I though the United Stated, being the most democratic country of the world,
does not recognize decisions of international courts (and, specifically, it
withdrew from the International Court of Justice after a decision was taken
it did not like, and it never ratified the convention about the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights).


On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:34 PM, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:

> Thank you Katherine for the update.
> For Greg, I would like to know if there are some international courts in
> which this could also lead to a lawsuit. I'm thinking to the International
> Court of Justice, or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as I guess
> something like European Court of Human Rights would be out of scope,
> although the global spying practice might suggest otherwise.
> If any lawsuit is possible in an international court, had this been
> attempted by anyone, or had this been avoided for some specific reasons?
> Cheers
> Le 30/01/2018 à 01:14, Katherine Maher a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>> I’d like to share an update and next steps in our lawsuit against the U.S.
>> National Security Agency (NSA), Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA.[1] As you’ll
>> recall, in March 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation joined eight other
>> plaintiffs in filing a suit in United States Federal District Court
>> against
>> the NSA[2] and the Department of Justice,[3] among others. We have been
>> represented pro bono[4] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[5]
>> and
>> the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.[6] The law
>> firm Cooley LLP[7] has also been serving as pro bono co-counsel for the
>> Foundation.
>> Since we’re coming on the three-year anniversary, I wanted to offer a
>> reminder of why we filed this suit. Our challenge supports the
>> foundational
>> values of our movement: the right to freedom of expression and access to
>> information. Free knowledge requires freedom of inquiry, particularly in
>> the case of challenging and unpopular truths. Each day people around the
>> world engage with difficult and controversial subjects on Wikipedia and
>> other Wikimedia projects. Pervasive mass surveillance brings the threat of
>> reprisal, creates a chilling effect, and undermines the freedoms upon
>> which
>> our projects and communities are founded. In bringing this suit, we joined
>> a tradition of knowledge stewards who have fought to preserve the
>> integrity
>> of intellectual inquiry.
>> Our lawsuit challenges dragnet surveillance by the NSA, specifically the
>> large-scale seizing and searching of Internet communications frequently
>> referred to as “Upstream” surveillance.[8] The U.S. government is tapping
>> directly into the internet’s “backbone”[9]—the network of high-capacity
>> cables, switches, and routers that carry domestic and international
>> communications—and seizing and searching virtually all text-based internet
>> communications flowing into and out of the United States. It’s this
>> backbone that connects the global Wikimedia community to our projects.
>> These communications are being seized and searched without any requirement
>> that there be suspicion, for example, that the communications have a
>> connection to terrorism or national security threats.
>> Last May, we reached an important milestone: a Federal Court of
>> Appeals[10]
>> in the United States ruled[11] that the Foundation alone had plausibly
>> alleged “standing”[12] to proceed with our claims that Upstream mass
>> surveillance seizes and searches of the online communications of Wikimedia
>> users, contributors and Foundation staff in violation of the U.S.
>> Constitution and other laws. The Court of Appeals’ ruling means that we
>> are
>> the sole remaining plaintiff among the nine original co-plaintiffs. There
>> is still a long road ahead, but this intermediate victory makes this case
>> one of the most important vehicles for challenging the legality of this
>> particular NSA surveillance practice.
>> As a result of our win in the appellate court, we are now proceeding to
>> the
>> next stage of the case: discovery.[13] In the U.S. court system, parties
>> use the discovery stage to exchange evidence and ask each other questions
>> about their claims. We have requested information and documents from the
>> government, and they have made similar requests from us. The entire phase,
>> which will also involve research and reports from experts, is expected to
>> last the next few months.
>> As part of our commitment to privacy, I want you to know about what this
>> stage of the case means for our data retention practices. Our goal in
>> bringing this lawsuit was to protect user information. In this case, like
>> other litigation in which we engage, we may sometimes be legally required
>> to preserve some information longer than the standard 90-day period in our
>> data retention guidelines. These special cases are acknowledged and
>> permitted by our privacy and data retention policies.[14]
>> As always, however, we remain committed to keeping user data no longer
>> than
>> legally necessary. We never publish the exact details of
>> litigation-related
>> data retention, as part of our legal strategy to keep personal data safe.
>> And we defend any personal data from disclosure to the maximum extent,
>> taking both legal and technical measures to do so. We are keeping
>> sensitive
>> material encrypted and offline, and we have the support of the experienced
>> legal teams at the ACLU and Cooley in ensuring its safety and integrity.
>> Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA is currently one of the only freedom of
>> expression and access to knowledge cases being prosecuted against
>> government surveillance overreach. Unfortunately, the recent extension of
>> these surveillance practices by the U.S. Congress[15] demonstrates that
>> the
>> courts may well be the only venue to stop or restrict these practices.
>> The nature of litigation means that we will not always be able to discuss
>> certain details of any case in public. For example, deliberations about
>> tactical or strategic decisions will need to remain confidential in order
>> to preserve the attorney-client privilege.[16] In such situations,
>> particularly in a sensitive and important case like this, we are always
>> balancing the need for confidentiality with our commitment to
>> transparency.
>> So while some information will not be public, we want to be available to
>> address your questions, should you have any. Please direct them to Greg
>> Varnum gvar...@wikimedia.org, who can help provide answers.
>> We will continue keeping you updated on our progress and anything that
>> might affect our communities and visitors to the Wikimedia sites.[17]
>> I would like to thank Tilman Bayer, Nuria Ruiz, Faidon Liambotis, Andrew
>> Otto, James Alexander, Brandon Black, Byron Bogaert, Dan Foy, Grace
>> Gellerman, Aeryn Palmer and Jim Buatti for their extensive dedication to
>> this case.  And thanks to the C-levels supporting this work, Eileen
>> Hershenov, Victoria Coleman, and Toby Negrin.
>> Yours,
>> Katherine
>> [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
>> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice
>> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
>> [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
>> [6] https://knightcolumbia.org/
>> [7] https://www.cooley.com/
>> [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection
>> [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone
>> [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals
>> [11] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
>> [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
>> [13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
>> [14] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines
>> [15]
>> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-surveilla
>> nce/trump-signs-bill-renewing-nsas-internet-surveillance-
>> program-idUSKBN1F82MK
>> [16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege
>> [17] https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/
>> *Previous updates for your review:*
>> June 23 2017
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
>> June 16 2017
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/
>> May 23 2017
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
>> December 9 2016
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/09/wikimedia-v-nsa-hearin
>> g-fourth-circuit/
>> October 17 2016
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/10/17/wikimedia-v-nsa-appeal-hearing/
>> May 9 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/09/wikimedia-nsa-appeal/
>> April 11 2016
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/11/new-resource-wikimedia-nsa/
>> February 17 2016
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/17/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-filed/
>> December 15 2015
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/15/wikimedia-nsa-notice-of-appeal/
>> October 23 2015
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-lawsuit-dismissal/
>> September 28 2015
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/28/wikimedia-nsa-first-hearing/
>> September 4 2015
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/04/motion-to-dismiss-wikimedia-v-nsa/
>> March 10 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to