair use, licensing, Creative Commons, defamation, and all the legal issues facing podcasters. Better yet, her interview subjects have included EFF experts like Jason Schultz and Kurt Opsahl.
Also authored by Colette is a handy legal guide for podcasters. Colette is a practicing lawyer in San Francisco and non-resident fellow with the Stanford Center for Internet and Society.
