Global Internet Freedom and the U.S. Government: Via Freedom to Tinker.

Over the past two weeks I've testified in both the Senate and the House on how the U.S. should advance "Internet freedom." I submitted written testimony for both hearings which can be downloaded in PDF form here and here. Full transcripts will become available eventually but meanwhile you can click here to watch the Senate video and here to watch the House video. In both hearings I advocated a combination of corporate responsibility through the Global Network Initiative backed up by appropriate legislation given that some companies seem reluctant to hold themselves accountable voluntarily; revision of export controls and sanctions; and finally, funding and support for tools, and technologies and activism platforms that will counter-act suppression of online speech.
[ Read more ... ]

The Beginning of the End of Data Retention: Via EFF.org Updates.

Last week, the German Constitutional Court issued a much-anticipated decision, striking down its data retention law as violating human rights. It was an important victory for Europe’s Freedom Not Fear movement, which was formed to oppose the EU Data Retention Directive. But it was also a reminder of the political work which remains to be done to defeat it.

When the European Union first passed the Data Retention Directive in 2006, despite a hard-fought campaign by European activists, it seemed like the beginning of the end for Internet privacy. The directive sought to require telecommunications service providers operating in Europe to retain a detailed history of each of their customers' activity for up to 2 years for possible use by law enforcement; including phone calls made and emails sent and received.

The response from European citizens was swift and outraged. Under the banner of Freedom Not Fear, mass protests were held in cities all across Europe and beyond. [ Read more ... ]

The majestic petulance of John Roberts: Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald.

The petulance and sense of self-importance on display here is quite something to behold:

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" . . . . Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case. . . . Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.
"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.
"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Feds Move to Break Voting-Machine Monopoly: Via Threat Level.

Citing anti-competitive concerns, the Justice Department sued Election Systems & Software in order to force the company to divest itself of the voting machine assets it obtained from Premier Election Solutions last year.

The department’s Antitrust Division, along with nine state attorneys general, filed the civil antitrust lawsuit (.pdf) in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., charging that the acquisition threatened competition. The department proposed a settlement that, if accepted, would dissolve the merger and force ES&S to sell its Premier business to a buyer approved by the Justice Department.

“The proposed settlement (.pdf) will restore competition, provide a greater range of choices and create incentives to provide secure, accurate and reliable voting equipment systems now and in the future,” said Molly S. Boast, deputy assistant attorney general for the Antitrust Division in a statement. [ Read more ... ]

Tracing attack source key to cybersecurity strategy, Chertoff says: Via Computerworld Security News.

Michael Chertoff, former head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, talked of the difficulties in creating a national cybersucurity plan during an interview with Computerworld.

The difficult task of identifying the true sources of cyber attacks remains one of the biggest challenges in the development of a national cybersecurity strategy, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told Computerworld in an interview at the RSA Security conference here today.

Chertoff, who is participating in a panel discussion at the conference, said there is a growing need for the U.S to create a strong, formal strategy for responding to cyberattacks against American interests. [ Read more ... ]

The Score on USA Patriot Act: Via Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"We've come to love our fears more than we love our freedoms," Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) mused on the House floor just before that chamber voted 315-97 (with 20 members not voting) to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act without any changes for yet another year.

By now, you know the stakes — the tweaks that could have been made to guarantee that Patriot powers are used only against suspected terrorists or spies and to mandate continued reporting to ensure that we actually learn about current and future Patriot abuses. Many of these fixes were, in fact, included in prior iterations of Patriot reauthorization bills introduced in both the House and the Senate.

As Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) pointed out to her colleagues, "I think we are missing an opportunity. There are good ideas in this House about how to curb the abuses with national security letters, how to clarify that roving wiretaps are limited to a single identifiable target, and how to eliminate the lone wolf provision which has never been used and for which existing title III authority can suffice. Those ideas have been the subject of hearings in the Judiciary Committee, but they're not being debated on this floor . . . I think this is a real missed opportunity." [ Read more ... ]

Congress Drops the Ball on Upgrading Patriot Protections: Via Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union.

We're sorry to say, but is anyone surprised that Congress has capitulated to post-underpants bomber fear-mongering and passed the three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act without so much as a debate?

Oh, you didn't hear about that?

Wednesday night, the Senate passed a straight one-year extension by voice vote, and last night, the House followed suit.

That’s right. No changes. Nothing. Nada. Zip, zilch, zero. (You get the picture.)

That leaves ordinary Americans like you and me without the civil liberties safeguards proposed by several bills last year. Both the House and Senate had bills that would have improved the Patriot Act. The Senate bill even had the support of the White House. But instead of passing the much-needed reforms, Congress: [ Read more ... ]

Democrats retreat on new privacy protections: Via The Washington Post .

Democrats have retreated from adding new privacy protections to the nation's primary counterterrorism law, stymied by Senate Republicans who argued the changes would weaken terror investigations.

The proposed protections were cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Dashing the hopes of liberals, the Senate Wednesday night instead passed - by voice vote without debate - a one-year extension of key parts of the USA Patriot Act that would have expired on Sunday.

Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

The House was prepared to approve the extension Thursday, dropping even more extensive privacy protections approved by the House Judiciary Committee. [ Read more ... ]

ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer at New School Conference: Via Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union.

This week, The New School in New York City will be hosting a conference, on "Limiting Knowledge in a Democracy," which will assess where America is today with respect to limits on our access to information. The two-day conference will explore the issues of citizens’ right to free public information, the ways in which the government and other political organizations restrict or manipulate the flow of information, and the importance of investigative journalism in upholding democracy and calling for accountability.

The ACLU’s National Security Project Director, Jameel Jaffer, will participate in a session on “Arguments for and Against Limits on Knowledge in a Democracy” to discuss the disadvantages of limits on knowledge. The session, which takes place on Thursday, February 25, 2010 from 2:15 pm – 5:00 pm, [ Read more ... ]

Repealing DADT + National Security = A Match Made in Heaven: Via Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Here in Washington, D.C., efforts to finally repeal the discriminatory and ineffective "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy gather increasing momentum by the day. However, some in the Pentagon could do better by more closely listening to the views of Gen. David Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Central Command, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen. In appearances before two congressional committees yesterday, Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, and Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, expressed their mutual concerns about moving too swiftly in repealing DADT.

According to an article by Thom Shanker in today's New York Times, Gen. Casey told the Senate Armed Services Committee: "I do have serious concerns about the impact of repeal of the law on a force that's fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years." [ Read more ... ]

China Widens Net Censorship; Google Exile Looms: Via Threat Level.

The Chinese government is imposing new internet restrictions demanding personal-website operators to acquire central-government permission to operate their sites.

The latest censorship measure, which covers .cn domestic domains, comes as Google is trying to convince Chinese censors to ease up. Google said 43 days ago it would undertake a self-imposed exile from China if the government does not back off from requiring it to censor search results.

The government said the latest move — which also requires site owners to submit a photograph and to show identification — was targeted at tackling pornography. Critics, though said it was based on silencing political dissent. China did not say when the rules would be enforced. [ Read more ... ]

ACTA "internet enforcement" chapter leaks: Via Boing Boing .

Someone has uploaded a PDF to a Google Group that is claimed to be the proposal for Internet copyright enforcement that the USA has put forward for ACTA, the secret copyright treaty whose seventh round of negotiations just concluded in Guadalajara, Mexico. This reads like it probably is genuine treaty language, and if it is the real US proposal, it is the first time that this material has ever been visible to the public. According to my source, the US proposal is the current version of the treaty as of the conclusion of the Mexico round.

I've read it through a few times and it reads a lot like DMCA-plus. It contains, for example, a duty to technology firms to shut down infringement where they have "actual knowledge" that such is taking place. This argument was put forward in the Grokster case, and as Fred von Lohmann argued then, this is a potentially deadly burden to place on technology companies: in the offline world Xerox has "actual knowledge" that its technology is routinely used to infringe copyright at Kinko's outlets around the world -- should that create a duty to stop providing sales and service to Kinko's?

This also includes takedown procedures for trademark infringement, as well as the existing procedures against copyright infringement. [ Read more ... ]

Copyright Undercover: ACTA & the Web: Via Internet Evolution - The Big Report .

Let's pause a moment to consider the nature of copyright, the Internet, and governance. Copyright law has historically been made by and for the entertainment industry's supply chain. Copyright rules were not envisioned as an adequate or desirable regulation-set for any other realm: We don't try to shoehorn labor law, finance, education, healthcare, election campaigns, or parenting matters into copyright.

But once you take those activities onto the Internet, copyright becomes the first line of regulation governing everything. It's impossible to do anything on the Internet without making copies (you made between 5 and 50 copies of this article just by following a link to it). And since copyright regulates copying, any rule that affects copyright will affect all those realms, too.

That's what makes ACTA's secrecy so troubling, even if you don't care about copyright, fair use, or other wonky subjects. [ Read more ... ]

Wikileaks and Iceland MPs propose 'journalism haven': Via BBC News.

Iceland could become a "journalism haven" if a proposal put forward by some Icelandic MPs aided by whistle-blowing website Wikileaks succeeds.

The Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI), calls on the country's government to adopt laws protecting journalists and their sources.

It will be filed with the Althingi - Iceland's parliament - on 16 February.

If the proposal succeeds it will require the Icelandic government to consider introducing legislation.

Julian Assange, Wikileaks' editor, told BBC News that the idea was to "try and reform Iceland's media law to be a very attractive jurisdiction for investigative journalists".

He has been in Iceland for a number of weeks and is advising MPs on the IMMI.

The hope is that journalist-friendly laws will encourage media businesses to move to Iceland. [ Read more ... ]

The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature: Via Cato Institute: Book Forum.

BOOK FORUM
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Noon (Luncheon to Follow)

Featuring the author, Timothy Ferris, with comments by Jason Kuznicki, Research Fellow, Cato Institute. Moderated by Brink Lindsey, Vice President for Research, Cato Institute.

Award-winning author Timothy Ferris discusses the relationship between science and liberal government, arguing that the fortunes of science and liberty rise and fall together. The scientific revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries were, he argues, a powerful inspiration for the concurrent revolutions in government; together, they produced what we know as the modern world. [ Read more ... ]

British Court Orders Release Of Torture Evidence In Extraordinary Rendition Case: Via American Civil Liberties Union.

Ruling May Affect British Resident's Case In ACLU Lawsuit Against Boeing Subsidiary For Its Role In Unlawful Extraordinary Rendition Program 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union commended today's ruling by a British court that the British government must release evidence of torture in the case of British resident Binyam Mohamed, who was captured in Pakistan and detained in Morocco, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay as part of the Bush administration's extraordinary rendition program. While in detention, Mohamed was subjected to physical and psychological abuse by his captors. Upon his release, Mohamed sought documents from the British government that would confirm that U.K. officials were aware of and complicit in his abuse by U.S. forces. Today's ruling orders the disclosure of seven previously suppressed paragraphs from an earlier court ruling that summarize British government documents related to Mohamed's detention and torture while under the control of U.S. authorities. [ Read more ... ]

More Details on the Chinese Attack Against Google: Via Schneier on Security.

Three weeks ago, Google announced a sophisticated attack against them from China. There have been some interesting technical details since then. And the NSA is helping Google analyze the attack.

The rumor that China used a system Google put in place to enable lawful intercepts, which I used as a news hook for this essay, has not been confirmed. At this point, I doubt that it's true.

Read Original Article:(Via Schneier on Security.)

Susan Collins spreads central myth about the Constitution: Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald.

Over the weekend, Sen. Susan Collins released a five-minute video in which she sounded as though she were possessed by the angriest, most unhinged version of Dick Cheney.  Collins recklessly accused the Obama administration of putting us all in serious danger by failing to wage War against the Terrorists.  Most of what she said was just standard right-wing boilerplate, but there was one claim in particular that deserves serious attention, as it has become one of the most pervasive myths in our political discourse:  namely, that the U.S. Constitution protects only American citizens, and not any dreaded foreigners.  Focusing on the DOJ's decision to charge the alleged attempted Christmas Day bomber with crimes, Mirandize him and provide him with counsel, Collins railed:  "Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist 'lawyered up' and stopped talking" (h/t).  This notion that the protections of the Bill of Rights specifically and the Constitution generally apply only to the Government's treatment of American citizens is blatantly, undeniably false -- for multiple reasons -- yet this myth is growing, as a result of being centrally featured in "War on Terror" propaganda. [ Read more ... ]

Seven "Corporations of Interest" in Selling Surveillance Tools to China: Via EFF.org Updates.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's announcement of a new U.S. policy on global Internet Freedom included a bold new statement about the responsibilities of American technology companies:

...We are urging U.S. media companies to take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments' demands for censorship and surveillance. The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not simply what’s a quick profit.

We couldn't agree more. [ Read more ... ]

Be Careful What Your Bumper Sticker Says: Via Threat Level.

“No More Blood For Oil.”

Bumper stickers with that phrase were synonymous with opposition to the Iraq War, during the George W. Bush administration.

Simply hosting that message on one’s bumper was cause enough to remove two attendees at Bush’s 2005 speech at the Wings Over the Rockies Museum in Colorado. The White House had a policy of excluding those who did not agree with the president from his public appearances. It’s a policy a federal appeals court is upholding in a decision a dissenting judge decried as “simply astounding.”

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2-1 ruling means, in short, that the would-be attendees who were ousted from the event had no First Amendment constitutional right to remain at the speech. The two plaintiffs obtained the free tickets from a local Colorado representative, and sued the government for giving them the boot. [ Read more ... ]

Report: Critical Infrastructures Under Constant Cyberattack Globally: Via Threat Level.

Critical infrastructure systems around the world are the targets of repeated cyberattacks, according to a new global survey of technology executives in these industries. They believe some of the attacks are coming not just from individual cybercriminals but terrorists and foreign nation states.

The United States and China are believed to be the most likely countries to conduct a cyberattack against the critical infrastructure of another nation, according to the respondents.

Companies and agencies operating in the banking and finance sectors, energy and natural resources, telecommunications and internet service providers, transportation and mass transit, chemical production and storage, food distribution and government services are considered critical infrastructure companies.

The attacks that are occurring include massive denial of service attacks, stealthy efforts to penetrate networks undetected, DNS poisoning, SQL injection attacks and malware infections. The aims of the attacks vary from shutting down services or operations to theft of services and data or extortion attempts. [ Read more ... ]

Obama Reverses Position on Disclosing Lobbyist Contacts: Via EFF.org Updates.

In yesterday's State of the Union address, President Obama made an important commitment to openness and transparency in government:

It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress.

This is welcome news. For the past few years, EFF has been litigating a Freedom of Information Act case against the government, seeking the identities of lobbyists who contacted the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on behalf of their telecommunications company clients in order to push for telecom immunity. [ Read more ... ]

A Free Internet, If We Can Keep It: Via Freedom to Tinker.

“We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it. "

These two sentences, from Secretary of State Clinton's groundbreaking speech on Internet freedom, sum up beautifully the challenge facing our Internet policy. An open Internet can advance our values and support our interests; but we will only get there if we make some difficult choices now.

One of these choices relates to anonymity. Will it be easy to speak anonymously on the Internet, or not? This was the subject of the first question in the post-speech Q&A: [ Read more ... ]

Salon Radio: ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero: Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald.

In October, 2008, the ACLU issued a report outlining the policies needed to restore civil liberties and America's constitutional framework in the wake of the Bush assault, entitled "Actions for Restoring America."  On the one-year anniversary of Obama's inauguration as President, the ACLU has issued a new report -- pointedly and revealingly entitled "America Unrestored" -- which details Obama's record in these areas.  Although there have been a few isolated bright spots (the DOJ's intensified domestic enforcement of civil rights laws), Obama's overall civil liberties record has been extremely disappointing, and this report from the ACLU (with which I consult) comprehensively documents the failures. [ Read more ... ]

Follow-up on the Citizens United case: Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald.

(updated below - Update II - Update III)

As one would expect, a substantial number of commenters yesterday disagreed with the Supreme's Court ruling in the Citizens United case case and with my partial defense of it.  I say that's to be expected because, in our political discourse, it's virtually always the case that opinions about court rulings perfectly coincide with opinions about the policy whose constitutionality is being adjudicated (e.g., those who favor same-sex marriage on policy grounds cheer court rulings that such marriages are constitutionally compelled, while those who oppose them on policy grounds object to those court rulings, etc. etc.).  When a court invalidates Law X or Government Action Y on constitutional grounds, it's always so striking how one's views about the validity of the court's ruling track one's beliefs about the desirability of Law X/Action Y on policy grounds (e.g., "I like Law X and disagree with the Court's ruling declaring Law X unconstitutional" or "I dislike Law X and agree with the Court's striking down Law X").  Campaign finance laws are popular with readers here, and thus a court decision striking down those laws inevitably will be unpopular (though the public at large -- including 2/3 of Democrats -- overwhelmingly agrees with the Court's ruling).  It's critical always to note that these are two entirely distinct questions:  (1) is Law X/Government Action Y a good thing?, and (2) is Law X/Government Action Y Constitutional?  If you find yourself virtually always providing the same answer to both questions -- or, conversely, almost never providing opposite answers -- that's a very compelling sign that your opinions about court rulings are outcome-based (i.e., driven by your policy preferences) rather than based in law or the Constitution. [ Read more ... ]