-------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: EFFector list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: EFFector list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: EFFector 20.27: FBI Records Show Gonzales Knew About Years of
> Chronic NSL Problems
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:43:30 -0500 (CDT)
> 
> EFFector Vol. 20, No. 27  July 11, 2007  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
> ISSN 1062-9424
> 
> In the 431st Issue of EFFector:
> 
>  * FBI Records Show Gonzales Knew About Years of Chronic 
> NSL Problems
>  * An Independence Day Resolution: Reform FOIA!
>  * RIAA Should Pay for Single Mom's Two-Year Ordeal
>  * Divided Appeals Court Rules Against ACLU on NSA 
> Wiretapping
>  * YouTube Embedding and Copyright
>  * Visit EFF at OSCON!
>  * miniLinks (10): Why the iPhone Isn't Really 
> Revolutionary
>  * Administrivia
> 
> For more information on EFF activities & alerts:
>  http://www.eff.org/
> 
> Make a donation and become an EFF member today!
>  http://eff.org/support/
> 
> Tell a friend about EFF:
>  http://action.eff.org/site/Ecard?ecard_id=1061
> 
> effector: n, Computer Sci. A device for producing a desired 
> change.
> 
> : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
> 
> * FBI Records Show Gonzales Knew About Years of Chronic NSL 
> Problems
> 
> EFF Lawsuit Uncovers History of Surveillance Mistakes
> 
> Washington, D.C. - Documents obtained by the Electronic 
> Frontier Foundation (EFF) show years of chronic problems 
> with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's use of National 
> Security Letters (NSLs) to collect Americans' personal 
> information and that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has 
> long been aware of these problems.
> 
> The documents were disclosed after EFF sued the government 
> under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) earlier this 
> year for records related to a scathing Justice Department 
> critique of FBI NSL activity. The records detail more than 
> 40 instances of improper, unauthorized collection of 
> information about individuals, including unlawful access to 
> phone records and email. The records show that Gonzales 
> himself was sent several of these problem reports, 
> including one less than a week before he told a 
> congressional committee that no civil liberties abuses have 
> resulted from the USA PATRIOT Act. He also voiced surprise 
> when the Justice Department report on NSL misuse was made 
> public earlier this year.
> 
> "These chronic privacy problems have long been known within 
> the Justice Department but still were kept secret from 
> those who really needed to know -- members of the American 
> public, including those who were surveilled," said EFF 
> Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "The FBI can't be trusted to 
> police its own agents. It's time for Congress to provide 
> oversight to protect American citizens."
> 
> The FBI's use of NSLs was expanded under the USA PATRIOT 
> Act in 2001, allowing federal agents to gather private 
> records about anyone's domestic phone calls, emails, and 
> financial transactions without any court approval -- as 
> long as an FBI agent claims that the information could be 
> related to a terrorism or espionage investigation. EFF 
> submitted a FOIA request about the reported misuse of NSLs 
> in March, and when no documents were forthcoming, EFF sued 
> the FBI for their immediate release. Last month, a judge 
> held that the FBI was required to release records related 
> to the inspector general's report beginning on July 5, with 
> more documents to be disclosed every 30 days. In all, 1138 
> pages of NSL records were released to EFF late last week in 
> the first batch of documents complying with the court's 
> order.
> 
> "This is by no means the whole story on NSL abuse," said 
> EFF Senior Counsel David Sobel. "We're looking forward to 
> receiving the rest of the documents. Americans deserve the 
> whole story on the FBI's deeply flawed program to issue 
> NSLs."
> 
> For the complete FBI documents:
> http://www.eff.org/flag/07656JDB/
> 
> For initial analysis of the documents:
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005349.php
> 
> For this release:
> http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_07.php#005351
> 
> : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
> 
> * An Independence Day Resolution: Reform FOIA!
> 
> On July 4, 1966, President Lyndon Johnson signed the FOIA 
> into law. FOIA gave weight to a principle that is 
> fundamental to any democracy: the right of the people to 
> know what the government is doing. Forty-one years later, 
> FOIA remains an essential tool used by the public, public 
> advocacy groups (including EFF), and news organizations to 
> uncover information that would otherwise remain hidden from 
> public view.
> 
> But a recent report from the George Washington University's 
> National Security Archive and the Knight Foundation shows 
> that FOIA is far from a perfect tool of transparency in 
> government. The study found that requests for information 
> often languish in bureaucratic limbo for years -- the 
> oldest dates back to 1987! The National Security Archive 
> actually had to use FOIA to find out how many FOIA requests 
> were still pending.
> 
> Luckily, a new bill to reform FOIA is working its way 
> through Congress, supported by a broad coalition of 
> organizations that spans the political spectrum. The OPEN 
> Government Act (S. 849) brings much needed reform to FOIA 
> and puts in place incentives for federal agencies to 
> process FOIA requests in a timely fashion. The bill would 
> create a tracking system for FOIA requests so that they 
> don't get lost in the bowels of federal agencies, as well 
> as allowing requesters who prevail in FOIA litigation to 
> recover reasonable attorney fees.
> 
> Meanwhile, EFF's FOIA lawsuits are making steady strides. 
> Along with uncovering information about National Security 
> Letters, we've filed suit seeking orders, rules and 
> guidelines issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
> Court about the Administration's warrantless surveillance 
> program. There will be a hearing in the case on July 26 in 
> Washington, DC.
> 
> Take action to support the OPEN Government Act:
> http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=285
> 
> For this post and related links:
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005346.php
> 
> : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
> 
> * RIAA Should Pay for Single Mom's Two-Year Ordeal
> 
> Innocent Target of File-Sharing Lawsuit Racked Up Legal 
> Fees Fighting Baseless Charges
> 
> Seattle - The Recording Industry Association of America 
> (RIAA) should pay for a single mom's two-year legal ordeal 
> fighting a baseless file-sharing lawsuit, the Electronic 
> Frontier Foundation (EFF) told Washington state court in an 
> amicus brief filed last week.
> 
> The nightmare began for Dawnell Leadbetter in January of 
> 2005, when she received a letter from the RIAA that accused 
> her of illegally downloading copyrighted music and claiming 
> she owed hundreds of thousands of dollars. Leadbetter 
> contacted the RIAA to deny the baseless claims, and she 
> refused to pay any settlement monies. In response, the RIAA 
> sued Leadbetter, and Leadbetter hired an attorney to fight 
> the charges. After months of legal wrangling, the RIAA 
> finally dropped the case in December of 2006. But in the 
> meantime, Leadbetter had incurred significant attorney's 
> fees.
> 
> "Ms. Leadbetter isn't the only innocent Internet user that 
> has been ensnared by the RIAA's litigation dragnet. But she 
> is one of the few who have fought back, resisting RIAA 
> pressure to pay settlement monies for something she did not 
> do," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz. "The RIAA's 
> settlement offers are usually less that what it would cost 
> to defend yourself, so it's a big commitment to hire a 
> lawyer to clear your name. Reimbursing Ms. Leadbetter's 
> attorney's fees could encourage other innocent lawsuit 
> targets to stand up for themselves."
> 
> Since 2003, the RIAA has sued over 20,000 people for 
> allegedly sharing music over the Internet. The industry 
> uses questionable investigative methods tactics to find its 
> targets, and then it often employs erroneous legal theories 
> in its quest for settlement monies. In Ms. Leadbetter's 
> case, the suit against her included accusations of 
> "secondary liability" -- putting her on the hook for 
> anything that happened on her Internet account, whether she 
> knew about it or not.
> 
> "The RIAA knows that this legal theory is wrong. But if 
> innocent victims are too scared to hire an attorney and 
> fight back, the public could suffer under the misconception 
> that these bogus theories are legitimate," Schultz said. 
> "Awarding attorney's fees to Ms. Leadbetter helps protect 
> everyone's rights under copyright law."
> 
> The amicus brief was filed in U.S. District Court in 
> Seattle in conjunction with attorney Derek Newman of Newman 
> & Newman LLP.
> 
> For the full amicus brief:
> http://eff.org/legal/cases/interscope_v_leadbetter
> 
> For more on the RIAA lawsuit campaign:
> http://www.eff.org/share 
> 
> For this release:
> http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_07.php#005347
> 
> : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
> 
> * Divided Appeals Court Rules Against ACLU on NSA 
> Wiretapping
> 
> A federal appeals court handed down a defeat for your civil 
> liberties last week, ordering the dismissal of the ACLU's 
> case challenging the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. 
> In a 2-1 ruling, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
> found that the plaintiffs, attorneys and journalists who 
> had stopped communicating with their foreign clients and 
> sources for fear of illegal wiretapping did not have legal 
> standing to sue. The case was based on the President's 
> admissions about the warrantless wiretapping.
> 
> Judge Ronald Gilman dissented, finding that the warrantless 
> surveillance program violated the law and rejecting the 
> President's assertion of inherent authority to break laws 
> in the name of national security.
> 
> The court's decision threw out last year's district court 
> ruling, which found the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance 
> Program "violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the 
> Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth 
> Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Foreign 
> Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III."
> 
> EFF has sued AT&T on behalf of its customers for the 
> telecommunications giant's role in the NSA's illegal 
> spying, which we allege goes beyond what the President has 
> directly admitted and intercepts the phone and Internet 
> communications of millions of ordinary Americans. Last 
> summer, Judge Walker rejected the government's motion to 
> dismiss EFF's case, along with AT&T's motion to dismiss, 
> and allowed the case to go forward. That ruling is on 
> appeal and will be heard by the 9th Circuit on August 15, 
> 2007, in San Francisco.
> 
> For this post and related links:
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005348.php
> 
> : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
> 
> * YouTube Embedding and Copyright
> 
> There seems to be a considerable amount of interest in and 
> confusion about the copyright law consequences of embedding 
> a YouTube video in your blog. In fact, the Blog Herald 
> recently ran a story suggesting that bloggers could be on 
> the hook for copyright infringement if they embed a video 
> that turns out to be infringing.
> 
> Well, the news really isn't that dire. In fact, we believe 
> that bloggers are generally pretty safe on this score, at 
> least until someone notifies them that an embedded video is 
> infringing.
> 
> First, it's important to understand what an embedded 
> YouTube video is -- it's a link. No copy of the YouTube 
> video is being stored on your server (only the HTML code 
> for the embed). The video stays on, and is streamed from, 
> YouTube's servers.
> 
> That makes the embedded YouTube video essentially 
> indistinguishable from the in-line image links that are 
> used all over the Web, including in Google's Image Search. 
> In the recent Perfect 10 v. Amazon ruling, the Ninth 
> Circuit made it very clear that where in-line links are 
> concerned, there is absolutely no direct copyright 
> infringement liability. So, for purposes of direct 
> infringement, the answer to one question will generally 
> resolve the issue: where is the copy hosted?
> 
> That leaves contributory infringement. If you link to a 
> video that you know is infringing, or that any reasonable 
> person would have known is infringing, and if your link 
> materially contributes to the infringement, then you could 
> be liable for contributory infringement -- a kind of 
> "aiding and abetting" liability.
> 
> The contributory infringement test should leave plenty of 
> breathing room for most bloggers. Two rules of thumb should 
> avoid most issues -- (1) don't embed videos that are 
> obviously infringing, and (2) consider removing embedded 
> videos once you've been notified by a copyright owner that 
> they are infringing.
> 
> If you want even more protection, you can register yourself 
> as the "Copyright Agent" for your blog (requires a form and 
> $80 payment to the U.S. Copyright Office), familiarize 
> yourself with the requirements of the DMCA's online service 
> provider "safe harbors" (the chief one for most bloggers 
> will be notice-and-takedown), and take advantage of the 
> same protections that shield Yahoo! and Google when they 
> link to sites that may include infringing materials.
> 
> In short, embedding YouTube videos isn't that scary from a 
> copyright POV, at least until a copyright owner takes the 
> trouble to notify you.
> 
> For this post and related links:
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005350.php
> 
> : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
> 
> * Visit EFF at OSCON!
> 
> EFF will be at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention (OSCON) 
> in Portland, Oregon on July 25-26. Come visit us at booth 
> #121, and grab some schwag:
> http://conferences.oreillynet.com/os2007/
> 
> : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
> 
> * miniLinks
> The week's noteworthy news, compressed.
> 
> ~ Why the iPhone Isn't Really Revolutionary
> Tim Wu points out that beneath the iPhone's snazzy design 
> lurks a standard business model.
> http://www.slate.com/id/2169352/fr/flyout
> 
> ~ The "iPhone Killer" Arrives
> An open source, touch-screen, Linux-based phone that can be 
> used with any GSM carrier.
> http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/07/the-linux-power.html
> 
> ~ Top Secret: We're Wiretapping You
> The FBI accidentally gave a DC attorney proof that he was 
> being wiretapped.
> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/03/72811?currentPage=all
> 
> ~ Judge Dismisses New York Times Lawsuit
> A FOIA request on warrantless wiretapping was thrown out by 
> a federal judge, citing executive privilege.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/02/AR2007070201600.html
> 
> ~ Net Growth Prompts Privacy Update
> The leading industrial nations adopt new guidelines on 
> privacy.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6254650.stm
> 
> ~ EU, U.S. to Share Passenger Data
> A deal between the EU and the U.S. allows the storage of 
> traveler data for up to 15 years.
> http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06/29/europe.data.ap/index.html
> 
> ~ German Parliament Passes New Copyright Act
> Reforms allow users to make personal copies, but not to 
> "break" DRM.
> http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/92318
> 
> ~ Court Holds Belgian ISP Responsible for File Sharing
> ISPs in Belgium are ordered to police their networks for 
> piracy.
> http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/07/05/filesxharing/index.php
> 
> ~ Digital Music Sales Flex Muscles
> Does good news for digital sales mean bad news for the 
> traditional album?
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070705-growing-digital-music-singles-killing-the-album.html
> 
> ~ Fake Steve Jobs: How I Put Labels on a Leash
> Tells the story of how the major labels handed Apple an 80% 
> share of the digital music market.
> <http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/07/music-industry-nobs-have-finally.html> 
> 
> : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :
> 
> * Administrivia
> 
> EFFector is published by:
> 
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation
> 454 Shotwell Street
> San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
> +1 415 436 9333 (voice)
> +1 415 436 9993 (fax)
>   http://www.eff.org/ 
> 
> Editor:
> Derek Slater, Activism Coordinator
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    
> 
> Membership & donation queries:
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> General EFF, legal, policy, or online resources queries:
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is 
> encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent 
> the views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles 
> individually, please contact the authors for their express 
> permission.
> Press releases and EFF announcements & articles may be 
> reproduced individually at will.
> 
> Current and back issues of EFFector are available via the 
> Web at:
>   http://www.eff.org/effector/
> 

> 
> This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
> 



-- 
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Reply via email to