Facebook And ACLU Argue That 'Liking' Something Is Protected By The First Amendment

from the like dept

Back in April, we wrote about a horrible ruling that said that Facebook likes were not protected by the First Amendment. The ruling didn't make any sense at all, and we quoted two legal experts, Venkat Balasubramani and Eric Goldman, explaining why. The appeal in that case is moving forward and now both Facebook and the ACLU have weighed in to support the idea that a "like" is protected speech. Both filings are embedded below. Facebook makes the point quite clearly:

Liking a Facebook Page (or other website) is core speech: it is a statement that will be viewed by a small group of Facebook Friends or by a vast community of online users.

Facebook goes into the specifics of the case, which involved a deputy sheriff who was fired for "liking" his boss's campaign challenger in an upcoming election. Liking a candidate is no different than saying that you like that candidate, which is undoubtedly protected speech:

If Carter had stood on a street corner and announced, “I like Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff,” there would be no dispute that his statement was constitutionally protected speech. Carter made that very statement; the fact that he did it online, with a click of a computer’s mouse, does not deprive Carter’s speech of constitutional protection.

The ACLU makes a similar argument:

“Liking” a political candidate on Facebook – just like holding a campaign sign – is constitutionally protected speech. It is verbal expression, as well as symbolic expression. Clicking the “Like” button announces to others that the user supports, approves, or enjoys the content being “Liked.” Merely because “Liking” requires only a click of a button does not mean that it does not warrant First Amendment protection. Nor does the fact that many people today choose to convey their personal and political views online, via Facebook and other social media tools, affect the inquiry.

This one seems like such a slam-dunk case that it's amazing the original ruling went the way it did. One hopes that the appeals court (Fourth Circuit, if you were wondering) recognizes the clear and concise arguments presented here, and dumps the original ruling.

Filed Under: free speech, like
Companies: aclu, facebook

Court Says State Department Can Live In Fantasyland & Pretend Documents Leaked By Wikileaks Are Still Secret

from the head-in-sand-approach dept

We've talked about the problem in which classified documents that are leaked and widely available to the public are still considered classified by the government, even though the concept is ludicrous. It leads to absolutely ridiculous situations, such as government employees not being able to look at documents available on Wikileaks, even as everyone else in the world can easily log in and see them. Or the case (linked above) in which lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees weren't allowed to look at these documents -- which anyone else in the world can see -- which relate to their clients. Even the NY Times called this situation "absurd." And it is. In the business world, people commonly sign "non-disclosure agreements," but they're always considered null and void if that same information becomes public by other means. It's bizarre that the government doesn't recognize the same policy.

However, in a lawsuit we first discussed last year, where the ACLU sued the State Department for failing to declassify (under a FOIA request) documents that were already widely available on Wikileaks, a judge has ruled against the ACLU, and said that the documents remain classified. Once again, this is absurd. It's as if everyone is actively denying reality.

The ACLU relied on the part of the test that questions whether the disclosure of the information "reasonably could be expected to result in damage to national security." Seeing as anyone seeking to "damage" our national security can just surf over to Wikileaks, and has been able to do that for quite some time, you'd think that the ACLU's argument was pretty rock solid. Not according to the court (pdf and embedded below). The court seems to tapdance around the issue. It argues that the Court should "defer" to the judgment of the administration on this question, and that it's possible that the official release of these documents could impact national security. I don't buy it. Any official release is unlikely to have any different impact than the unofficial release. To argue that making those releases official has some sort of new "threat" involved just doesn't pass the laugh test.

What's most distressing about this is that it shows a government that is not dealing in reality, but is dealing in a fantasy land, where it pretends that if it sticks its fingers in its ears, and hands over its eyes, it can pretend that the documents, which are very, very public, are not at all public. I want a government that deals in reality and not fantasy. Unfortunately, with this situation, we have the reverse -- and, bizarrely, the courts are saying that an executive branch that lives in fantasyland is just fine.

Filed Under: classified, documents, public information, state department, wikileaks
Companies: aclu

Speak Out Against CISPA: Join The Twitter Campaign And Contact Your Representative

from the get-involved dept

On Friday, the House Intelligence Committee released a new draft of CISPA, the dangerous cybersecurity bill that threatens to give the government access to huge amounts of personal data. Despite small improvements in some areas, the bill still has huge problems and lacks adequate privacy safeguards—and the House is going to vote on it next week. As part of a final push to let Congress know what people think of this bad legislation, several organizations have launched public action campaigns that you can get involved in.

Firstly, there is the Congress Wants Too Much Information campaign on Twitter. Multiple groups are asking you to tweet your thoughts on CISPA with the hashtags #CongressTMI and #CISPA. U.S. citizens can look up and tag their representatives' Twitter accounts—and you can also include @HouseIntelComm, the authors of the bill. The groups behind the campaign suggest pointing out examples of data that could, but shouldn't, be shared under CISPA, such as:

@Myrepresentative Does the FBI need to know what books I checked out from my local library? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA

@Myrepresentative Does the military need to know I send my Mom lolcat pictures? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA

@Myrepresentative Does the NSA need to know I watch Netflix from my work computer? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA

Now is also the time to directly contact members of Congress by phone or by email. There are tools to make this easier from the ACLU, the EFF and Free Press.

Pressure is also increasing on the companies that back CISPA, especially those in the technology sphere. In addition to contacting Congress, you can send a message to CISPA's private supporters by signing AccessNow's petition to all of them, and Demand Progress' petition directed specifically at Facebook.

CISPA still enjoys a lot of support in Congress, but the growing public backlash means the bill's future is uncertain. With continued effort, Congress can be convinced to back off and work on crafting smarter, more narrowly tailored cybersecurity legislation that protects people's privacy.

Of equal importance is the bigger message this sends to lawmakers. There are many people who still think what happened with SOPA was a fluke, driven by the technology lobby and a few key tech companies. But the growing opposition to CISPA—a bill supported by many of the same tech giants that opposed SOPA—proves that it was something much more significant, and that the online community will not be ignored when it comes to decisions that govern the internet.

Filed Under: cispa, congress, petition, tmi, twitter
Companies: aclu, demand progress, eff, free press

Senators Tell The Obama Administration To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The Patriot Act

from the and-again-and-again dept

Over the last year or so, we've been covering Senator Ron Wyden's efforts to get Obama administration officials to come public with their secret interpretation of the Patriot Act. Wyden, of course, cannot say how they're interpreting the Patriot Act, though there have been clues, suggesting an extremely broad interpretation, that effectively allows them to spy on Americans, in direct contrast to the way most people (including many in Congress) believe the law allows. In the past, intelligence officials have basically said that they will not reveal how they interpret the Patriot Act because they don't want to, and doing so might reveal some of the details of how they spy on people.

Of course, keeping certain details secret concerning specific operations to monitor threats is reasonable. But a secret interpretation of the law that appears to go against what the law says directly? That's not acceptable. If the government can just make up how it interprets laws, and then keep those interpretations secret, we no longer have representative democracy at all. We have a sham government.

Given all of this, the NY Times and the ACLU sued the government for failing to reveal its interpretation of the law under a Freedom of Information Act. The administration is now seeking to get the two lawsuits dismissed... leading Senators Wyden and Udall to send a rather direct and forceful letter to Attorney General Holder questioning this move. I'll include a bunch of snippets below, but one key bit in this letter, which I believe is new, is the acknowledgement that further information that Wyden and Udall have come across suggest that the secret surveillance operation that makes use of this secret interpretation of the law is not even effective:

We would also note that in recent months we have grown increasingly skeptical about the actual value of the "intelligence collection operation" discussed in the Justice Department's recent court filing regarding the pending lawsuits. This has come as a surprise to us, as we were initially inclined to take the executive branch's assertions about the importance of this "operation" at face value. We will provide more detail about this skepticism in classified correspondence.

That's a pretty pointed claim, and certainly makes clear another reason why the administration is fighting so hard against revealing the secret interpretation. They know that once people find out just how widely they're tracking people under this bogus interpretation of the law, that not only will people be upset about it, but that the administration won't even be able to prove that such efforts did anything to prevent terrorism in the country.

On to some other key parts of the letter:

It is a matter of public record that section 215, which is a public statute, has been the subject of secret legal interpretations. The existences of these interpretations, which are contained in classified opinions issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or "FISA Court") has been acknowledged on multiple occasions by the Justice Department and other executive branch officials.

We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn't know what its government thinks the law says.

That seems like quite an understatement. It really makes you wonder what country we live in today. I'm fine with the government keeping certain things secret -- but one thing that it should never keep secret is the law itself. That's not a democracy any more at all, a point made in the letter as well:

In a democratic society -- in which the government derives its power from the consent of the people -- citizens rightly expect that their government will not arbitrarily keep information from them. Americans expect their government to operate within the boundaries of publicly-understood law, and as voters they have a need and a right to now how the law is being interpreted, so that they can ratify or reject decisions made on their behalf. To put it another way, Americans know that their government will sometimes conduct secret operations, but they don't think that government officials should be writing secret laws.

Later, the letter notes that the administration certainly has been willing to reveal this secret interpretation to some members of Congress (such as the two of them), but it appears that even many members of Congress have no idea how the administration is interpreting the law:

While the executive branch has worked hard to keep the government's official interpretation of the Patriot Act secret from the American public it has, to its credit, provided this information in documents submitted to Congress. However, these documents are so highly classified that most members of Congress do not have any staff who are cleared to read them. As a result, we can say with confidence that most of our colleagues in the House and senate are unfamiliar with these documents, and that many of them would be surprised and angry to learn how the Patriot Act has been interpreted in secret.

Wyden and Udall are equally troubled by the insistence by the administration that it needs to keep its interpretation of these laws secret to prevent adversaries from understanding what's being done. They point out that this is "chilling logic" as it could mean that the government could basically create all sorts of secret intelligence laws:

The crux of the Justice Department's argument for keeping the official interpretation of the law secret is that this secrecy prevents US adversaries from understanding exactly what intelligence agencies are allowed to do. We can see how it might be tempting to latch on to this chilling logic, but we would note that it would then follow that all of America's surveillance laws should be secret, because that would make it even harder to guess how the United States government collects information. For example, when Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ct in 1978 it would have been useful to keep that law secret from the KGB, so that Soviet agents would not know how the FBI was allowed to track them. But American laws should not be made public only when government officials find it convenient. They should be public all the time, and every American should be able to find out what their government thinks those laws mean.

There's a lot more in the full letter, but it's difficult not to be furious about the sense of entitlement the administration has over this. Keeping details of investigations secret is perfectly reasonable. But keeping a secret interpretation of the law secret -- and one that lets them do much greater surveillance than what the law appears to state in plain language, is a significant problem for those who believe in a working democracy and representative government.

Filed Under: eric holder, mark udall, patriot act, ron wyden, secret laws, surveillance
Companies: aclu, ny times

Using Wikileaks To Figure Out What The Government 'Redacts'

from the compare-and-contrast dept

We've talked in the past about the ridiculousness of the US government pretending that the State Department cables that were leaked via Wikileaks are still confidential. The reasoning, obviously, is that they're afraid that declaring anything that's become public is no longer confidential is that it creates incentives to leak more documents. But the actual situation is simply absurd. Documents that everyone can see easily and publicly... live in this world, a world where anyone in government has to pretend that they're still secret and confidential. There have even been cases where officials have gotten into trouble for using information from a "public" document, because they're supposed to create this fiction that it's not.

Still, there is one way in which this has actually turned out to be enlightening. A few months ago, the ACLU filed some Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the State Department on some issues, getting some of the very same documents that were leaked via Wikileaks. Except... the kind that came with the FOIA had redactions. The Wikileaks documents, for the most part, do not. That created an interesting opportunity for Ben Wizner at the ACLU. He could now compare and contrast the two version of the document, to see just what the government is redacting, and figure out if they're redacting it for legitimate reasons... or just to do things like avoid embarrassment. The ACLU then set up a special page allowing people to compare multiple versions of documents with just a simple mouseover. This came out a few months ago, but I didn't get a chance to write it up until now. It's pretty enlightening to see just what makes the censor's cut, and (not surprisingly) raises significant questions about the government's temptation to simply excise stuff they don't like, rather than information that there are valid reasons to keep hidden.

Filed Under: censorship, freedom of infromation, redacted, wikileaks
Companies: aclu, wikileaks

Gov't Able To Keep Details Entirely Private In 'Public' Hearing Over Twitter Subpoena

from the what-case? dept

We've been hearing more and more stories about the government being extra secretive in so many things, avoiding scrutiny at every turn, and here's yet another example. You may have heard that, last month, the Boston police, along with a Massachusetts ADA, sent a vague and broad subpoena to Twitter, demanding "all available subscriber info... including address logs for account creations," for any activity between December 8th and December 13th, 2011 for the following list:

• Guido Fawkes
• @p0isAn0N
• @OccupyBoston
• #BostonPD
• #d0xcak3

This is kind of a weird list. While the second and third items on the list are usernames, the rest are not, so it's not entirely clear what Twitter would need to send in response to those requests. #BostonPD, in particular, is a bit weird, since it's just a tag. It seems like the police are fishing for any info on anyone who used that hashtag over a five day period.

Either way, the subpoena asks Twitter to keep the subpoena itself secret:

In order to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the ongoing criminal investigation, this office asks that you not disclose the existence of this request to the subscriber as disclosure could impede the ongoing criminal investigation.

However, it appears that Twitter did, in fact, forward the subpoena on to the user @p0isAn0N, who posted it publicly. That resulted in the ACLU jumping on board to represent the anonymous user of that account and to protect the subpoena... leading to a bizarre and Kafkaesque hearing in which the case itself was never even named and the government representatives conferred privately (without the other side's lawyers) for an extended period of time, and then everything was put under a gag order for the parties who did hear what was going on. I'll let Kade Crockford from the ACLU explain the situation. He had gone to the court to hear what happened and basically heard a lot of nothing:

We entered the courtroom. I sat in the front row, behind the bar. Presiding Judge Carol Ball called our cooperating attorney Peter Krupp’s name, and the Assistant District Attorney’s name. She did not call out the name of the case to begin the proceedings, as is custom.

The ADA approached the sidebar, the area adjacent to the judge’s perch, far enough away from us, the general public, that we couldn’t hear the content of the hushed conversation spoken there. Krupp objected immediately, before even approaching the bench; he wanted the case heard in open court. (The judge had already sealed the proceedings the day before, pending a hearing this morning.) Krupp’s objection was not granted. Our legal team therefore approached the sidebar, joining the judge and the prosecution.

Then we among the general public, including journalists from all the major media outfits in Boston, listened and heard nothing, as the prosecutors, our lawyers and the judge conversed secretly, in plain sight. I have no idea what they said. I still don’t know, because my colleagues, lawyers at the ACLU of Massachusetts, are prohibited by court order from telling me.

So all I know is what I saw. As Donald Rumsfeld said, there are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. After the proceedings this morning, I’m left with little of the former, and a whole lot of the latter two.

The known knowns: the scrum of lawyers, defense and prosecution, addressed the judge. I saw the judge speak to the lawyers. Then I saw our attorneys return to their bench, closer to where I was sitting, out of earshot of the sidebar. But the ADA stayed with the judge. He spoke to her, with his back to the courtroom, for about ten minutes. Our attorneys didn’t get to hear what he said to her, didn’t have a chance to respond to whatever the government was saying about our client, about the case. It was frankly shocking.

After those ten minutes of secret government-judge conversation, our attorneys were invited back to the sidebar, whereupon the scrum of lawyers spoke with the judge for another ten or fifteen minutes. Then they dispersed. The judge uttered not one word to the open court. And that was it.

After this, the lawyers for the ACLU were only able to say that they couldn't say anything. They couldn't say what the judge said or decided. They couldn't say if the judge granted the ACLU's motion to quash the subpoenas. Basically, the public knows nothing. The government, I'm sure, insisted that this was all a matter of great importance and a criminal investigation for which it must be kept secret -- but it's getting more and more difficult to believe the government when it keeps trying to brush pretty much everything it can under the rug. Furthermore, if this were truly a key criminal investigation, shouldn't the subpoena have actually been narrowly focused on the key issue, rather than seeking subscriber info on everyone who used the hashtag #BostonPD?

Filed Under: occupy boston, subpoena
Companies: aclu, twitter

Hackers, ACLU, Consumer Rights Groups, Human Rights Groups, Many More All Come Out Against SOPA

from the an-avalanche-of-no-to-sopa dept

All day yesterday, we just kept getting more and more notifications of groups coming out against SOPA. Considering that SOPA-supporters keep trying minimize the complaints about SOPA, or pretend that it's "just Google" who's against it, the outpouring of anti-SOPA feelings really paints quite a different picture. Here are just a few of the anti-SOPA statements we've seen. First up, perhaps the most interesting of all, the folks at Hacker News -- basically home base to tons of techies -- have been getting together to send physical letters arguing against SOPA. The idea here is that physical letters are more likely to get attention than email (and this is true for some, but certainly not all, Congressional offices). If you'd like to send a physical letter, the link above makes it easy. And, as we've seen with most anti-SOPA letter writing systems, it lets you customize -- unlike every single pro-SOPA letter writing system, that only lets you submit existing text.

Next up, we have that bastion of "piracy," the ACLU. Yeah, that's a joke. The ACLU is hardly a defender of infringement, but is absolutely in favor of free speech, and quite concerned about the censorship mechanisms in the bill:

By their very nature, laws protecting copyrights constrain free speech and access to information. Unlike other speech restrictions, however, copyright laws may also advance the generation of information and ideas. A robust copyright system encourages free speech by giving speakers incentives to create and disseminate works of authorship. Such laws add to the marketplace of ideas by encouraging the creation of more content through the assurance that content producers will receive the fruits of their labor. But access to information of all kinds -- even disfavored information -- is a fundamental right that must be protected. Even more to the point, the mere existence of infringing content online does not justify the removal of non-infringing content in the course of attempting to rid the internet of the former. These established principles should not change or be treated differently just because technology has changed.

[....]

SOPA, unfortunately, is substantially worse than PROTECT IP. By eliminating the concept of sites 'dedicated to infringing activity', SOPA enables law enforcement to target all sites that contain some infringing content -- no matter how trivial -- and those who 'facilitate' infringing content. The potential for impact on non-infringing content is exponentially greater under SOPA than under other versions of this bill. As such, despite our support for the protection of the legitimate copyright interests of online content producers, we cannot support SOPA, and in fact we oppose it in its current form, given its broad sweep and its heavy hand that will land largely upon innocent content producers. We urge Committee members to focus not just on the goal of protecting copyright owners, but also protecting the speech rights of consumers and providers who are reading and producing wholly non-infringing content and to eliminate the collateral damage to such protected content. Only in that way will the Committee truly achieve its goal of protecting authors and allow the legislation to survive constitutional challenge.

The letter goes on to highlight exactly how and where SOPA infringes on the First Amendment. It also notes that passing SOPA would be setting a terrible precedent for the rest of the world.

Next up, there's a letter from over 40 different human rights groups, noting their concerns with SOPA and how it will create significant problems for human rights around the globe:

Through SOPA, the United States is attempting to dominate a shared global resource. Building a nationwide firewall and creating barriers for international website and service operators makes a powerful statement that the United States is not interested in participating in a global information infrastructure. Instead, the United States would be creating the very barriers that restrict the free flow of information that it has vigorously challenged abroad. By imposing technical changes to the open internet while eroding due process, SOPA introduces a deeply concerning degree of legal uncertainty into the internet economy, particularly for businesses and users internationally. Business cannot be conducted online when international users and businesses do not have faith that their access to payments, domain names, and advertising will be available, raising challenges to economic development and innovation. This is as unacceptable to the international community as it would be if a foreign country were to impose similar measures on the United States.

The provisions in SOPA on DNS filtering in particular will have severe consequences worldwide. In China, DNS filtering contributes to the Great Firewall that prevents citizens from accessing websites or services that have been censored by the Chinese government. By instituting this practice in the United States, SOPA sends an unequivocal message to other nations that it is acceptable to censor speech on the global Internet.

It still amazes me that SOPA's supporters don't realize what a big deal this is. Giving foreign nations the "ok" to censor the internet is a ridiculously stupid policy.

Next up on the tour of folks coming out against SOPA, we've got a bunch of public interest groups, including the American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Human Rights Watch, New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative, TechFreedom, FreedomHouse, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, EFF, Public Knowledge and others.

We do not dispute that there are hubs of online infringement. But the definitions of the sites that would be subject to SOPA's remedies are so broad that they would encompass far more than those bad actors profiting from infringement. By including all sites that may -- even inadvertently -- "facilitate" infringement, the bill raises serious concerns about overbreadth. Under section 102 of the bill, a nondomestic startup video-sharing site with thousands of innocent users sharing their own noninfringing videos, but a small minority who use the site to criminally infringe, could find its domain blocked by U.S. DNS operators. Countless non-infringing videos from the likes of aspiring artists, proud parents, citizen journalists, and human rights activists would be unduly swept up by such an actions. Furthermore, overreach resulting from the bill is more likely to impact the operators of smaller websites and services that do not have the legal capacity to fight false claims of infringement.

Relying on an even broader definition of "site dedicated to theft of US property," section 103 of SOPA creates a private right of action of breathtaking scope. Any rightsholder could cut off the financial lifeblood of services such as search engines, user-generated content platforms, social media, and cloud-based storage unless those services actively monitor and police user activity to the rightsholder's satisfaction. A mere accusation by any rightsholder would be sufficient to require payment systems and ad networks to terminate doing business with the service; the accused service's only recourse would be to send a counter-notice, at which point it would be at the networks' discretion whether to reinstate the service's access to payments and advertising. This would bypass and effectively overturn the basic framework of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), by pushing user-driven sites like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook to implement ever-more elaborate monitoring systems to "confirm," to the satisfaction of the most aggressive and litigious rightsholder, whether individual users are exchanging infringing content.

Had enough yet? Okay, well how about various consumer interest groups? Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America and US PIRG sent a letter as well.

The bill would allow rights holders to send notices to payment processors and advertising networks, ordering them to cut off funding to sites the rights holders believe are "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." However, this definition is extremely broad. Section 103(a)(1)(B)(ii) defines a "site dedicated to the theft of U.S. property" as including any site whose owner "takes active steps to avoid confirming a high probability" that it is being used (even by others) for infringement. This means that an entirely legitimate site can be defunded, and even enjoined entirely, merely because a few of its users may have infringed. Consequently, overzealous rights holders could shut down lawful exchange sites like craigslist, eBay, swap.com, or BookCrossing, closing off valuable outlets for small-scale buying and selling. For instance, a legitimate student-to-student textbook exchange site could be hampered or shut down by a publisher for the actions of just a few infringing users, raising the costs of an already-expensive education.

Secure online communication and commerce is also of critical importance to consumers. Yet, the bill could undermine the security of consumers. Section 102(c)(2)(A) allows for court orders that would block domain name system (DNS) operators from providing access to the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of targeted sites. In other words, a consumer attempting to access an allegedly infringing site would get an error message or be redirected to another page. However, redirecting DNS queries (to phishing sites and other fraudulent websites) is also a common tactic used by malicious hackers to steal millions of dollars from consumers....

Finally, the bill grants complete immunity to a very large class of actors, including Internet service providers, advertising networks, advertisers, search engines, and payment networks, for cutting off access to a targeted site as long as they can claim their actions were taken in the reasonable belief that the site was suspected of encouraging infringement. This blanket immunity from all federal and state laws and regulations could allow the above actors to act in ways that would harm consumers. For example, Internet service providers could block access to online services that compete with their own telephone or video offerings under a justification of curbing alleged infringement, depriving consumers of legitimate alternatives to high-priced services. The broad immunity of the statute would prevent consumers or consumer protection agencies from policing or addressing such anti-consumer or anticompetitive.

Next on the list, we have a surprise entrant: the Brookings Institution. Unlike plenty of "think tanks" who are nothing more than lobbying shops in disguise, Brookings has an incredibly strong reputation for both intellectual honesty and credibility -- and thus it's widely viewed as one of the most influential public policy think tanks around. Not surprisingly, it's take may be a bit more measured, but it raises significant concerns about the cybersecurity impact of the bill:

I highlight the very real threats to cybersecurity in a small section of both bills in their attempts to execute policy through the Internet architecture. While these bills will not "break the Internet," they further burden cyberspace with three new risks. First, the added complexity makes the goals of stability and security more difficult. Second, the expected reaction of Internet users will lead to demonstrably less secure behavior, exposing many American Internet users, their computers and even their employers to known risks. Finally, and most importantly, these bills will set back other efforts to secure cyberspace, both domestically and internationally. As such, policymakers are encouraged to analyze the net benefits of these bills in light of the increased cybersecurity risks.

Also worried about the security angle is the respected security firm ESET, who makes clear the damage the DNS provisions will do:

Based on my work, and that of my team of researchers, I have to say that this legislation, if passed as currently written, would have a chilling effect on the economy of the United States.

More than 100 million Internet users in over 180 countries rely on ESET products to protect their personal and enterprise data systems. This gives ESET a unique perspective on the DNS filtering proposed by SOPA and PIPA. There is hardly any part of the United States economy today that does not depend upon the smooth operation of the Internet, which in turn relies upon the integrity of the Domain Name system (DNS). The DNS filtering proposed in SOPA and PIPA would seriously undermine that integrity.

While ESET fully supports the goals of protecting IP and reducing piracy, our experiences combating cybercrime for more than 20 years suggest that SOPA and PIPA will do little to advance these goals. What we are sure they will do is undermine valuable efforts to improve the security of the Internet. Without those improvements, expansion of the global digital economy, of which the United States is clearly a leader, as well as a leading beneficiary, will falter.

And, finally, we have TechAmerica, one of the biggest and most respected tech trade associations, representing over 1,200 companies -- and one of the most important organizations when it comes to helping to fundraise for politicians. I'd been disappointed that TechAmerica had been relatively quiet on this issue, so it's great to see it come out strongly against SOPA. After spending over a page agreeing that rogue sites and infringement are big problems, TechAmerica's letter notes:

Sadly, neither chamber of Congress has produced thoroughly acceptable legislation, but SOPA in particular marks a clear retreat from a history of Congressional support of the digital revolution. That support has often come in the form of not imposing regulation on the industry, and certainly never before has such a wholesale shifting of costs and responsibilities of property owners onto technology companies been contemplated -- a shift away from a careful balance and toward legislation that favors one industry over another.

Put another way, the approach taken in SOPA leads one to wonder why the DMCA would even be used in the future. Using SOPA’s proposed broad new inducement provision, one could simply ignore the current DMCA safe harbors and use intermediaries to accomplish the end goal, and if damages were warranted, merely later sue for infringement. Moreover, important measures to make sure that the proposals keep pace with technology, such as the DMCA requires with the triennial rulemaking on exceptions to the prohibition on circumvention of access and use controls, are non-existent. Along those same lines we are also dismayed that the proposed legislation relies on "simple" technical measures to address complex international issues that are likely better handled through diplomacy, negotiation, constructive dialog and coordinated action. The proposed "solutions" carry risk, perhaps significant, and are likely to be easily circumvented....

SOPA merely shifts costs from content owners, the rightful protector of their content, to various other parties, rather than making sure that costs are appropriately placed.

This is a philosophical issue that runs to the heart of both proposals. Do we really want government forcing one industry to subsidize another, to be required by force of law to assist another industry in being successful? More typically we expect industries to operate within a market framework and with the freedom of contract to solve such challenges. In this case, Congress seems determined to step in and force one industry to provide subsistence to another.

I'm sure there are some others that I've missed, but it's great to see so many organizations coming out so strongly against SOPA. Can defenders of the bill continue to pretend that it's just a small opposition now? Or that it's just those who wish to infringe who are opposed to SOPA's broad language and vague definitions?

Filed Under: concerns, consumer rights, copyright, human rights, protect ip, sopa
Companies: aclu, brookings, techamerica

ACLU Sues Los Angeles Police For Harassing Photographers For Taking Photos With No Apparent Aesthetic Value

from the hope-their-lawyers-have-aesthetic-value dept

Remember how the Long Beach police defended their decision to detain photographers if they believed whatever they were photographing had "no aesthetic value?" Well, it seems that the ACLU took notice of that. Neppe alerts us to the news that the Los Angeles sheriff's department has been sued by some photographers and the ACLU for its activities in harassing photographers. The specific claims are violations of both the 1st and 4th Amendments. Should be an interesting case to watch, especially for photographers, who are increasingly harassed these days.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, free speech, long beach, los angeles, photographs
Companies: aclu

Appeals Court Says Genes Are Patentable, Because They're 'Separate' From Your DNA

from the chop-off-a-finger-and-patent-it dept

Well, this is unfortunate. We were quite happy with US district court judge Robert Sweet last year for making it clear that isolated genes are not patentable material in the Myriad Genetics case. This was one of those annoying patent situations where so many people had just assumed that genes were patentable for decades, without a single court testing that theory out. So industries were built up around the idea that genes could be patented. Thankfully, Sweet didn't let that bother him in pointing out that gene patents "are directed to a law of nature and were therefore improperly granted."

Of course, as expected, Myriad appealed, and even the Justice Department weighed in, saying genes shouldn't be patentable. However, the results of the appeal are in... and the Federal Circuit appeals court (CAFC) has reversed the lower court and said that patenting genes is just fine. The reasoning is bordering on ridiculous. The court effectively states that because isolated genes are isolated rather than a part of the full DNA strand, they are not "found in nature."

It is undisputed that Myriad’s claimed isolated DNAs exist in a distinctive chemical form--as distinctive chemical molecules--from DNAs in the human body, i.e., native DNA. Native DNA exists in the body as one of forty-six large, contiguous DNA molecules. Each DNA molecule is itself an integral part of a larger structural complex, a chromosome. In each chromosome, the DNA molecule is packaged around histone proteins into a structure called chromatin, which in turn is packaged into the chromosomal structure....

Isolated DNA, in contrast, is a free-standing portion of a native DNA molecule, frequently a single gene. Isolated DNA has been cleaved (i.e., had covalent bonds in its backbone chemically severed) or synthesized to consist of just a fraction of a naturally occurring DNA molecule.

Later, it reiterates that separating out these genes make them somehow "different" and not a part of nature:

In this case, the claimed isolated DNA molecules do not exist as in nature within a physical mixture to be purified. They have to be chemically cleaved from their chemical combination with other genetic materials. In other words, in nature, isolated DNAs are covalently bonded to such other materials. Thus, when cleaved, an isolated DNA molecule is not a purified form of a natural material, but a distinct chemical entity. In fact, some forms of isolated DNA require no purification at all, because DNAs can be chemically synthesized directly as isolated molecules.

Basically, they seem to be arguing that because a severed finger is not attached to a hand, the finger is not naturally occurring, and, thus, is patentable. Think about that. The dissenting judge in this ruling used a slightly less gruesome analogy, saying that the majority was basically saying that while a tree occurs in nature, snapping a leaf off the tree makes that leaf patentable.

The one good thing about the ruling is that it still rejects parts of Myriad's patents, but for other reasons, not because they're unpatentable parts of nature. The dissenting opinion from Judge Bryson (starting on page 88 of the ruling) is well worth reading. It starts out by attacking the problem with common sense, saying that if you were to ask someone if genes should be patented, they would answer, "Of course not. Patents are for inventions. A human gene is not an invention." But then Bryson goes on to discuss the more specific points raised by Myriad. First, he points out that Myriad didn't even really "invent" the key parts here:

At the outset, it is important to identify the inventive contribution underlying Myriad’s patents. Myriad was not the first to map a BRCA gene to its chromosomal location. That discovery was made by a team of researchers led by Dr. Mary-Claire King.... And Myriad did not invent a new method of nucleotide sequencing. Instead, it applied known sequencing techniques to identify the nucleotide order of the BRCA genes. Myriad’s discovery of those sequences entailed difficult work, and the identified sequences have had important applications in the fight against breast cancer. But the discovery of the sequences is an unprotectable fact, just like Dr. King’s discovery of the chromosomal location of the BRCA1 gene.

From there, Judge Bryson points out that an isolated gene clearly is a part of nature, and thus unpatentable:

Myriad is claiming the genes themselves, which appear in nature on the chromosomes of living human beings. The only material change made to those genes from their natural state is the change that is necessarily incidental to the extraction of the genes from the environment in which they are found in nature. While the process of extraction is no doubt difficult, and may itself be patentable, the isolated genes are not materially different from the native genes. In this respect, the genes are analogous to the “new mineral discovered in the earth,” or the “new plant found in the wild” that the Supreme Court referred to in Chakrabarty. It may be very difficult to extract the newly found mineral or to find, extract, and propagate the newly discovered plant. But that does not make those naturally occurring items the products of invention.

The same is true for human genes.

This case is far from over. It seems likely that CAFC will quickly be asked to rehear the case en banc (with the full slate of judges in the court, rather than just a panel of three), and after that it will likely go to the Supreme Court. Still, it's unfortunate that CAFC went this way, and hopefully a later ruling rejects this momentary lapse of reason.

In the meantime, it'll be important to pay close attention to what happens in the "sister" case to this one, Prometheus Laboratories v. Mayo Collaborative Services, in which there's a question of whether or not diagnostic tests can be patentable. In that case, like this one, CAFC said diagnostic tests are patentable, and that case has now moved on to the Supreme Court, which will likely hear the case in the fall. That may be a precursor to the final result in this case.

Filed Under: brca1, brca2, cafc, dna, gene patents, patents
Companies: aclu, myriad genetics

ACLU Drags The State Department To Court For Its Failure To Declassify Publicly Available Documents

from the joseph-heller's-coffin-clocked-at-over-7,200-rpm dept

Of all the spectacle surrounding the Wikileaks/Cablegate situation, nothing has proven to be more bizarre than the U.S. government's actions and policies concerning the continued classification of the leaked cables. One of its first efforts was its patented "escalating response", in which it first blocked off the Wikileaks site, followed by any site with the word Wikileaks in the title and, when this didn't seem to be burying its employees' heads in the sand quickly enough, it reached out to various security firms to see if they could build some sort of Wikileaks filtering system for its computers.

Things turned even more surreal when lawyers for Guantanamo detainees were not allowed to view leaked documents that had been published online by various news services. When is public information not truly "public?" Well, when it's "classified," of course. Had the principles not been currently fighting a legal battle in a U.S. court, they could have joined the rest of the U.S. (and the world) in reading and using these leaked documents.

In the business world, if a document is considered secret, it's commonly accepted that if it becomes public by other means, those with a contractual obligation not to discuss are now free from their obligations. This makes sense. Pretending that documents that are publicly available for all and which have been widely discussed in the press are not "public" doesn't make sense.

With a recently filed lawsuit against the State Department, the ACLU hopes to bring this legal catch-22 to its illogical conclusion and make publicly published documents officially public. Andy Greenberg (Forbes) explains the ACLU's rationale:

Given that all those memos have already been covered by the news media, why bother to declassify them anyway? "The point is to expose the legal fiction that the secrecy system rests on," says Ben Wizner, a staff attorney for the ACLU. "The government uses this formality of secrecy to avoid having to answer for real violations of the law."

Wizner says that keeping the documents classified makes them much more difficult to use in courts, for instance, and allows the government to avoid confirming their authenticity.

The files that WikiLeaks released on Guantanamo detainees in April, for example, can’t be used by the defense lawyers for those prisoners unless they’re viewed in a secure government facility. “Government employees can’t read the New York Times. When I go to court in a real lawsuit seeking to get compensation for a victim’s ordeal and hold people liable, I can’t use this information,” Wizner says.

This should prove to be an alternately infuriating and entertaining case. There's going to be a whole lot of circular reasoning in play, all of it under the pretense of protecting state secrets that everyone already knows. The sad part is that taxpayers will be footing the bill for the government's last-ditch attempt to close several barn doors, while warily keeping an eye on all the free-roaming horses.

Filed Under: cables, classifications, state department, wikileaks
Companies: aclu, wikileaks