The Freedom Bulletin

Joel Tenenbaum, who was ordered to pay $675,000 for copyright infringement, was dealt a blow today as the Supreme Court declined (PDF) to grant him certiorari, meaning they will not hear his case.

The cause of this whole mess was, of course, Tenenbaum’s “offense” of downloading 31 songs. A jury of his peers – and I still find this hard to believe – came up with the $675,000 award. U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner reduced the damages to $67,500, but the First Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the bigger sum and sent the case back to the district court… only using a process called remittitur which, basically, allows the plaintiffs (the record companies) to hold a new trial if the judge cuts the damages again.

In their petition to the Supreme Court, Tenenbaum’s lawyers, including Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson, sharply criticized the ruling and the companies behind it: “This pernicious interpretation of the Copyright Act transforms every bit of cyberspace into a potentially exploding lawsuit and is sparking the development of a spam-litigation industry.”

Additionally, Tenenbaum’s lawyers wrote that record companies wanted to punish their client, “beyond any rational measure of the damage he conceivably caused, not for the purpose of recovering compensation for actual damage caused by him, nor for the primary purpose of deterring him from further copyright infringement, but for the ulterior purpose of creating an urban legend so frightening to children using the Internet, and so frightening for parents and teachers of students using the Internet, that they will somehow reverse the tide of the digital future.”

In what was probably a bittersweet moment, Tenenbaum just received his PhD in statistical physics from Boston University on Sunday. For his part, he told WCVB, “The idea I should be liable for the cost of a nice house for sharing 30 songs is absurd.”

I agree with him. This punishment does not fit the crime (or, more accurately, the civil offense). A study cited by Tenenbaum’s team showed that the average teenager illegally downloads 800 songs, making them liable for up to $120 million in damages.

As Greg Sandoval at CNET points out, the decision is not surprising because the SCOTUS declines the vast majority of certiorari requests. The case is still likely to go on and on.

Read Tenenbaum’s petition for certiorari at Ars Technica.

Additional sources: AP, Boston.com, NY Times, and Wired

And as always, to support Tenenbaum and/or learn more about the case, visit Joel Fights Back.

As Congress is debating CISPA – the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act – the Obama administration has, surprisingly, come out strongly against the bill. Although not (yet) as high-profile or as widely opposed as SOPA or PIPA, CISPA poses similar threats to privacy. According to Tech Dirt and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it would allow companies to collect and monitor basically any of your communications and share them freely with the government or with other companies, as long as they meet the very vague definition of “cybersecurity threats.”

From a statement (PDF) by the Office of Management and Budget:

“The American people expect their Government to enhance security without undermining their privacy and civil liberties. Without clear legal protections and independent oversight, information sharing legislation will undermine the public’s trust in the Government as well as in the Internet by undermining fundamental privacy, confidentiality, civil liberties, and consumer protections.”

I was pretty surprised that the Obama administration opposed SOPA and PIPA, and I’m glad that they have the same opinion of CISPA. It is a pleasant surprise that the White House values privacy and civil liberties when it comes to Internet security. If only they could have the same values about airport security, jail security, and health care…

The Internet is a great thing. It allows people to find information about almost anything without having to go to a library or bookstore, and allows people (like me!) to express their views who otherwise would not be able to. But that can actually be a bad thing, as many recent tweets about George Zimmerman illustrate.

Unsurprisingly, when Zimmerman was released on bail last night, hordes of angry, often not very intelligent people took to Twitter to proclaim things like, “Ima kill zimmerman myself,” and “I WOULD KILL DA SHYT OUTTA DAT ZIMMERMAN DUDE IF I SAW HIS ASSS,” and “Start Writing Your Will! Justices Has Not Been Served.” *

And those are among the milder ones.

Continue reading…

The Boston Phoenix recently did an interesting front-page article about the police investigation into the “Craigslist killer” case three years ago. Among the most noteworthy (and creepy) things that came out in the article was the Boston Police Department’s subpoena of presumed (although never actually found guilty in court) killer Philip Markoff’s Facebook account.

The documents sent to the cops include all the wall posts that Markoff made, all the photos he uploaded or was tagged in, a list of his friends, and all of the times he ever logged in and IP addresses he used. What makes it even worse is that, if the Markoff case is any example, subpoenas don’t just invade the privacy of the person under investigation, they also reveal information about that person’s friends, who most likely have nothing to do with the suspected crime.

As Chris Matyszczyk at CNET points out,

“The joy of Facebook — for those who find it joyous — is that it provides a vehicle for the sheer spontaneity of communication. You want people to make contact with your life, your friends, your happenings, your feelings, even. You want them to do it as soon as possible.

However, it’s not like normal human spontaneity, which can dissipate and become a memory. It’s recorded.”

Facebook does not notify users when their information is subpoenaed, nor is it even willing to say how many subpoenas it has received or responded to over the years. In other words, law enforcement could be poring through your Facebook data right now, and you wouldn’t even know it.

If a military board gets its way, Sgt. Gary Stein will receive an “other-than-honorable” discharge from the Marine Corps just months before his enlistment is set to end. He will lose all of his military benefits, will be banned from re-enlisting or even entering a military base, and his reputation will be forever tainted. What did he do to deserve this? He criticized President Obama on Facebook. According to the New American:

Stein attracted the scrutiny of his superiors after he created an “Armed Forces Tea Party” group on Facebook in 2010. According to prosecutors, he used the group to post “contemptuous” comments and images of Obama — including a picture of the President superimposed on the “Jackass” movie poster…

Stein also used his Facebook account to blast Obama as a “coward” and an “economic and religious enemy” of America, according to the prosecutor. He allegedly sold “Nobama” bumper stickers from a personal website, too.

Military policy bans soldiers from publicly making partisan political comments or expressing contempt for the Commander-in-Chief. But Sgt. Stein’s lawyers argued that his comments were protected by the First Amendment because they were made in his personal capacity as opposed to him speaking on behalf of the military. He posted while off duty, and the Facebook page contained a disclaimer stating that the Armed Forces Tea Party is not affiliated with the military.

“Think about how dangerous this could be if the U.S. government can prosecute you for something you say on your private Facebook page,” said his lawyer, Capt. James Baehr. “How can we expect Marines to participate in citizenship if they cannot join political discussions?”

He makes a good point. I believe that people should be able to work at the job that they choose without having to sacrifice their First Amendment rights. Of course there can be some limits to what employers allow their employees to post via social media. It is justifiable for an employee to be fired for divulging confidential information or publicly criticizing their co-workers or bosses. If Sgt. Stein had used Facebook to criticize the soldiers he worked with, then it would make sense for him to be dishonorably discharged. Similarly, it would make sense for him to be fired if he was working as a personal advisor to Obama, or for his re-election campaign, and made the anti-Obama comments that he made. But with the exception of people who work in an explicitly political job, everyone should be able to express their political views without retribution from their employer. What a person does on their own personal time is not their employer’s business. This definitely includes the soldiers who help to defend the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

On Friday, Ryan Harris, the author of the book Hacking the Cable Modem: What Cable Companies Don’t Want You to Know, was convicted of seven counts of wire fraud in Boston’s federal court. The government argued that by providing information about how to modify cable modems, and by selling modified modems, he was part of a scheme to deprive  Internet service providers of revenue.

His defense team argued that the information and modems he provided, although they can be used to gain free Internet service or bypass bandwidth limits, also have many legal uses. As the Globe‘s Milton Valencia explained, the case focused on the question of whether Harris should be held responsible for what others chose to do with the information and products he provided. Apparently, the jury’s answer was yes.

Harris faces up to 20 years in jail and a $250,000 fine for each count.

While I agree with the government that it’s not good to gain Internet access for free while others have to pay for it, or to get more bandwidth than you paid for, it would be unjust for ISPs to filter what type of content their customers are allowed to view, so I see no problems with using technology to get around those types of limits. In any case, I believe that only the individuals who actually did the hacking or modifying of modems should be held accountable. It should not be considered illegal to merely provide information or products that can be used for illegal purposes, as this could apply to nearly any product, service, or information. What people choose to do with the information they receive or products they buy is up to them.

The European Commission is considering a law that would greatly strengthen online privacy and restrict companies’ ability to track and store people’s Internet activity without their knowledge or consent. According to the New York Times:

Europe is considering a sweeping new law that would force Internet companies like Amazon.com and Facebook to obtain explicit consent from consumers about the use of their personal data, delete that data forever at the consumer’s request and face fines for failing to comply.

The proposed data protection regulation from the European Commission, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, could have significant consequences for all Internet companies that trade in personal data, whether it is pictures that people post on social networks or what they buy on retail sites or look for on a search engine.

The regulation would compel Web sites to tell consumers why their data is being collected and retain it for only as long as necessary. If data is stolen, sites would have to notify regulators within 24 hours. It also offers consumers the right to transport their data from one service to another — to deactivate a Facebook account, for example, and take one’s trove of pictures and posts and contacts to Google Plus.

This kind of law is exactly what not just Europe but the entire world needs. Companies should not be allowed to collect vast amounts of data, which they keep indefinitely, about people’s most private activities, when people are neither aware that this information will be seen by anyone but themselves, or given any true choice in the matter. As a country that was founded on the idea of individual rights, America should be paying as much attention as Europe does, if not more, to the right of each person to use the Internet while also maintaining their privacy.