[FYI] (Fwd) GILC Alert

["Axel H Horns" <horns@ipjur.com>]

------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	Chris Chiu <CCHIU@aclu.org>
To:             	gilc-announce@gilc.org
Subject:        	GILC Alert
Date sent:      	Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:59:28 -0400

GILC Alert
Volume 6, Issue 6
12 September 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] China blocks Google, Altavista search engines
[2] Greek court throws out game ban case
[3] BT weblinks patent suit fizzles 
[4] Vietnam pushes harsh Internet restrictions
[5] Chinese & Korean Net music sites face legal woes
[6] Britain ponders tough new Net copyright rules
[7] Protest site decries weblink bans
[8] Egyptian Net poster faces jail time
[9] Corporate parody website hit with trademark threats
[10] Anti-DMCA lawsuit centers on Net blocking software
[11] Internet becomes key free speech outlet in Iran

Privacy
[12] Canadian plan to make Internet spy-friendly
[13] Recording giants seek Net provider's help to spy on customer [14]
War of words over Euro data retention plans [15] Microsoft settles
Passport privacy case with U.S. gov't [16] New Bulgarian telecom law
may have privacy implications [17] Surprise US spy court ruling
criticizes gov't officials [18] Ukrainian Net provider license plan
worries privacy advocates [19] DoubleClick settles U.S. multistate
privacy probe [20] US university official job-shifted over web
break-in [21] New reports document erosion of online privacy [22] US
gov't refuses to issue new mobile phone privacy rules 

[23] New GILC member: Reporters Sans Frontieres

==================================================
[1] China blocks Google, Altavista search engines
==================================================
Beijing has apparently launched a new wave of repression online, by
banning web portals and jailing dissidents.

Chinese officials have blocked two popular Internet search engines,
Google and Altavista. While the Chinese government had already denied
access to many sites (such as the BBC) that contain political
discussions or other material it deemed taboo, this is believed to be
the first time Beijing has barred portals, which merely provide
weblinks to such information. Chinese users who tried to access Google
or Altavista were diverted to other sites. Robert Menard of Reporters
Sans Frontieres (RSF-a GILC member) noted that Chinese authorities
"were already in the habit of using surveillance, censorship or the
outright elimination of overly critical web sites, but the blocking of
a search engine sets a surprising and very worrying precedent."
Similar concerns have been expressed by other groups, including Human
Rights Watch (HRW-a GILC member), which wrote a letter urging both
companies "to continue to resist the Chinese government's censorship
pressure as a violation of internationally recognized rights of free
expression." Some experts worry that Google or Altavista will follow
in the footsteps of Internet giant Yahoo, which signed a
self-censorship agreement that has been derided by free speech
advocates. Meanwhile, at least one mirror website of Google, elgooG,
has been created to help circumvent the new ban. In the latest
development, Chinese officials have apparently removed blocks on
Google, but the ban on Altavista remains in place.

Meanwhile, fears are growing over the fate of 2 Internet dissidents.
Chinese authorities have confirmed that they have detained Wan Yanhai,
who ran the Chinese AIDS Action Project website and had written
numerous online articles about China's HIV victims. One of his
articles documented a scandal involving government-supported health
clinics in the northern province of Henan, where many peasants became
infected with the virus after selling their blood. These and other
newsitems drew the ire of the Chinese government censors, who have
discouraged reports on HIV-related subjects in the past. In addition,
the Chinese government sentenced Li Dawei to 11-years in prison for
downloading "counterrevolutionary" essays from the Web, storing them
on his computer and printing them into books. He also used e-mail and
other methods to communicate with associates abroad. 

These events come as a new report suggests that mainland Chinese
officials so far "have been relatively successful" in their efforts to
suppress Internet speech. The study (entitled "You've Got Dissent!")
analyzes "the political use of the Internet by Chinese dissidents ...
and the counterstrategies that Beijing has employed to prevent or
minimize its impact."  The report goes on to state that "[n]o credible
challenges to the regime exist at present, despite the introduction of
a massive modern telecommunications infrastructure."

For the latest details on the Google and Altavista bans, visit the
Digital Freedom Network (DFN-a GILC member) website under
http://dfn.org/news/china/google2.htm

To read the HRW letter concerning the Google and Altavista bans, click
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/09/china0907.htm

For RSF comments on the Chinese Google ban, click
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=3621

Read Peter S. Goodman and Mike Musgrove, "China Blocks Web Search
Engines," Washington Post, 12 September 2002, page E1 at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5510-2002Sep11.html

See "Altavista tries to beat Chinese ban," BBC News Online, 12
September 2002 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2251533.stm

Read Stefanie Olsen, "China blocks search engine AltaVista," 9
September 2002 at http://news.com.com/2100-1023-957154.html

See also "China criticised for ban on Google," BBC News Online, 5
September 2002 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2238236.stm

Read Will Knight, "Google mirror beats Great Firewall of China,"
NewScientist.com, 6 September 2002 at
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992768

For more on the Yahoo self-censorship controversy, read Jim Hu, "Yahoo
yields to Chinese web laws," CNet News, 13 August 2002 at
http://news.com.com/2102-1023-949643.html

For information in German (Deutsch), see "Yahoo! Wird Aussenstelle der
China- Stasi," Spiegel Online, 11 August 2002 at
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,209065,00.html

For RSF's criticism of the Yahoo self-censorship agreement, click
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=2959

The Chinese AIDS Action Project website is located at
http://www.aizhi.org/

For further information about the Wan Yanhai case, visit the Committee
to Project Journalists (CPJ-a GILC member) website under
http://www.cpj.org/news/2002/China05sept02na.html

For more on the Li Dawei case, visit the DFN website under
http://dfn.org/news/china/lidawei.htm

The report "You've Got Dissent!" is available (in PDF format) via
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1543/

Read "China Dissidents Thwarted on Net," Associated Press, 27 August
2002 at http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,54789,00.html

=================================================
[2] Greek court throws out game ban case
================================================= 
A Greek court has dismissed a case against two men charged with
violating a new law that bans the public playing of electronic games.

They were charged under a measure that was passed nearly two months
ago. While it was supposedly adopted as an anti-gambling move, the law
does not make any distinction between gambling and computer games.
Indeed, the Greek Government has applied the ban to gaming on
computers and consoles (including Playstation and Xbox) in cybercafes
and other public places. The two individuals in question had been
arrested for allegedly permitting people play the computer game
Counter-Strike. If convicted, they could have spent several months in
prison and been forced to pay nearly 5000 EUR in fines. 

The ban has enraged many cyberlibertarians, who fear that the law will
be used as a pretext for government oppression. The Greek Internet
Cafe Union noted in a statement that, in theory, "the police can
arrest you if you are using your PC for playing games or if your
employer catches you playing chess or backgammon on Yahoo."
Comparisons have also been drawn to 1970s police actions against
people who played cards at home. An online petition against the
legislation has garnered over 25 000 signatures to date. In addition,
several hundred protestors appeared outside the courtroom in
Thessaloniki on the day of the ruling and chanted "No to censorship on
the Internet." 

For more information about the petition against the Greek computer
gaming ban, click
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?comp5932

Read Matt Loney, "Greek gaming law defeated in court," CNet News, 11
September 2002 at http://news.com.com/2100-1040-957519.html 

See "Court allows Greek gamers to play on," BBC News, 10 September
2002 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2249656.stm

For press coverage in German (Deutsch), read "Gericht: Spieleverbot
verstosst gegen die Verfassung Griechenlands," Heise Online, 11
September 2002 at
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/daa-11.09.02-000/

See also "Greeks fight computer game ban," BBC News Online, 5
September 2002 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2238242.stm

===============================================
[3] BT weblinks patent suit fizzles
===============================================
A United States court has thrown out British Telecom's claims that it
owns all weblinks.

The company had alleged in a lawsuit that it possessed intellectual
property rights over all links, based on a patent it filed in the
1970s. The communications giant had demanded licensing fees from
American Internet service provider Prodigy, and had hoped to launch
more lawsuits in the hopes of collecting additional royalties.
However, presiding judge Colleen McMahon rejected BT's arguments and
cited several portions of the patent that did not gel with the
realities of the Information Superhighway. For example, the patent
described a central computer, in stark contrast to the decentralized
nature of the Internet. Similarly, "Web pages stored on Prodigy's Web
servers do not contain 'blocks of information' or 'complete addresses'
as claimed in the Sargent patent." 

BT's attempts to collect weblink-based royalties had run into numerous
problems from the outset. Skepticism about the company's chances for
success were further fueled by a video filmed in 1968 (several years
before BT said it developed the technology) showing Stanford
researchers demonstrating weblinks. There is no word yet on whether
firm will appeal the ruling.

See Matt Loney, "Hyperlink patent case fails to click," CNet News, 23
August 2002 at http://news.com.com/2100-1033-955001.html

Read "BT loses weblinks battle," BBC News Online, 23 August 2002 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2212203.stm

For further information in German (Deutsch), read "US-Gericht sieht in
Nutzung von Hyperlinks keine Patentrechtsverletzung," Heise Online, 23
August 2002 at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hod-23.08.02-000/

===============================================
[4] Vietnam pushes harsh Internet restrictions
===============================================
Vietnamese officials have unveiled a multi-faceted plan that may
significantly restrict online free speech.

The Vietnamese ministry of culture and information is considering a
proposal that could force cybercafes to meet more stringent licensing
requirements. Heavy penalties apparently would be imposed on the
proprietors of such establishments if their customers visited various
taboo Internet sites, including webpages with anti-government
material. The scheme also calls for the ministry of public security to
draw up a list of websites to be blocked by state-owned Vietnam Data
Communications, the country's sole Internet gateway.

The plan is just the latest in a series of moves by Vietnamese
authorities to stifle criticism along the Information Superhighway.
During the past year, the Vietnamese government has thrown several
online dissidents behind bars, including Le Chi Quang, Son Hong Pham
and Tran Khue. Officials in the Southeast Asian country recently
confirmed that Le, who wrote an essay that described the political
environment in which several Chinese-Vietnamese treaties were signed,
will soon be tried on charges that he violated national security.

See "Vietnam to crack down on net access," Guardian Unlimited, 16
August 2002 at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,775745,00.html

For further background information, visit the Reporters Sans
Frontieres (RSF-a GILC member) website under
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=1288

=====================================================
[5] Chinese & Korean Net music sites face legal woes
===================================================== 
Lawsuits concerning two Asian music-sharing websites have raised
public concern over how copyright laws restrict Internet free speech.

In one case, the Recording Industry Association of America, which
lists AOL Time Warner, RCA, Vivendi Universal and Sony Music among its
members, charged that Listen4ever.com, which was hosted in mainland
China, was violating copyright laws. However, rather than go after the
webpage's operator, it launched legal actions against a number of
United States Internet service providers (ISPs), including AT&T
Broadband, Cable & Wireless and Sprint, hoping to force the ISPs to
block Listen4ever. The lawsuit was later withdrawn after the website
closed down. Many cyberlibertarians feared that the dispute might have
a strongly negative impact on freedom of expression along the
Information Superhighway. In a statement, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF-a GILC member) warned that the RIAA's legal action
"sought to establish a precedent that anyone alleging piracy could
shut down access to parts of the Internet, resulting in inappropriate
shutdowns, undue administrative burden for ISPs, and imperiling the
basic principle of unfettered exchange of information on the
Internet."               

Meanwhile, a controversial Korean service used for trading music files
is operational once more, albeit in an altered form. Soribada (which
means "sea of sound") was created by two Korean brothers and allowed
users to trade MP3 music files with each other via a central website.
Soribada has since altered its approach, releasing new peer-to-peer
software that allows users to swap music online without having to go
through a central server. The move came after a copyright lawsuit by
the Recording Industry Association of Korea; a court subsequently
fined the brothers and essentially ordered them not to use their
servers for file-trading purposes. The ruling was greeted with dismay
by cyberliberties groups, including Jinbonet, which argued that such
trading should be legal in light of its non-profit and private nature.
It is unclear whether Soribada's new direct peer-to-peer trading
system is a violation of Korean copyright laws. 

An EFF statement on the Listen4ever legal dispute is posted under
http://www.eff.org/Infra/20020821_eff_riaa_pr.html

Read Lisa M. Bowman, "ISPs off the hook in swapping suit," CNet News,
21 August 2002 at http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954782.html

Read Kim Deok-hyun, "Soribada Reopens Music Sharing Service," Korea
Times, 25 August 2002 at
http://www.hankooki.com/kt_tech/200208/t2002082517182345110.htm

For background information, see Kim Deok-hyun, "Online Music Fans
Challenge Ruling," Korea Times, 15 July 2002 at
http://www.hankooki.com/kt_tech/200207/t2002071519543645110.htm

==================================================
[6] Britain ponders tough new Net copyright rules
==================================================
Concerns are growing over whether British plans to implement a
controversial European Community copyright directive will hurt freedom
of expression online.

The British government has issued a public consultation paper that
proposes amending national laws to conform with an EC directive on the
"Harmonization of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in
the Information Society." The changes would limit copying and
redistribution of many types of digital information, although there is
an exclusion for computer software and databases (which are already
specifically covered by current legal standards). Another amendment,
which has drawn comparisons with the United States Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, would bar possession or use of devices that could
circumvent copyright protection. Other amendments would permit marking
of digital works, allowing copyright holders to track such material
along telecommunications networks. The scheme would also turn some
copyright violations into criminal (rather than civil) offences.

In an analysis commissioned by GreenNet, a node of the Association for
Progressive Communications (APC-a GILC member), cyberlaw expert Paul
Mobbs suggests that the proposal may seriously interfere "with the
traditional 'fair dealing' provisions that restrict copyright over
certain types or quantities of information. It also potentially
affects academic and journalistic freedoms to quote and critically
review information, and would apply to any artistic or literary works
that are produced in a digital format." In addition, the proposal's
"wide definition of 'circumventing copyright protection'" could apply
to more than just "anti-copying measures" and could lead to the
prosecution of researchers or people who merely possess "tools that
have a 'dual use' potential to circumvent copyright." Mobbs also
points out that the amendments may have strong anti-privacy
implications because they allow copyright owners "further rights ...
to track the use of their intellectual property via electronic
networks. ... [U]nder the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998, this
data could be traded with other organisations if there was some sort
of assent to the transfer as part of the acceptance of the license. It
would therefore be available for use as part of data profiling."

The British government consultation paper is available under
http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/eccopyright/index.htm

Comments on the consultation paper should be sent before 31 October
2002 to copyright@patent.gov.uk

Paul Mobbs' analysis is posted at
http://www.fraw.org.uk/docs/consultation_review.html

===============================================
[7] Protest site decries deep weblink bans
===============================================
A new Internet site has been created to protest restrictions on the
creation on a certain type of weblinks.

Dontlink.com is the brainchild of David Sorkin, an associate professor
at Chicago's John Marshall Law School. It documents numerous
organizations that have attempted to ban Internet links to underlying
webpages (instead forcing users to go through the front page of a
given site). Dontlink.com includes many so-called deep links to the
websites of these organizations, notably the International Trademark
Association, Disney, United States National Public Radio, Matsushita
and Motorola.  Sorkin says he created the site "in part as a reaction
to Newsbooster and similar cases. But I've really focused more on
sites that don't seem to have any plausible reason for wanting to
restrict links in other words, that are doing so out of mere
ignorance." 

Sorkin was referring to a Danish court ruling that barred Newsbooster
from providing deep links to individual Danish newspaper articles. In
a separate legal battle, German court likewise has ruled that
Newsclub, a German news search service, had violated the EU Database
Directive by including deep weblinks to a German newspaper site.

Read "Web site flouts linking bans," CNet News, 21 August 2002 at
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954612.html

See Michelle Delio, "Deep Linking Takes Another Blow," Wired News, 25
July 2002 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,54083,00.html

===============================================
[8] Egyptian Net poster faces jail time
===============================================
The fate of an Internet activist who republished a politically charged
poem on the World Wide Web remains in doubt.

Shohdy Naguib Surur was webmaster and writer for an Egyptian
English-language newspaper, Al-Ahram Weekly. His father had written a
sexually-tinged poem (entitled "Ummiyyat") that heavily criticized the
Egyptian government in the wake of the 1967 Six-Day War with Israel.
Shohdy later posted Ummiyyat on a website (www.wadada.net) hosted in
the United States. He was then arrested and convicted of having
"immoral booklets and prints;" barring a successful appeal, he could
spend a year in jail.

The case has drawn the attention of free speech advocates worldwide,
including Russia, where Shohdy was born and lived for many years. One
Russian cyberlibertarian, Nastik Gryzunova, noted that the case
"brings up the issue of the international laws and the Internet,
because the server where the poem is published is the hosted in the
U.S. These problems are topical not just for Russia or Egypt, and we
hope the international Internet community will support Shohdy Naguib."

The text of the poem is available via
http://www.wadada.net/surur/ummiyyat/index.html

See Hani Shukrallah, "Phantoms of liberty," Al-Ahram Weekly, 4
September 2002 issue at
http://web1.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/601/op9.htm

Read Sergei Kuznetzov, "Father's Poem, Son's Conviction," Wired News,
5 August 2002 at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,54027,00.html

Further information is available from the Independent Media Center
under
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=201371&group=webcast

========================================================
[9] Corporate parody website hit with trademark threats
======================================================== 
A popular webpage that lampooned the failures of several major
corporations was temporarily closed down after being hit with legal
threats.

Fuckedcompany.com contains numerous articles about mass layoffs,
dot-com disasters and other news about firms that are in serious
trouble. The site included a special section about firings at Ford
Motor Company that was entitled "Ford, where finding a job is job 1,"
an apparent parody of the company's advertising slogan, "Ford, where
quality is job 1." The firm sent a cease-and-desist letter to Phil
Kaplan, the site's creator, claiming that he had engaged in trademark
infringement. Kaplan, the site's creator, removed the phrase from its
website, but posted the letter with weblinks and added commentary. The
automobile giant then threatened to sue Kaplan's Internet service
provider, Hostcentric, which shuttered the webpage. The site has since
gone back online, but only after various changes were made to appease
Ford. 

The case has further fueled concern over the apparent misuse of
intellectual property laws to silence criticism along the Information
Superhighway. Kaplan himself has noted that in many such instances,
even if the claims are frivolous, corporations can often win because
they possess greater resources than their critics: "The whole
(problem) is that if you do a search on Ford and copyright lawsuit,
you'll find a million examples of Ford doing this. If you're a company
that size you can do anything you want in the world."   

See Paul Festa, "Dot-com dead pool brakes for Ford," CNet News, 26
August 2002 at http://news.com.com/2100-1023-955447.html

============================================================
[10] New anti-DMCA lawsuit centers on Net blocking software
============================================================ 
A much-debated United States copyright statute and a widely-used
computer program that blocks controversial Internet material are the
targets of a new lawsuit.

The case focuses on a blocking package manufactured by N2H2 that is
used by thousands of public schools and governmental agencies in the
U.S. More recently, N2H2 launched a bid to provide Saudi Arabia with
its services to help censor out information on such topics as religion
and public health. Harvard University student Ben Edelman, who was
investigating the extent to which N2H2's program prevents access to
sites on the Information Superhighway, feared that his activities
might run afoul of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),
as well as N2H2's license, which warns users not to "copy or make any
changes or modifications to the software" or to "decrypt, decode,
translate, decompile, disassemble or otherwise reverse engineer the
software." These fears came in light of several incidents where
various industry-related groups, such as technology giant
Hewlett-Packard, had threatened computer researchers with DMCA-related
legal action.

He has since filed papers asking a U.S. Federal court to declare that
he has a right to examine N2H2's blocking program and "to share his
research tools and results with others." Edelman, who is being
represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU-a GILC
member), believed that "the public has a right to know what is being
blocked, and I believe I have a right to uncover this information
without being subject to a corporate lawsuit." When asked for comment,
a spokesperson for N2H2 said that a lawsuit against Edelman was "not
something we would rule out." 

An ACLU press release on the Edelman N2H2 lawsuit is available at
http://www.aclu.org/news/2002/n072502a.html

For more about Harvard University research on blocking programs
worldwide, click http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/

Read Declan McCullagh, "On trial: Digital copyright law," CNet News,
25 July 2002 at http://news.com.com/2102-1023-946266.html

For more on Hewlett Packard's recent DMCA threats, read Declan
McCullagh, "HP backs down on copyright warning," CNet News, 1 August
2002 at http://news.com.com/2102-1023-947745.html

=====================================================
[11] Internet becomes key free speech outlet in Iran
=====================================================
Opposition leaders in Iranian have turned to the Internet in the hopes
of getting their message across without government interference.

For years, the country's rulers have practiced censorship for years to
help maintain their grip on power, banning many newspapers and jailing
dozens of reporters. These efforts have intensified since 1997,
especially after Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called
pro-reform journals "bases of the enemy." However, a number of
publications that have been banned in paper form, such as Bonyan and
Norouz, have now been made available through the World Wide Web.
Iranian lawyer, Ahmad Akhlaghi, explained: "Having a news-based Web
site is much easier than opening a newspaper, the Internet is vaguely
mentioned in the press law, but opening a site does not require
official permission." A journalist further added: "Hard-liners
normally closed the reformist sites on their 100th publication to put
more economic pressure on the publisher. But the sites don't have such
problems and most of the jobless journalists now work for them." 

Unfortunately, there are signs from state-run media that censorship of
the Information Superhighway may not be long in coming. One of these
publications called for harsh restrictions on Internet reporting,
complaining that independent news sites "spread lies and it seems
there is no control over them." 

See "Iran reformers use Net to fight press ban," Reuters, 5 August
2002 at http://news.com.com/2102-1023-948403.html

=================================================
[12] Canadian plan to make Internet spy-friendly
================================================= 
The Canadian government is considering a proposal that critics say
will seriously erode privacy online.

The proposal was contained in a Consultation paper that was publicly
released in late August 2002. The paper outlines the form of future
laws, such as a general requirement for telecommunications companies,
including Internet service providers, to make their systems
"intercept-capable," as well as procedures making it easier for
customer data to be kept and then accessed by law enforcement
officials. The paper also calls for "the establishment of a national
database" with information about every Internet and telecommunications
user in Canada. In addition, the document would expand the
government's ability to intercept Internet traffic information (which
would ostensibly include such details as webpage addresses, email
headers and even the geographic locations of mobile phone users) under
relatively weak evidentiary standards previously used for phone
numbers. These ideas are expected to form the core for new legislation
to be considered by the Canadian Parliament within the coming months.

Not surprisingly, the draft has caused a wave of protests from the
Internet community, especially from privacy advocates. For example,
Gus Hosein from Privacy International (a GILC member) attacked the
database provisions as "a dumb idea. Immediately you have to wonder if
you're allowed to use anonymous mobile phones or whether you're
allowed to connect to the Internet anonymously." Michael Geist, a law
professor at the University of Ottawa, noted that "there's nothing in
the document that indicates (new powers) are needed. I don't know that
there have been a significant number of cases where police have run
into problems."

The Access Consultation document is available (in PDF format) under
http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/la_al/law_access.pdf

Comments on the Consultation paper can be emailed (no later than 15
November 2002) to la-al@justice.gc.ca

To read a University of Toronto dossier on this subject, click
http://www.law.utoronto.ca/c-36/program.htm

Read Declan McCullagh, "Will Canada's ISPs become spies?" CNet News,
27 August 2002 at http://news.com.com/2100-1023-955595.html


==================================================================
[13] Recording giants seek Net provider's help to spy on customer
==================================================================
Several major record labels are pressuring a major United States
Internet service provider (ISP) to divulge personal information about
one of its subscribers.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has requested
data concerning a customer of telecom giant Verizon. The RIAA alleges
that the individual in question had engaged on copyright infringement
through peer-to-peer music file trading over the Internet. The
Association claims it has the power to gather such information under
the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) even though it has
not actually filed a lawsuit yet. The cited DMCA provision essentially
says that copyright owners can request a U.S. Federal court to
subpoena "information sufficient to identify the alleged infringer"
from a "service provider."

The RIAA's efforts have met with opposition from privacy advocates. A
dozen organizations, including GILC members Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the
Electronic Privacy Information Center, filed a friend-of-the-court
brief charging that "the statute never intended to reach a situation
in which the allegedly infringing material resides on the user's own
computer rather than a computer owned or controlled by the ISP." The
groups also warned the cited DMCA section fails to include
Constitutionally "established safeguards for protecting the anonymity
of Internet speakers who have not been shown to have engaged in any
prohibited conduct." Additionally, the coalition suggested that, given
the entertainment industry's growing use of spyware and automated
sending of subpoena notices, a ruling in favor the RIAA might change
the Internet "a forum for the free exchange of ideas and information
into a virtual surveillance state."  

The amicus brief is available via
http://www.eff.org/Cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/20020830_eff_amicus.html

See John Borland, "ISPs gird for copyright fights," CNet News, 9
September 2002 at http://news.com.com/2100-1023-957023.html

Read Jonathan Krim, "A Story Of Piracy And Privacy," Washington Post,
5 September 2002, page E1 at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38034-2002Sep4.html

Read Declan McCullagh, "Watchdogs rap RIAA's file-trade assault," CNet
News, 30 August 2002 at http://news.com.com/2102-1023-956176.html

Press coverage in German (Deutsch) is available in "US-Musikindustrie
will Provider zur Herausgabe von Kundendaten zwingen," Heise Online,
22 August 2002 at
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-22.08.02-002/

===============================================================
[14] War of words over Euro data retention plans
=============================================================== 
Controversy has arisen over a European proposal for the retention of
telecommunications traffic and location data.

Statewatch, a civil liberties news and research group, recently
uncovered a proposal that would have required telecom companies to
retain traffic data for at least 1 year (the maximum would be 2
years). Under this "draft framework decision," which was created by
the Belgian presidency of the European Union in November 2001, law
enforcement agents throughout the EU would then be allowed to access
this information for investigations of a variety of crimes. The data
that could be collected under this plan would include web surfing
habits, email header information, callers' and recipients' names, and
the geographic locations of individual mobile phones. While the
proposal does mention that the "confidentiality and integrity" of such
information must be protected, it does not provide specific standards
or rules for doing so. Statewatch editor Tony Bunyan branded the
proposal "a move from targeted to potentially universal surveillance.
EU governments claimed that changes to the 1997 privacy directive
would not be binding on member states-each national parliament would
have to decide."

In a press release, the Danish presidency of the EU has denied
Statewatch's accusations, claiming that they were based on
"fundamental misunderstandings." The release went on to say that there
"are no further proposals on the table regarding retention of traffic
data, and the Danish Presidency is not engaged in drafting any such
proposals." The statement did refer to a June 2002 proposal, which
urges the establishment of "binding rules on the approximation of
Member States' rules on the obligation of telecommunications service
providers" to keep traffic and location information, but says that
such rules must conform with various European privacy laws. In
addition, the Danish presidency has issued a data retention-related
questionnaire to all EU governments; the results of this survey are
expected to be discussed at an EU expert group meeting on next week. 

These developments come just a few months after the European
Parliament approved a Directive (2002/58/EC) allowing national
governments to introduce legislation that will (1) require telecom
companies to retain customer traffic and location data and (2) give
law enforcement agents access to this data. EU member states are
supposed to comply with this Directive (which does not require uniform
standards across national borders) by October 2003. Indeed, at a
national level, data retention legislation has become the subject of
heated debate in several EU countries, including Great Britain and
Switzerland. 

To read the Danish presidency's response to Statewatch's statements,
as well as Statewatch's rebuttal of the Danish presidency release, see
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/aug/05datafd2.htm

The draft framework decision is available at
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/aug/05datafd.htm

The June 2002 proposal is posted (in PDF format) under
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/aug/10358en2.pdf

The questionnaire is available (in PDF format) under
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/aug/11490-r1.pdf

To read the text of the aforementioned Directive (in PDF format),
click http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/st03/03636en2.pdf

For an extensive dossier on data retention issues, visit the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC-a GILC member) website
under http://www.epic.org/privacy/intl/data_retention.html

See "Privacy fears over EU snooping plans," BBC News Online, 20 August
2002 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2204909.stm

Read Richard Norton-Taylor and Stuart Millar, "Privacy fear over plan
to store email," The Guardian, 20 August 2002 at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/netprivacy/article/0,2763,777574,00.html

For more on Swiss data retention proposals, see Jakob Greber, "Swiss
surveillance catches up with email," Swissinfo, 21 July 2002 at
http://www2.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=111&sid=1192676

=============================================================
[15] Microsoft settles Passport privacy case with U.S. gov't
============================================================= 
The world's leading provider of computer operating systems has settled
a privacy complaint with United States government regulators.

In an agreement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC),
Microsoft has agreed to make several changes in the way it handles
personal data. Among other things, the agreement prohibits Microsoft
from misrepresenting its information practices (through its privacy
statements, for example). The company is also required to "establish
and maintain a comprehensive program ... that is reasonably designed
to protect the security, confidentiality and integrity of personal
information collected for and about consumers." Additionally,
Microsoft will have to undergo independent third-party security audits
within one year, and on a biannual basis thereafter. 

The settlement came after several organizations, including GILC
members the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation and Net Action, had filed formal papers with the FTC
regarding the potential detrimental impact that Microsoft Windows XP
might have on user privacy, especially its .Net Passport user
authentication service, which the company intended to be a central
repository for such personal information as birth dates and credit
card numbers. The FTC subsequently found that Microsoft had failed in
many respects "to maintain a high level of online security by
employing sufficient measures reasonable and appropriate under the
circumstances to maintain and protect the privacy and confidentiality
of personal information ... in connection with the Passport and
Passport Wallet services." EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg
commented that the settlement was "a very big development," and noted
that the "FTC has essentially agreed with us, the privacy
organizations, as to our original petition." He also suggested that
there should be ongoing evaluation of the company's privacy practices:
"We're just, in fact, at the beginning of the FTC's oversight of
Microsoft's online services."

The settlement agreement is posted (in PDF format) at
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/08/microsoftagree.pdf

An FTC press release and the Commission's complaint are available via
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/08/microsoft.htm

For the latest details, see Joe Wilcox, "Microsoft beefs up Passport
security," CNet News, 2 September 2002 at
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-956246.html

Read Henry Norr, "Microsoft gets slapped on security," San Francisco
Chronicle, 9 August 2002, page B1 at
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/09/BU134000.DTL

See Ted Bridis, "Microsoft Reaches 'Passport' Settlement," Associated
Press, 8 August 2002 at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/08/tech/printable518014.shtml

For more of Mr. Rotenberg's remarks, see Joe Wilcox, "Microsoft, FTC
reach privacy settlement," CNet News, 8 August 2002 at
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-948922.html

=============================================================
[16] New Bulgarian telecom law may have privacy implications
=============================================================
A recently released draft Bulgarian law may have a serious impact on
cyberliberties, especially the right to privacy.

Bulgarian Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC) has published
a new draft Telecommunications Act. Among other things, the new scheme
would implement licensing procedures for Internet service providers
(ISPs). Several sections of the plan would permit the government
easier access to users' personal information. For example, one section
empowers the Ministry of the Interior to dictate data caching
requirements, ostensibly for surveillance purposes. Another broadly
worded section allows a state Committee for Regulation of
Communications (CRC) to demand any information from ISPs that is
"necessary for the performance of its regulatory functions," with
little or no restrictions on how the CRC may use such information. In
addition, CRC officers would be allowed to "search rooms in which are
kept evidences of performed administrative violations." 

Many observers fear this plan will open the floodgates to massive
surveillance of the Internet-concerns that were confirmed by a highly
critical analysis prepared by sources from the Bulgarian Internet
Society and Veni Markovski, the local coordinator of the Global
Internet Policy Initiative. These critics have noted the plan would
constitute a reversal of a 1999 decision by the Bulgarian Supreme
Court, which had previously barred a somewhat similar licensing scheme
due to fears that it would violate the European Convention on Human
Rights. Additional concerns have been raised over the secretive nature
with which the proposal was drafted. Moreover, some experts have
expressed doubts as to whether the proposed law is in accord with the
Bulgarian Constitution.

The MTC website is located at
http://www.mtc.government.bg

For further information in Bulgarian, click
http://portal.bg/news.php?cat=main&read=20022108002
http://portal.bg/news.php?cat=main&read=20022108001
http://portal.bg/news.php?cat=main&read=20022108003

=============================================================
[17] Surprise US spy court ruling criticizes gov't officials
============================================================= 
United States government officials have received a stunning rebuke
over their surveillance efforts.

For the first time in its nearly 20 years of existence, the U.S.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has released an opinion to the
public. In its decision, the Court lashed out at the U.S. government
for various "misstatements and omissions" contained in more than 75
search warrant and wiretap applications.  The Court also held that
Federal officials had engaged in improper intelligence "information
sharing and unauthorized disseminations to criminal investigators and
prosecutors," and the procedures for such information sharing were
"not reasonably designed" to protect privacy rights.

The ruling came in regards to foreign intelligence gathering
guidelines for Federal officials. The U.S. Justice Department had
argued in favor of rules changes that would allow investigators to
conduct surveillance operations and get search warrants under looser
foreign intelligence standards, even if the primary purpose of the
wiretapping or search is not to collect foreign intelligence. Under
this theory, law enforcement agents could make use of such standards
so long as foreign intelligence gathering was merely a "significant"
purpose. The court disagreed and required Federal officials, among
other things, to "ensure that law enforcement officials do not direct
or control the use of the FISA procedures to enhance criminal
prosecution." 

U.S. officials have since appealed the ruling to a secret appeals
court, which only heard arguments from the government's perspective.
The move drew serious criticism from a number of experts. Ann Beeson
of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU-a GILC member) warned:
"Hearing a one-sided argument and doing so in secret goes against the
traditions of fairness and open government that have been the hallmark
of democracy." Previously, a coalition of groups, including GILC
members the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Center for
Democracy and Technology and the ACLU, had sent a letter requesting
the opportunity to file amicus curiae briefs with the court in this
case.

To read the text of the opinion (in PDF format), click
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/fisa_opini
on.pdf

To read the aforementioned coalition letter (in PDF format), click
http://www.aclu.org/court/FISA_appeal_ltr.pdf

An ACLU press release regarding the secret appeals court is posted at
http://www.aclu.org/news/2002/n090902b.html

See "Federal Spy Court Blasts FBI, Justice," CBS News Online, 23
August 2002 at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/23/attack/printable519606.shtml

Read Dan Eggen and Susan Schmidt, "Secret Court Rebuffs Ashcroft,"
Washington Post, 23 August 2002, page A1 at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51220-2002Aug22.html

For further information in German (Deutsch), read "Gericht verweigert
Staatsanwalten Zugriff auf Geheimdienstaden," Spiegel Online, 23
August 2002 at
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,210689,00.html


===================================================================
[18] Ukrainian Net provider license plan worries privacy advocates
=================================================================== An
upcoming plan to require Ukrainian Internet providers to help provide
information about their users has left many observers concerned about
the future of online privacy.

Under a December 2001 Presidential Decree "On the Implementation of
the Decision of the National Security and Defense Council," the
Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers must draft a proposal that will place
new burdens on Internet service providers (ISPs). Among other things,
ISPs will be required to collect and store traffic data about their
customers for 6 months. Providers would also have to monitor domestic
Internet content. These conditions would have to be met in order to
obtain government licenses.

A number of civil society groups, such as Privacy Ukraine (a GILC
member), fear that the draft statute will not include sufficient means
to protect citizens from unnecessary government intrusions online.
They point out that the proposal is just one in a series of political
developments that may have a detrimental impact on individual privacy.
For example, a Ukrainian Draft Statute on Telecommunications obliges
ISPs to implement, at their own expense, technical means for the
interception of electronic communications. At the same time, Ukrainian
Parliament did not adopt a proposed Data Protection Statute or
otherwise perform much oversight regarding law enforcement wiretapping
practices.

For further information, email
privacy@ukrnet.net

=======================================================
[19] DoubleClick settles U.S. multistate privacy probe
=======================================================
An Internet advertising giant is promising to let consumers know more
about the information it compiles about them.

Several years ago, DoubleClick admitted to tracking viewers through
the Internet by placing digital identification numbers in files known
as "cookies" on a user's hard drive, which it matches with name and
address information that has been collected by its partners. Despite
initial claims to the contrary, DoubleClick expressed its intention to
match this data with more extensive information contained in millions
of files maintained by its merger partner Abacus Direct. DoubleClick
later shelved its data-matching plan after a storm of public
criticism.

These revelations led to a whole host of investigations by several
governmental entities in the United States, including 10 U.S. state
attorney generals. In a settlement of the state attorney general
probes, DoubleClick has agreed, among other things, to create a
"cookie viewer" to allow Internet users to see what categories
DoubleClick has put them in ("classification of a User's browsing
activities, for purposes of ... Ad serving, into types of inferred
interests or behaviors). However, there is no specific deadline for
such a viewer to implemented, and it is unclear whether the viewer
will permit users to see their complete DoubleClick personal
information files. The company will also pay a fine of US $450 000.

A New York State Attorney General press release on the settlement is
posted (in PDF format) at
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2002/aug/aug26a_02_attach.pdf

See Joanna Glasner, "DoubleClick to Open Cookie Jar," Wired News, 27
August 2002 at http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,54769,00.html
   

For further information in German (Deutsch), read "DoubleClick einigt
sich mit US-Justiz (Update)," Heise Online, 27 August 2002 at
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/tol-27.08.02-001/

See also Robert O'Harrow Jr., "Web Ad Firm to Limit Use of Profiles,"
Washington Post, 27 August 2002, page E1 at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64716-2002Aug26.html

==========================================================
[20] US university official job-shifted over web break-in
==========================================================
The website of a prominent United States university has suffered a
breach of security, apparently caused by employees at a rival
institution.

Princeton University has admitted that staff from its admissions
department used information collected from applicants, such as Social
Security numbers, birth dates and last names, to break into the
website of Yale University. Yale had created a special encrypted
webpage for freshman hopefuls that included financial aid letters,
student interests and other personal data. The Yale webpage
specifically contained a warning that "no one but the applicant should
make use of this online facility. ... Yale considers this information
to be confidential and will investigate and act on any violation of
its intended use." Nevertheless, Stephen LeManger, Princeton's
director of admissions, and several other people in his division used
collected from applicants, many of whom had also applied to Yale, to
log into Yale's admission site. Princeton employees reportedly managed
to access the admissions accounts of about a dozen students, including
Lauren Bush, a niece of United States President George W. Bush. 

These unauthorized accesses came to light after an off-hand comment by
a Princeton official at a conference of various American universities.
Yale responded by launching an investigation and notifying the U.S.
Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). In light of these revelations
and its own internal probe, Princeton has transferred LeMenager to
another department, and its president has apologized over the
incident. The results of the FBI investigation have yet to be
released.

See "Princeton officials punished for breaching Yale's Web site," San
Francisco Chronicle, 14 August 2002, page A2 at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/08/14/MN92526
.DTL 

Read Pamela Ferdinand and Michael Barbaro, "Yale Tells FBI of Rival's
Breach of Web Site," Washington Post, 26 July 2002, page A2 at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2983-2002Jul25.html

See also "Top US colleges in hacking row," BBC News Online, 26 July
2002 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2153287.stm

==============================================================
[21] US gov't refuses to issue new mobile phone privacy rules
==============================================================
For the time being, a United States government panel has refused to
create new rules to protect the privacy of cellular phone customers.

Over the past few years, the United States government had pushed a
plan known as "Enhanced 911." Under this scheme, mobile phone
companies must 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. 

Many groups fear that this new tracking scheme will seriously erode
individual privacy, especially in light of various ambiguities in the
relevant statutes. A number of these organizations, including GILC
members the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for
Democracy & Technology, urged the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission to issue rules to avoid confusion and to enhance cellphone
user privacy. However, a majority of the FCC refused to do so. This
decision drew a strong dissent from Commissioner Michael Copps. He
charged that "fears of more invasive and dangerous misuses of location
information" had the "potential to undermine consumer confidence in,
and use of, location services, or to exposure consumers to both
annoyances and dangers, if left unaddressed. ... Customers will shy
away from services if they think that the privacy of something as
sensitive as their location is up for grabs."

The FCC order is available (in PDF format) under
http://www.epic.org/privacy/wireless/FCC_order.pdf

====================================================
[22] New reports document erosion of online privacy
====================================================
Several recent studies suggest that privacy rights along the
Information Superhighway are being severely undermined worldwide. 

One of these studies, commissioned by Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF-a
GILC member), charged that many nations have become "predators of
digital freedoms." In particular, the report, entitled "The Internet
on probation," notes how "Western democracies ... have adopted laws,
measures and actions that are poised to put the Internet under the
tutelage of security services," resulting in an erosion of "basic
cyber-freedoms." Meanwhile, "countries usually criticised for not
respecting human rights and freedom of expression-such as China,
Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia-have become schizophrenic about the
Internet. They have encouraged its growth as a tool of state
propaganda or economic interests, but at the same time moved to
control it and clamp down on criticism, argument and hopes for
democracy expressed online."

Another report, jointly written by GILC members the Electronic Privacy
Information Center and Privacy International, similarly documents an
apparent trend toward "increased communications surveillance and
search and seizure powers; weakening of data protection regimes;
increased data sharing; and increased profiling and identification.
While none of the above trends are necessarily new; the novelty is the
speed in which these policies gained acceptance, and in many cases,
became law." The 392-page survey describes how "specific
anti-terrorism measures have been introduced in Australia, Austria,
Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Singapore, Sweden, the United
Kingdom and the United States."

The RSF report is posted (in PDF format) at
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/doc-1259.pdf

The EPIC/PI privacy report is available under
http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2002/

Read Ciar Byrne, "Anti-terrorism measures 'threaten web freedom,'"
Guardian Unlimited, 6 September 2002 at
http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,7496,786913,00.html

See "Predators of Digital Freedoms," Associated Press, 5 September
2002 at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/tech/main520928.shtml

See also "Terror laws 'eat away at privacy,'" BBC News Online, 6
September 2002 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2237050.stm

=================================================
[23] New GILC member: Reporters Sans Frontieres
=================================================
The Global Internet Liberty Campaign has welcomed a new member into
the fold: Reporters Sans Frontieres. Founded in 1985, RSF has worked
intensively over the past several years to defend press freedom
throughout the world, including online journalism. They have launched
several projects to document attacks on the press, including "Enemies
of the Internet," which contains country-by-country descriptions of
how governments in many parts of the world have tried to limit free
speech along the Information Superhighway. In addition, RSF has fought
against censorship of journalists through such methods as sending
protest letters, systematically reproducing censored articles, and
hosting banned newspapers.

Visit the RSF homepage at
http://www.rsf.fr

=========================================================
     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