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 >:
Codruta
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
mediului.
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
Amendament.
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...
Ioana
---------- 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
information
To: foia...@foiadvocates.info
FYI,
Judge: Chevron can access its critics' private user information
Posted July 08, 2013
by Marissa Vahlsing,
source:http://www.earthrights.org/blog/judge-chevron-can-access-its-critics-private-user-information
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
Fax:+62-21-7269331
www.icel.or.id
