[ ... ]

Sometimes described as an " American Civil Liberties Union for nerds," the Electronic Frontier Foundation was launched in 1990 by an illustrious group of Internet pioneers troubled by what they considered to be the government's clueless, ham-handed efforts to police the new medium. "Nobody was thinking about extending the Constitution into cyberspace," recalls co-founder Mitchell Kapor, the wealthy Lotus software mogul. Who but computer scientists would argue that binary code is a form of speech entitled to First Amendment protection?

To high-tech pros and policy wonks, the EFF is well-known for its opposition to the regulation of encryption. Hollywood and the publishing industry know it as the loyal opposition in battles over digital copy law, which the EFF believes is so restrictive that it frustrates innovation. "What we're working on is really cutting-edge stuff to protect the rights of everyone, even if they don't realize the significance of it," says EFF executive director Shari Steele.

Non-nerds may more easily grasp the EFF's unyielding interpretation of First Amendment freedoms and the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. It has poured resources into protecting the rights of scientists and journalists to publish online. It defends the right to make anonymous postings online, insofar as the posters honor laws governing libel and trade secrets. In defending its principles, the EFF may seem to casual observers to be bent on making the world a safer place for computer hackers, copyright pirates, cowardly commentators and people who think happiness is a warm Aibo robot puppy.

(When Sony complained that Web sites set up by Aibo owners to share programming tricks were infringing on its copyright, the EFF took up the hobbyists' cause.) But the organization now sees itself on the front line of the debate over security in the age of terror, and it is only too happy to have its dissenting voice heard amid the clamor.

Its assessment of the USA Patriot Acct (an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) has been especially critical. Terrorism, says EFF legal director Cindy Cohn, has been used to justify a law enforcement power grab that threatens fundamental freedoms. Had the same surveillance and wiretap laws existed a year ago, she argues, they would not have prevented the terror attacks on Sept. 11--and now Americans are shouldering the burden of intelligence failures of federal authorities.

"The civil liberties of ordinary Americans have taken a tremendous blow, especially in the right to privacy," Cohn says in a 20-page legal analysis of the Internet and computer crime sections of the Patriot Act that was distributed to more than 100 civil liberties groups. "Be careful what you put in that Google search. The government may now spy on Web surfing of innocent Americans . . . by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is 'relevant' to an ongoing criminal investigation."

(The judge may not reject the request; his role is simply to issue and record it.)

This is a good article be sure and give it a read.

[Privacy Digest]

ditto

10:23:35 AM •  • comment