[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[FYI] (Fwd) GILC Alert




------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	Chris Chiu <CCHIU@aclu.org>
To:             	gilc-announce@gilc.org
Subject:        	GILC Alert
Date sent:      	Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:26:11 -0400 

GILC Alert
Volume 6, Issue 4
6 June 2002

Welcome to the Global Internet Liberty Campaign Newsletter.

Welcome to GILC Alert, the newsletter of the Global Internet Liberty
Campaign. We are an international organization of groups working for
cyber-liberties, who are determined to preserve civil liberties and
human rights on the Internet. We hope you find this newsletter
interesting, and we very much hope that you will avail yourselves of
the action items in future issues. If you are a part of an
organization that would be interested in joining GILC, please contact
us at <gilc@gilc.org>. If you are aware of threats to cyber-liberties
that we may not know about, please contact the GILC members in your
country, or contact GILC as a whole. Please feel free to redistribute
this newsletter to appropriate forums.

===============================================
Free expression
[1] US courts issue key Net speech rulings
[2] Russian Net speech curbs debated
[3] New legal battles over deep weblinks
[4] Turkish Internet restrictions draw fire
[5] Jordan jails online dissenter
[6] Mystery surrounds end to Chinese blocking of news sites
[7] Court refuses to throw out charges in Russian E-Book case
[8] Study recommends education, not Net blockers
[9] US Congress considers new virtual images ban
[10] Egypt clamps down on Internet speech
[11] Daniel Pearl video back online
[12] Report: marker trick fools crippled CDs 

Privacy
[13] Euro data retention decision provokes alarm
[14] New US gov't rules may allow massive Internet spying
[15] US gov't investigates Verichip tracking implants maker
[16] Euro regulators probe Microsoft privacy woes
[17] US Net privacy bill passes important hurdle
[18] Interactive TV privacy fears grow
[19] US cell phone tracking scheme still on hold

===================================================
[1] US courts issue key Net speech rulings
===================================================
The future of Internet free speech was the focus of several recent
court decisions in the United States. 

One of these cases involved the so-called Child Online Protection Act
(COPA), which made it a crime to use the Internet to pass along "for
commercial purposes" information considered "harmful to minors." The
statute was enacted in response to the 1997 Reno v. American Civil
Liberties Union decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down
the Communications Decency Act and applied traditional free speech
protections to the Information Superhighway. COPA was soon challenged
by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU-a GILC member) on behalf
of 17 groups and individuals, including fellow GILC members the
Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Electronic Frontiers
Foundation. 

The U.S. Supreme Court's subsequent ruling reflected deep divisions
among the Justices regarding various aspects of the case. Justice
Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, held that "COPA's
reliance on community standards to identify 'material that is harmful
to minors' does not by itself render the statute substantially
overbroad" and therefore violate the U.S. constitutional free speech
protections. However, Thomas added that the scope of this decision was
"quite limited" and that the Court was not sure whether COPA might be
an unconstitutional restriction on free expression for other reasons.
Citing these reasons, the Court maintained a ban on COPA enforcement
and sent the case back to a lower appeals court for further
examination of these issues. The case could go on for several more
years before a final resolution. 

Several weeks later, a U.S. trial court struck down the Children's
Internet Protection Act, which essentially required high schools and
libraries to include blocking software on their computers.
Institutions that refused to do so (or implement policies to that
effect) would have lose federal funding. In a court challenge launched
by the ACLU and the American Library Association, a Federal judicial
panel held that the law violated the right to free expression
protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Any
public library that adheres to CIPA's conditions will necessarily
restrict patrons' access to a substantial amount of protected speech
in violation of the First Amendment." The panel also called blocking
programs "blunt instruments that not only 'underblock,' i.e., fail to
block access to substantial amounts of content that the library boards
wish to exclude, but also, central to this litigation, 'overblock,'
i.e., block access to large quantities of material that library boards
do not wish to exclude and that is constitutionally protected."

The text of the COPA decision is available under
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invo
l=00-1 293

The text of the CIPA decision is available under
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0415P.HTM

An ACLU press release about the COPA decision is posted at
http://www.aclu.org/news/2002/n051302a.html

For more on the COPA ruling, see "US child porn law 'not
enforceable'," BBC News Online, May 14, 2002 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1987000/1987099.stm

See also Charles Lane, "Justices Partially Back Cyber Pornography
Law," Washington Post, May 14, 2002, page A3 at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11465-2002May13.html

Further coverage of the CIPA ruling is available from "Judges Overturn
Porn Law," CBSNews.com, May 31, 2002 at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/national/printable510688.sht
ml

See also Lisa M. Bowman, "Court overturns library filtering law," CNet
News, May 31, 2002 at http://news.com.com/2100-1023-929577.html

=================================================
[2] Russian Net speech curbs debated
=================================================
A new Russian government proposal to target "extremist" messages is
being greeted with dismay from free speech advocates.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a draft law (No. 203307-3)
that supposedly targets extremist activities. However, the proposal
contains a broad definition of include attempts to impede lawful
activities of state powers and organizers of mass disorder-which, in
turn, may cover many forms of public protest. The plan goes on to say
that "information-telecommunication networks" may not be used for any
extremist activity; the proposal specifically mentions websites. The
draft law also bans the posting of any extremist slogans online.
Internet service providers (ISPs) or moderators are required to remove
such materials immediately. This requirement would be enforced through
a somewhat complicated procedure by which government prosecutors and
judges can successively order relevant third parties (such as ISPs) to
take down offending material, or risk losing their licenses.   

Experts suggest that the draft law is part of a disturbing trend
against freedom of expression over the Information Superhighway. These
observers have cited to legislation currently being discussed by the
Russian legislature (Duma) that, among other things, would ban
materials that merely contain quotations from alleged terrorists and
specifically mentions computer networks. 

To read the text of the draft law, click
http://www.hro.org/docs/rlex/duma/41/ex1.htm

For comments on the draft law from Sergei Smirnov of the Russian Human
Rights Network (a GILC member), see
http://www.hro.org/ngo/discuss/ex5.htm

For additional expert analysis from Alexander Verkhovsky, visit
http://www.obshestvo.ru/expert/art437608.html

===================================================
[3] New legal battles over deep weblinks
===================================================
Should the law require people to provide weblinks to only the front
pages of websites?

That's essentially the question being posed by several recent cases.
In such incident, the Danish Newspaper Publishers' Association is
suing Newsbooster, an online news service. Specifically, the trade
group is asking a court to bar the service from providing so-called
deep links to individual Danish newspaper articles. Experts have
criticized this action, claiming that it will chill free speech and
severely curb the effectiveness of the Information Superhighway. A
spokesperson for the Lycos Denmark portal accused the Association of
essentially trying to "turn time back and remove the Internet.
Deep-linking is the nature of the Internet. It is without question the
killer application for the World Wide Web." 

Meanwhile, two broadly similar disputes have arisen in the United
States. Recently, the publisher of the Dallas Morning News threatening
a webpage author with a lawsuit over his Internet links to individual
DMN articles. Since then, the publisher of Runner's World magazine
made similar demands against the proprietors of the LetsRun.com site,
telling them to remove links to a printer-friendly version of a
Runner's World item.

See Declan McCullagh, "Another Run to a Deep-Link Suit," Wired News,
May 14, 2002 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,52514,00.html

Read Michelle Delio, "Deep Links Return to Surface," Wired News, April
18, 2002 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,51887,00.html

=======================================================
[4] Turkish Internet restrictions may limit Net speech
=======================================================
Turkey has passed legislation that some experts fear will curb free
speech online.

Among other things, the new rules bar defamation along the Information
Superhighway as well as distribution of "false news." Violators could
be forced to pay steep fines. In addition, the proposal could enable
the state radio and television board, RTUK, to begin vetting websites.
The RTUK already has the power to impose penalties for a variety of
content-related activities, including airing Kurdish-language
broadcasts and publishing what it deems to be separatist propaganda. 

While the precise impact of these directives is still being
determined, a number of observers worry that the legislation's
provisions will be used against journalists, online discussion groups
and other types of Internet expression. These concerns have been
highlighted by several recent cases where government regulators have
fined or shutdown websites on such charges as "mocking and insulting
state institutions" or slighting the military. Reporters Sans
Frontieres secretary-general Robert Menard charged that the new
"measures fly in the face of the commitments to freedom of expression
that Turkey has made to the European Union. We deplore this seriously
repressive turn by the Turkish regime in this domain."

For more information, visit the RSF website under
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=2214 

===================================================
[5] Jordan jails online dissenter
===================================================
A Jordanian politician who expressed concern over apparent government
corruption has been thrown in prison.

Toujan el-Faisal was Jordan's first-ever female parliament member.
This past March, she wrote an open letter that was published on the
Arab Times website, which is hosted in the United States. In the
letter, she railed against government corruption, saying that it could
damage relations with the Jordanian public. She also claimed that the
country's prime minister had made money off a government decree that
doubled car insurance rates throughout the Middle Eastern kingdom.
Soon afterwards, Jordanian authorities charged her with damaging the
state's reputation and sentenced her to 18 months in prison-a sentence
that cannot be appealed.

Free speech advocates have objected strongly to these moves. Robert
Menard from Reporters Sans Frontieres said his group was "outraged" by
the court's decision and could not accept "the imprisonment of someone
for simply expressing an opinion on the Internet."

An RSF press release on this subject is posted under
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=2213 

Read Julia Scheeres, "Jordan Punishes Net Critic," Wired News, May 17,
2002 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,52631,00.html

===========================================================
[6] Mystery surrounds end to Chinese blocking of news sites
===========================================================
Chinese citizens are now able to access several foreign news sites
that had been blocked by the government. But the reason why the
restrictions have been partially lifted, and how long this new state
of affairs will continue, remains an open question.

For years, Chinese users were prevented to visiting the Internet sites
of CNN, the Washington Post and many others. However, earlier this
month, these constraints were lifted for various selected webpages.
Thus, while cybernauts in the Land of the Dragon are now able to read
the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe
online, they are still not able to view CNN, the BBC or Time Magazine
via the World Wide Web. This development came with virtually no
fanfare from Beijing; so far, the Chinese government has refused to
comment on these changes. 

It is unclear whether this limited respite from web censorship will
last. In October 2001, there was a somewhat similar easing of Internet
restrictions that coincided with an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) meeting being held in Shanghai. The restrictions were put back
into place shortly after the meeting ended.

Meanwhile, the fate of several Chinese citizens who were jailed for
their Internet activities remains in doubt. Huang Qi, for example, was
arrested after he created a website to help the families and friends
of Tiananmen massacre victims. Huang was tried in secret last summer,
and the verdict has still yet to be revealed. Similarly, Wang Jinbo,
who protested against government repression of Tiananmen pro-democracy
activists, remains in prison, where he has been for the past two
years.

For further details and analysis, visit the Digital Freedom Network
(DFN-a GILC member) website under
http://dfn.org/news/china/ban-lifted.htm

Read "News Web site blocks lifted," South China Morning Post, May 17,
2002 at http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/Weekly2002/05.14.2002/China8.htm

See also "China lifts blocks on Net wall," Reuters, May 16, 2002 at
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-915329.html

For more information in Spanish (Espanol), see "China desbloqueo el
acceso a medios extranjeros," Clarin.com, May 17, 2002 at
http://www.clarin.com/tecnologia/notas/2002/05/17/t-388181.htm

For additional details on the Huang Qi and Wang Jinbo cases, read
Vivien Pik-Kwan Chan, "Amnesty says 200 still in prison over June 4,"
South China Morning Post, May 31, 2002 at
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/Weekly2002/05.28.2002/China2.htm

=============================================================
[7] Court refuses to throw out charges in Russian E-Book case
=============================================================
A Russian software company will continue to face criminal charges
based on a controversial United States copyright law.

Elcomsoft is accused of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA), which restricts the right of computer users to circumvent any
program that "effectively controls access" to copyrighted works. Last
year, Elcomsoft employee Dmitry Sklyarov had developed a program that
circumvents the copy protection scheme contained on Adobe Systems
electronic books. He had created the program as part of a project to
allow E-Book readers to view such products on whatever computers they
like. 

Presiding judge Ronald Whyte has refused to throw out the charges
agaist Elcomsoft, claiming that although computer programs should be
treated as speech, the DMCA did not violate free expression
protections because it did not intend to regulate content, but merely
the functioning of a program. Cindy Cohn from the Electronic Frontiers
Foundation (EFF-a GILC member) criticized Whyte's reasoning: "It's as
if the judge ruled that Congress can ban the sale of printing presses,
because the First Amendment right to publish speech was not attacked
directly and quills and ink are still available. What good are the
public's rights if the tools needed to make fair use or access works
in the public domain are illegal?" 

The Elcomsoft trial is expected to begin on August 26, 2002.

An EFF press release on this subject is posted under
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/20020508_eff_elcom_pr.html 

Read Steven Bonisteel, "August 26 Trial Date Set For E-book Cracking
Case," Newsbytes, May 21, 2002 at
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/176704.html

==================================================
[8] Study recommends education, not Net blockers
==================================================
A new report suggests education rather than Internet blocking software
as a better way to protect children online.

The study, entitled "Youth, Pornography and the Internet," was
commissioned by a subunit of the United States National Research
Council. The authors of the paper note that it has been very difficult
to formulate definitions for inappropriate online content without
adversely affecting free speech rights. Furthermore, computer blocking
packages tended to exacerbate this problem: "An approach based on
machine-executable rules abstracted from human judgments inevitably
misses nuances in those human judgments, which reduces the accuracy of
this approach compared to that of humans, while the presumption-based
approach necessarily identifies a large volume of appropriate material
as inappropriate."

In end, the researchers recommended that there should be more
education of minors "about reasons not to access inappropriate
material. ... An analogy is the relationship between swimming pools
and children. Swimming pools can be dangerous for children. To protect
them, one can install locks, put up fences and deploy pool alarms ...
but by far the most important thing one can do for one's children is
to teach them to swim."

The study is available online under 
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309082749/html/

Read "Protecting Kids From Internet Porn," CBSNews.com, May 2, 2002 at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/02/national/printable507863.sht
ml

=================================================
[9] US Congress considers new virtual images ban
=================================================
Politicians in the United States are looking to pass legislation in
response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding virtual
computer images.

The Court had struck down the so-called Child Pornography Protection
Act (CPPA), which included a strict ban on any image that "appears to
be" or "conveys the impression" of someone under 18 engaged in
sexually explicit conduct. This ban applied even in instances where no
model was used and the given picture was completely fictitious. The
high Court held that the Act violated the right to freedom of
expression guaranteed under First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
and that the statute "prohibits speech despite its serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value. The statute proscribes the
visual depiction of an idea-that of teenagers engaging in sexual
activity-that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art
and literature throughout the ages." 

In response, several U.S. politicians have introduced measures that
have apparently strong similarities with the CPPA. One such measure,
which was unveiled by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and a number
of U.S. Congressmen, includes a ban on images that are "virtually
indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct." The U.S. House of Representatives may hold a markup session
for a version of this bill as early as this week. 

The text of the Ashcroft proposal is posted under
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.4623:
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/doj.childporn.bill.050102.html

Read Declan McCullagh, "Round Two on 'Morphed' Child Porn," Wired
News, May 3, 2002 at
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,52285,00.html 

See David McGuire, "Lawmakers Take Another Shot At 'Morphed' Kid
Porn," Washtech.com, May 1, 2002 at
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/176276.html

=================================================
[10] Egypt clamps down on Internet speech
=================================================
The Egyptian government has arrested several individuals after they
each posted materials online regarding various controversial subjects.

In one case, Shohdi Surur published a poem written by his father that
critiqued the country's way of life. Egyptian officials then arrested
and prosecuted Surur, who could be sentenced to 2 years in prison
pending the outcome of his trial. "I'm not scared of the case as
such," explained Surur, "I'm scared of living under a horrendous
violent regime. All of us are being watched all the time. Where is
this leading to?" 

Surur's comments were an apparent reference to government surveillance
efforts against people who wish to express themselves online. Law
enforcement agents have admitted to conducting such operations for
several years. One topic that is sure to attract attention from
Egyptian authorities is homosexuality, which is essentially banned in
the Middle Eastern country through a patchwork of laws, although not
explicitly mentioned. To wit, a website that deals with homosexual
topics has posted the following advisory: "Guess who's watching?
Egyptian State Security!"

See "Busted! Cyberspace-Scouring Cops Accused of Suppressing Online
Expression," Associated Press, May 21, 2002 at
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/egypt_web020521.html 

=================================================
[11] Daniel Pearl video back online
=================================================
An Internet service provider has restored an online video file that
had been taken down at the behest of the United States government.

The file was an unedited video showing the murder of Daniel Pearl, a
Wall Street Journal reporter who had been abducted while working in
Pakistan. It had been posted on ogrish.com, a private website hosted
by a company in the United States. Several weeks ago, the U.S. Federal
Bureau of Investigations (FBI) sent a letter to several Internet
companies, including Pro Hosting, claiming that the file was obscene
and that it could lead to prosecution on criminal obscenity grounds.
Pro Hosting initially talked with ogrish.com's proprietor and removed
the video from public view; however, after consulting with the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU-a GILC member), it decided to
make the controversial file available again. The webhost's owner, Ted
Hickman, commented that his organization had "decided to take the hot
seat in this position, mainly because we and ogrish.com believe
strongly in freedom of speech and freedom of press." He added that the
video was "definitely something that I think people should be able to
view if they choose to."

The decision came as the FBI signaled that, in the words of one ACLU
spokesperson, "they did not intend to put pressure on websites to not
show the video, nor do they intend legal action." Indeed, experts had
questioned whether the file was actually illegal, since Federal
obscenity laws target materials of a sexual nature, rather than the
violence depicted in the video. Moreover, attempts to stifle the
distribution of the file already had been frustrated, as it had become
widely available from many other places along the Information
Superhighway.

Read Declan McCullagh, "Besieged ISP Restores Pearl Vid," Wired News,
May 28, 2002 at
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,52818,00.html

=================================================
[12] Marker trick fools crippled CDs 
=================================================
Think it's tough to break through the copy-protection contained on
compact discs? You might want to think again.

Researchers have discovered that the copy protection schemes of Sony
Music CDs can be bypassed with a few swabs from an ink marker. These
discs are designed to trick computer CD-ROM drives into reading an
extra track of meaningless information, usually at the outer edge,
rather than scanning the music files. It has been reported that this
feature has even caused some computers (especially Macintosh machines)
to malfunction. However, if the meaningless data track is covered over
with ink or even a carefully placed post-it note, the CDs can be
played in computer without a hitch. Some experts claim that this
technique can applied successfully to other so-called "crippleware"
CDs, including non-Sony discs.

These developments come as the United States Congress considers a bill
that would require the installation of copy protection routines within
new consumer electronic products. The bill has heightened public
concern that such schemes will stifle the ability of individuals to
make fair use of copyrighted works. One user quipped, "I wonder what
type of copy protection will come next? Maybe they'll ban markers."

See "Cheap pen cracks 'copy-proof' CD," Reuters, May 20, 2002 at
http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1105-917908.html 

For the text of the United States Congress mandatory copy protection
bill, click
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/hollings.s2048.032102.html

=================================================
[13] Euro data retention decision provokes alarm
=================================================
Critics have savaged the European Parliament's adoption of a law that
permits data retention for police purposes.

A recently approved European Union Directive will allow national
governments to introduce legislation that will (a) require
telecommunications companies to retain traffic and localization data
about their customers and (b) give law enforcement agents access to
this data. The type of information to be collected under this scheme
could include such items as web surfing histories, email trails, fax
logs, credit card numbers with holders' names, callers' and
recipients' names, connection times, chatroom user IDs, and the
geographic locations of individual mobile phones. In the past, such
information could only be retained for billing purposes, then
discarded; under the new rules, the data could be kept for an
indeterminate period. Although the Directive does contain references
to several human rights agreements, it does not require specific
measures be taken to protect those rights. 

The decision came despite heavy opposition from various quarters. The
Global Internet Liberty Campaign issued a letter urging the EP "to
vote against general and exploratory data retention of individuals'
electronic communications by law enforcement authorities. ... Wide
data retention powers for law enforcement authorities, especially if
they were used on a routine basis and on a large part of the
population, could have disastrous consequences for the most sensitive
and confidential types of personal data." Thousands of individual
Internet users from around the world signed on to this letter, while
similar objections were aired by a number of EP members, including
Ilka Schroeder and Marco Cappato. The battle will now shift to the
legislatures of the constituent national governments. Implementation
of the Directive could take two to five years.

For more information, visit the Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC-a GILC member) website under
http://www.epic.org/privacy/intl/data_retention.html

To read a European Commission press release on the EP vote, visit
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&do
c=IP/0 2/783|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=

The aforementioned GILC letter is posted under
http://www.gilc.org/cox_en.html

If you wish to sign the GILC letter, click
http://www.stop1984.com/index2.php?lang=en&text=letter.txt

Read Stuart Millar, "Europe votes to end data privacy," The Guardian,
May 31, 2002 at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,725204,00.html

See "European 'spying' laws savaged," BBC News Online, May 30, 2002 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2016000/2016848.stm

Read "EU vote relaxes e-privacy rules," Reuters, May 31, 2002 at
http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1105-929605.html

Further analysis is available from the Statewatch website under
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/may/15epvote.htm

==========================================================
[14] New US gov't rules may allow massive Internet spying
==========================================================
Despite past mistakes, the United States government officials have
decided to expand their law enforcement powers along the Information
Superhighway.

On May 30, 2002, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft issued guidelines
(effective immediately) on how the Federal Bureau of Investigations
(FBI) and the Justice Department conduct investigations. Among other
things, these revised standards will allow government agents to
monitor Internet postings when there is no evidence that the authors
of the postings are involved in crime. The measures will also permit
FBI and Justice Department officials to buy information from data
mining firms, thereby allowing the government to gather a myriad of
personal information on private individuals. The plan will loosen time
restrictions, thereby allowing the FBI to conduct full investigations
for up to one year even when there is no evidence of a crime.

Many groups have criticized these moves, pointing out that the
now-discarded rules had been created to protect the privacy of
ordinary Americans. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU-a GILC
member) noted that "any time you write a check, use a credit card, buy
something on credit, make department store purchases, surf the web,
use an e-z pass to buy gasoline or pay a toll, the FBI may be
permitted, under the new guidelines, to purchase this information to
build a profile on you. ... This is an invitation for a fishing
operation." 

Ironically, the changes came not long after several documents appeared
revealing that the FBI has already abused its powers by collecting
information on ordinary law-abiding individuals. These papers were
disclosed to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC-a GILC
member), which had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
for materials in connection with the FBI's much-derided Internet
spytool known by its old name, Carnivore. The documents included the
text of an internal FBI email message that revealed how, in one case,
Carnivore managed to gather so much information on innocent parties
that a distraught FBI technician deleted nearly all of the collected
data, including what was relevant to the given investigation. EPIC
General Counsel David Sobel said that the documents "confirm what many
of us have believed for two years-Carnivore is a powerful but clumsy
tool that endangers the privacy of innocent American citizens. Our
FOIA lawsuit shows that there's a great deal about Carnivore that we
still don't know."

To read the new Attorney General guidelines, click
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/

For an ACLU analysis of these guidelines, click
http://www.aclu.org/congress/l053002a.html

Read Julian Borger, "Shamed FBI's snooping powers increased," The
Guardian, May 31, 2002 at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,725155,00.html

See "New FBI Rules Not Welcomed By All," CBS News, May 31, 2002 at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/23/national/main510040.shtml

Read Bill Miller, "Ashcroft: Old Rules Aided Terrorists," Washington
Post, May 31, 2002, page A13 at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34880-2002May30.html

The latest documents regarding Carnivore spyware problems are
available from the EPIC website under
http://www.epic.org/privacy/carnivore/

Read Stefanie Olsen, "Documents reveal Carnivore deficiencies," CNet
News, May 28, 2002 at http://news.com.com/2100-1023-927252.html

See also D. Ian Hopper, "Memo Reveals FBI E-Mail Snafu," Associated
Press, May 29, 2002 at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/29/attack/main510393.shtml

============================================================
[15] US gov't investigates Verichip tracking implants maker
============================================================
The manufacturers of a controversial tracking device designed to be
implanted under a person's skin are now under heightened scrutiny from
United States government regulators.

Verichip--a device that can carry individualized data (such as a
person's name, current condition, medical records and unique
identification number) and is designed to be imbedded under a person's
skin. When a special external scanner is pointed at a Verichip, "a
number is displayed by the scanner" and the stored information is
transmitted "via telephone or Internet." Verichip's maker, Applied
Digital Systems (ADS), is marketing its product for such purposes as
"identification, various law enforcement and defense uses and search
and rescue." Company officials are looking to expand the program to
include Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to allow Verichip
recipients to be tracked via the Internet. 

Privacy advocates had already expressed serious concerns about the
device. As David Sobel from the Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC-a GILC member) pointed out: "The problem here is that you have
something here that is going to be permanently implanted in people,
and once that happens, I think there is going to be a real challenge
to make sure that only that original intended use is made of that
technology."

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has now launched
a probe into whether ADS' activities and claims violated Federal law.
Previously, the FDA had said it would not to regulate Verichips, so
long as the devices were used for identification purposes. However,
ADS then claimed it had received formal FDA approval, and encoded the
first implanted Verichips with medical information (such as the
recipients' allergies to various medications), which provoked the FDA
inquiry.

For the latest details, see Jim Goldman, "FDA Launches Investigation
Into Verichip," Tech TV, May 17, 2002 at
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/TechTV/techtv_verichip_020517.
html

For more on ADS' financial problems, see Joanna Glasner, "Stock Woes
for Chip Implanter," Wired News, May 16, 2002 at
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,52499,00.html

First Verichip under-skin tracking implants performed
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/TechTV/techtv_chipfamily020510.
html

See "Fla. Family Takes Computer Chip Trip," CBS News, May 10, 2002 at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/tech/main508641.shtml

==================================================
[16] Euro regulators probe Microsoft privacy woes
==================================================
European government officials have launched a probe into how the
world's leading manufacturer of computer operating systems handles
user information.

The European Commission probe will focus on Microsoft's .Net Passport
user authentication service, which the company intends to be a central
repository for such personal information as birthdates and credit card
numbers. According to one EC official, "The Commission is...looking
into this as a matter of priority, in concentration with national data
protection authorities, as regards the system's compatibility (or not)
with EU data protection law." The investigation was revealed in a
response to Erik Meijer, a European Parliament member, who had
expressed concern over how difficult it is for individuals to
unsubscribe from Passport and how many websites refused to deal with
non-Passport users. 

The decision was applauded by many privacy and consumer advocates.
Simon Davies from Privacy International (a GILC member) pointed out
that there are "profound implications about the flow of information
across the world and the privacy stakes are too high to allow
Microsoft to control the standard." Indeed, several organizations,
including GILC members the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, the Electronic
Frontier Foundation and Net Action, had filed formal papers with the
United States government regulators regarding the potential
detrimental impact that Microsoft Windows XP could have on individual
privacy. More recently, Microsoft has admitted to a series of security
flaws in its Exchange email and Internet Explorer programs, further
heightening fears that the software giant is not doing enough to
protect its users' personal data.

Read "Microsoft under privacy investigation," BBC News Online, May 27,
2002 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2010000/2010839.stm

See also "MS privacy policies under EU probe," Reuters, May 26, 2002
at http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1105-923035.html

For more background information on Microsoft privacy concerns, visit
the EPIC website under http://www.epic.org/privacy/consumer/microsoft/

See David Becker, "Microsoft Exchange hole 'critical'," CNet News, May
29, 2002 at http://news.com.com/2100-1001-928055.html

See also Robert Vamosi, "Will IE patch open new holes?" ZDNet News,
May 22, 2002 at http://zdnet.com.com/2102-1107-920114.html 

=================================================
[17] US Net privacy bill passes important hurdle
=================================================
A United States comprehensive online privacy standards proposal has
passed an important test.

A U.S. Senate committee has approved the Online Personal Privacy Act,
which, among other things, would require Internet companies to get
prior consent from customers before collecting or disseminating
sensitive personal information about them. This category of data would
include details such as political affiliations, religious beliefs,
ethnicity and medical histories. The legislation would also require
companies to provide "clear and conspicuous notice" to consumers about
their personal data will be handled, and allow users to sue violators
in civil court. 

A number of cyberlibertarians hope that the Act will encourage firms
to their privacy procedures. Lee Tien from the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF-a GILC member) noted the importance of forcing
companies to be held accountable for their online personal data
practices: "One of the basic elements of any kind of privacy
protection is the ability for people to sue or for serious government
agencies to sue and therefore cause the company to really do something
about privacy. Otherwise, it's just words."

See "Bitter battle over online privacy bill," Reuters, May 17, 2002 at
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-916662.html

For background information, see "Hollings puts together Net privacy
bill," CNet News, April 18, 2002 at
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-886679.html

=================================================
[18] Interactive TV privacy fears grow
=================================================
Several recent incidents have privacy concerns among users of
interactive television systems.

One of these incidents involves SonicBlue's ReplayTV, which allows
consumers to record television programs on a hard drive, send them to
friends through the Internet, and fast-forward past commercials.
SonicBlue is fighting a court order that would require the company to
turn over information about the viewing habits of ReplayTV users. The
order came as part of a lawsuit launched by several major media
companies, including AOL Time Warner, Disney, NBC, and CBS, who claim
that the device's adherents are violating copyright laws. 

The ruling drew fierce criticism from privacy groups. The Electronic
Privacy Information Center (EPIC) attorney Megan Gray warned that
"whether unpopular, controversial or sexually explicit, if they knew
that an electronic record would be created, in perpetuity, about their
viewing choices. A person's home is one of the most sacred of private
places. The studios have no right to intrude there to collect data for
their own purposes without the individual's consent." Subsequently, a
Federal judge in the United States overturned the order.

An EPIC friend-of-the-court brief on this subject is available in PDF
format under
http://www.epic.org/privacy/replaytv/amici_brief_eick_order.pdf

To read a SonicBlue press release about the latest ruling, click
http://www.sonicblue.com/company/press.asp?ID=554

Read Tiffany Kary, "Viewing secrets are safe with Sonicblue," CNet
News, June 3, 2002 at http://news.com.com/2100-1040-930548.html

=================================================
[19] US cell phone tracking scheme still on hold
=================================================
A plan to track people using their cellular telephones continues to
meet with delays and frustration.

For several years, the United States government has pushed a scheme
known as "Enhanced 911." Under this scheme, mobile phone companies are
required to install technology allowing government agents to locate
cellular users within 100 meters. The tracking is done by
triangulating the emissions given off by a particular phone between
different signal towers. Service providers who fail to comply with
these rules may face heavy fines.

A number of experts have expressed fears that this new tracking scheme
will seriously erode individual privacy. Meanwhile, numerous technical
headaches and high costs have severely hampered E911 implementation.
Several cellular phone carriers have said that they will not able to
comply with upcoming U.S. Federal Communications Commission deadlines,
and at least one firm has suggested that it may be forced to abandon
their E911 network altogether.

Read Ben Charny, "Last chance for E911 technology," CNet News, May 29,
2002 at http://news.com.com/2100-1033-928153.html

=========================================================
 ABOUT THE GILC NEWS ALERT:
========================================================= 
The GILC News Alert is the newsletter of the Global Internet Liberty
Campaign, an international coalition of organizations working to
protect and enhance online civil liberties and human rights. 
Organizations are invited to join GILC by contacting us at
gilc@gilc.org.

To alert members about threats to cyber liberties, please contact
members from your country or send a message to the general GILC
address.

To submit information about upcoming events, new activist tools and
news stories, contact:

Christopher Chiu
GILC Coordinator
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10004
USA

Or email:
cchiu@aclu.org

More information about GILC members and news is available at
http://www.gilc.org

You may re-print or redistribute the GILC NEWS ALERT freely.

To subscribe to the alert, please send e-mail to
gilc-announce@gilc.org

with the following message in the body:
subscribe gilc-announce

========================================================
PUBLICATION OF THIS NEWSLETTER IS MADE POSSIBLE BY A
GRANT FROM THE OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE (OSI)
========================================================


------- End of forwarded message -------


-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: debate-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: debate-help@lists.fitug.de