hai, ca asta fu tare - o dau si la altii >:                         

Daca reusesc astazi sa-mi fac timp, va povestesc o faza cu iahu de acu' cateva 
saptamani >:                            


  From: Catalin Dimofte 
  Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 10:13 AM


  Solutia e foarte simpla - trebuie sa fii de acord cu gazele de sist, Chevron 
etc., si-atunci n-o sa se intample nimic.  Ia si tu exemplu de la dl. 
presedinte, de la dl. premier, de la d-nii ministri etc.

  On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Ioana Avadani <io...@cji.ro> wrote:


    Pe scurt: Chevron este condamnat , in Ecuador, pentru contaminare masiva a 
    Apoi cere in tribunal dreptul de a obtine de la Microsoft adresele de mail 
ale celor implicati in "conspiratie" - activisti de mediu, jurnalisti, avocati.
    Si obtine acest drept.... Argumentatia curtii: membrii"conspiratiei" nu au 
facut dovada ca sunt cetateni americani, deci nu au protectia Primului 

    Asta pentru cetatenii neamericani de pe lista care nu vor gaze de sist. Sau 
pentru aceia care cred(em) ca libertatea de expresie e pentru toata lumea...


    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: Dyah Paramita <dyahparam...@icel.or.id>
    Date: Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 4:00 AM
    Subject: [foianet] Judge: Chevron can access its critics' private user 
    To: foia...@foiadvocates.info


    Judge: Chevron can access its critics' private user information

    Posted July 08, 2013
    by Marissa Vahlsing,

    After more than eight months of silence, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis
    Kaplan recently issued a long-awaited decision on the enforceability of a
    subpoena served by Chevron on Microsoft in connection with Chevron’s
    lawsuit claiming that it has been the victim of a conspiracy in the $18.2
    billion judgment against it for massive environmental contamination in
    Ecuador. But Kaplan’s decision begs more questions than it answers.

    The sweeping subpoena was one of three issued to Google, Yahoo! and
    Microsoft, demanding IP usage records and identity information for the
    holders of more than 100 email accounts, including environmental
    activists, journalists and attorneys. Chevron’s subpoena sought personal
    information about every account holder and the IP addresses associated
    with every login to each account over a nine-year period.

    This could allow Chevron to determine the countries, states, cities or
    even buildings where the account-holders were checking their email so as
    to “infer the movements of the users over the relevant period and might
    permit Chevron to makes inferences about some of the user’s professional
    and personal relationships.” (see Order, below, p6). Confronted with this
    affront to their privacy and rights of speech and association, the
    account-holders, represented by ERI and Electronic Frontier Foundation
    (EFF), brought “motions to quash” the subpoenas in courts in California
    and New York on First Amendment grounds.

    Judge Kaplan, who presides over Chevron’s conspiracy lawsuit in the
    Southern District of New York, and who has been accused of prejudice
    against the Ecuadorians and their lawyers, managed to sit by “special
    designation” in the Northern District of New York so that he could decide
    the enforceability of the subpoena to Microsoft as well.

    And decide he did. Kaplan’s decision upheld Chevron’s sweeping subpoena
    with an argument that is as breathtaking as the subpoena itself. According
    to Judge Kaplan, none of the accountholders could benefit from First
    Amendment protections since the accountholders had “not shown that they
    were U.S. citizens.”

    Now, let’s break this down. The account-holders in this case were
    proceeding anonymously, which the First Amendment permits. Because of
    this, Judge Kaplan was provided with no information about the account
    holders’ residency or places of birth. It is somewhat amazing then, that
    Judge Kaplan assumed that the account holders were not U.S. citizens. As
    far as I know, a judge has never before made this assumption when
    presented with a First Amendment claim. We have to ask then: on what basis
    did Judge Kaplan reach out and make this assumption?

    Whether or not this assumption was correct – and whether or not it matters
    – the account-holders were never given the chance to submit evidence on
    the question of their citizenship. Judge Kaplan is hoping he made a lucky
    guess, but First Amendment rights, and the account-holders they protect,
    are entitled to more respect than judicial guesswork.

    Dyah Paramita
    Indonesian Center for Environmental Law
    Jl. Dempo II No. 21
    Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta Selatan
    Indonesia 12120
    Telp:+62-21-7262740, 7233390


Raspunde prin e-mail lui