The Freedom Bulletin

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.

In the past few days, the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) have gone from looking like they had a good chance of passing to, at least for now, quite the contrary. Both SOPA in the House and PIPA in the Senate would target foreign websites accused of enabling piracy by forbidding advertisers and payment processors from doing business with them, as well as allowing Internet service providers to block access to them. SOPA would require search engines not to list such sites, while PIPA would allow copyright holders to request court orders shutting down access to websites accused – without proof – of hosting pirated content.

Big business groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce support the two bills, while major websites, understandably, tend to oppose them, as do libertarian-leaning people.

On Wednesday numerous websites, including Wikipedia, Google, Craigslist, Reddit, Amazon, WordPress, Mozilla, and Wired, went dark (to various extents) to protest the bills. Various public figures, including 83 of the original architects of the Internet, expressed their opposition to SOPA and PIPA. The outrage spread throughout social media, to the streets, and to congressional offices’ phone lines and inboxes, thanks to the protests organized by tech companies and websites dedicated to Internet freedom, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, NetCoalition, Black Out SOPA, Stop American Censorship, and more.

But some more unlikely people stood up for Internet freedom as well. Earlier in the week, the White House expressed its opposition to the bills in a press release, saying, ”any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity.” Additionally, at least 10 senators and 20 representatives publicly announced their opposition to the legislation, some of whom were previously co-sponsors. They include senators Jim DeMint (R-SC), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Marco Rubio (R-FL), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and John Boozman (R-AK), as well as Representatives Rick Larsen (D-WA), Ben Quayle (R-AZ), Dennis Ross (D-FL), and Lee Terry (R-NE). Verizon, Netflix, GoDaddy, and Verizon also withdrew their support.

Furthermore, all four candidates in last night’s Republican presidential debate said they opposed SOPA and PIPA. Rick Santorum was the least enthusiastic, expressing his opposition to the bills as written but saying, “The Internet is not a free zone where people can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people.” Newt Gingrich called the proposed laws “exactly the wrong thing to do,” and Mitt Romney called them “too intrusive” and said, “I’m standing for freedom.” Ron Paul said he was the first house Republican to oppose the laws and added, “The Republicans, unfortunately, have been on the wrong side of this issue.”

This means that SOPA, at least for now, will not face a vote in the House. The Senate is still planning to vote on PIPA on Tuesday, but they may not have the necessary 60 votes, and any bill that passes may well be vetoed by Obama.

Having been in the pro-liberty minority many times on various issues, I think it’s great to see so many mainstream websites and organizations, and the public at large, take the right side (in my opinion) in this debate on Internet freedom. The New York Times called it “a moment when the new economy rose up against the old.” USA Today says, “Score one for tech geeks up in arms.” And Ron Paul proclaimed during the debate, “Freedom and the Constitution bring coalitions together, and this is a good example.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The day after widespread protests against overzealous anti-piracy bills (which I will blog about in detail tomorrow), seven of the owners and operators of popular file-storage site MegaUpload.com were indicted on federal charges of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and money laundering. According to Reuters…

“Although the sites they operate advertised that they provide personal storage for users’ content, the indictment claims they actually trafficked in hosting television shows and movies — often offering them to users before their official release.

‘Members of the Mega Conspiracy are aware of the way that their sites are actually used by others; have themselves used the systems to upload, as well as reproduce and distribute, infringing copies of copyrighted content; and are aware that they have financially benefited directly from the infringement of copyrighted works that they are in a position to control,’ the indictment reads.”

It seems like the owners of the site were targeted not just because their site poses opportunities for copyright infringement by users, but because they themselves committed copyright infringement. But it is still a bad thing for liberty when a site that is popular and useful to law-abiding people is now shut down because of federal law enforcement. Anonymous, apparently, agrees with me on this point. The anti-authoritarian hackers’ group took down the U.S. Department of Justice website for a while tonight and, it seems, the FBI, RIAA, and MPAA websites as well.

Today Congress began holding hearings on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) (its counterpart in the Senate is the PROTECT IP Act). All around the web, various websites and organizations joined together to raise awareness and opposition to this bill, which would really make a dent in the freedom and usefulness of the Internet. According to CNN…

“If SOPA passes, copyright holders would be able to complain to law enforcement officials and get websites shut down. The law would also force intermediaries like search engines and payment processors to withhold their services from targeted websites.

That would be quite a change from the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which mandates that companies ‘act in good faith’ to remove content that infringes on copyrights and other intellectual property laws.”

According to AmericanCensorship.org, SOPA would enable websites to be shut down for mere links to copyrighted material posted by third-party users, and would make it a felony to stream a copyrighted work valued more than $2500. I would definitely recommend contacting your congressman through their site (or with your own message) to make sure this law doesn’t pass.

For more information and views, check out:

• Letter from AOL, eBay, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Mozilla, Twitter, Yahoo, and Zynga (PDF)
• EFF blog post
• Ars Technica article

On Thursday, a federal court in Virginia ruled that Twitter had to turn over users’ private information to a grand jury investigating possible federal crimes involving WikiLeaks. This ruling affirmed a magistrate judge’s decision in March, which WikiLeaks volunteers Birgitta Jonsdottir, Jacob Appelbaum, and Rop Gonggrijp appealed, with help from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union.

It is unclear exactly what data people will no longer have the right to keep private, but it most likely includes IP addresses, email and mail addresses, login and logout times, and possibly private messages. The federal government now, according to Judge Liam O’Grady’s ruling, has the right to access this information without a warrant by issuing what is called a 2703 order. These orders have a lower standard of proof  than probable cause: the government must only have “reasonable grounds” that the information is “relevant and material” to an investigation. The judge’s reasoning was that the WikiLeakers had agreed to Twitter’s privacy policy, which warns that the site could turn over data to law enforcement.

The court also ruled that the 2703 orders can remain secret, denying the WikiLeakers’ request to unseal these documents so that they can find out which other websites, in addition to Twitter, have received similar orders.

It’s not a good thing for freedom when a court rules that people’s private information cannot remain secret, but government orders for people’s private information can. I couldn’t have said it better than Jonsdottir, who called the ruling “a huge backward step for the United States’ legacy of freedom of expression and the right to privacy.”

In somewhat related news, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s mother, Christine Assange, spoke to Green Left Weekly about her son’s legal trials and tribulations, alleged WikiLeaks source Private Bradley Manning, the relationship between Australia and the US, and her plans to protest President Obama’s visit to the Australian parliament. I really admire how she is so outspoken and supportive of her son.

Read the full ruling (PDF)