EFFector Vol. 19, No. 42 November 15, 2006 editor@eff.org

A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
ISSN 1062-9424

In the 403rd Issue of EFFector:

* NSA Spying, DRM Bills Returning in Lame Duck Congress?
* Judge to Consider Next Steps in AT&T Case
* E-Voting Problems in Tight Florida Race
* Brief Urges Supreme Court to Tackle Secret Law
* Landmark Education DMCA Case Update
* Help Bust Two Bad Patents!
* Homeland Security to "Target" Millions in Data-Mining
System
* Sun Releases Java Under GPL
* Nominate a Pioneer for EFF's 2007 Pioneer Awards!
* miniLinks (8): Universal CEO: Pirates Are to Pirate
Ships, as Fans Are to iPods
* Administrivia

For more information on EFF activities & alerts:
<http://www.eff.org/>

Make a donation and become an EFF member today!
<http://eff.org/support/>

Tell a friend about EFF:
http://action.eff.org/site/Ecard?ecard_id=1061

effector: n, Computer Sci. A device for producing a desired
change.

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* NSA Spying, DRM Bills Returning in Lame Duck Congress?

On Election Day, Americans fired many members of Congress
who wanted to rubberstamp the NSA's illegal surveillance
program. But before newly-elected representatives can take
office and defend your rights, the president wants to sneak
through spying legislation -- including a proposal that
could threaten cases like EFF's lawsuit against AT&T.

Lawsuits against the telephone providers may provide the
best chance to stop the spying program, and no one should be
let off the hook for such blatant violation of the law. Yet
members of Congress are now pushing legislation that
purports to immunize telephone companies and other
corporations that illegally collaborated with the
government's spying program.

This week, EFF and other plaintiffs in cases related to the
spying program urged Congressional leaders to oppose these
immunity proposals:
<http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/NSA/fisabills/telcom_immunity_letter.pdf>

For more on EFF's case against AT&T:
<http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/>

Meanwhile, Variety's Multichannel News reports that the
telecommunications reform bill hangs in limbo after last
week's election and is unlikely to be at the forefront in
the next Congress. The Senate's version had been home to the
broadcast and audio flag digital rights management (DRM)
mandates, so Hollywood and the recording industry may have
to seek new ways to sneak through restrictions on your
digital television and radio devices next year.

But this year's fight isn't over yet -- there might be one
last push for these proposals in the lame duck session, as
Public Knowledge's Gigi Sohn points out in a recent blog
post. If the entertainment industry tries attaching the
proposals to appropriations bills, it won't be the first
time.

Regardless, we can expect these dangerous DRM mandates to
rear their ugly heads in some form next year.

For this post and more related links:
<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004998.php>

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* Judge to Consider Next Steps in AT&T Case

EFF to Fight Against Spying Case Delays in Friday Hearing

San Francisco - On Friday, September 17, at 10:30 a.m., a
federal judge in San Francisco will consider the next steps
in EFF's class-action lawsuit against AT&T.

EFF's suit accuses the telecom giant of collaborating with
the National Security Agency (NSA) in illegal spying on
millions of ordinary Americans. Other cases recently
transferred to U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's
courtroom include similar allegations.

The U.S. government has intervened in EFF's case, contending
that even if the NSA program is illegal, the lawsuit should
be dismissed because it might expose state secrets. Last
week, the U.S. government asked the judge to halt all
proceedings until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
rules on motions to dismiss the case.

Friday's case management conference will address how EFF's
suit and the other class-action cases might go forward
without implicating the state secrets privilege and what
discovery should proceed during the appeals process.

For more information about attending the hearing, please
contact press@eff.org.

WHAT:
Hepting v. AT&T and other NSA telecommunications records
lawsuits

WHEN:
Friday, November 17, 10:30 a.m.

WHERE:
450 Golden Gate Ave., Courtroom 6
San Francisco, CA 94102

For more on EFF's case against AT&T:
<http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/>

For this release:
<http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#005003>

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* E-Voting Problems in Tight Florida Race

According to vote tallies, more than one in eight voters did
not select a candidate in Sarasota County, Florida's
Congressional race. Seems fishy, no? Sadly, problems with
electronic voting machines may be responsible for the
undervote, and, in a race separated by a mere 373 votes,
design flaws might be the difference maker. Voters in that
county chose last week to scrap the machines in favor of
paper ballots by 2008, but that can't remove the shadow e-
voting machines cast over this election.

For our initial report on this race:
<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004993.php>

For the Orlando Sentinel's recent update on the race:
<http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-voterprobs1206nov12,0,6657404.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-state>

Of course, Sarasota isn't the only close race impacted by e-
voting machines. Down over 7,000 votes to Democratic
challenger Jim Webb, Virginia Senator George Allen conceded
the race without a recount, but the fact remains that a full
and thorough recount wasn't even possible. The majority of
Virginia counties use touchscreen voting machines, and most
of those counties use machines that do not generate voter-
verified paper ballots. Instead of creating anything truly
useful for officials to recount, the machines simply
reproduce data that is already in memory, in effect
reprinting the results rather than recounting ballots in any
meaningful sense.

Read more about e-voting in Virginia:
<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004996.php>

Those are just some of the many e-voting problems in
Election 2006. Hopefully, they demonstrate once and for all
that reform is needed to make sure every vote counts -- take
action now to protect your right to vote:
<http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=109>

For more on e-voting in this election:
<http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#004991>

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* Brief Urges Supreme Court to Tackle Secret Law

Americans Have the Right to See Laws They Must Follow

San Francisco - EFF and a coalition of non-profit
organizations asked the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to hear a
case challenging a secret law governing travelers in
American airports.

The case centers on the Transportation Security Agency (TSA)
requirement that travelers show identification before
boarding commercial aircraft. So far, the TSA has refused to
disclose the terms of the identification requirement to the
public, claiming that they are "sensitive security
information." In the amicus brief urging the Supreme Court
to hear Gilmore v. Gonzales, EFF demonstrates that Congress
never intended agencies to have unfettered discretion to
impose requirements upon the public without allowing the
public to review them.

"The TSA is allowed to withhold some information from the
public, but only in cases where transportation security is
at risk," said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "Simply
showing Americans the rules they must follow can't possibly
compromise security. The real danger here is meaningless
secrecy, which can hide security flaws, frustrate the
justice system, create confusion, and undermine government
accountability."

The Constitution and laws like the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) prohibit the government from imposing secret laws
on the public. But if the lower court decision permitting
the secrecy is allowed to stand, it opens the door to other
government agencies creating undisclosed rules and
regulations without oversight.

"'Security' shouldn't be a magic password allowing the
government to escape accountability," said Hofmann. "The
Supreme Court should hear this case and review why the TSA
insists on keeping this basic information secret."

The amicus brief was also signed by the American Association
of Law Libraries, American Library Association, Association
of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy and Technology,
National Security Archive, Project on Government Secrecy of
the Federation of American Scientists, and Special Libraries
Association.

For the full amicus brief:
<http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/gilmore_v_gonzales/gilmore_amicus.pdf>

For this release:
<http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#005000>

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* Landmark Education DMCA Case Update

EFF recently announced that it was fighting against Landmark
Education's campaign to identify individuals who posted a
French documentary, entitled Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux
Gourous (Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus), that was
critical of the Landmark program and included hidden camera
footage from inside a Landmark Forum event in France.

EFF is currently talking with Landmark in an attempt to
reach an amicable resolution about Landmark's Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) subpoena to Google. In the
hope that we can resolve this without need of litigation,
EFF has held off on filing its motion to quash that
subpoena.

In the mean time, Landmark responded to our press release,
according to Red Herring magazine:

"While we appreciate the work of the EFF, the allegation
that our copyright claim is bogus is entirely inaccurate,"
[Art Schreiber, general counsel for Landmark Education]
said. "The facts are clear that the Landmark Forum program
has for many years been copyrighted. Materials covered by
this copyright registration were included throughout the
video."

While we appreciate the kind words, we disagree with Mr.
Schreiber's copyright analysis. To the extent that the
documentary includes any materials copyrighted by Landmark,
that use is clearly for purposes of criticism and
commentary, i.e., a non-infringing fair use. Yesterday we
released a draft of our motion to quash, which explains in
detail why Landmark's copyright claim does not hold water.
Indeed, it's not even a close call. Sorry, Landmark, but
your claim is still bogus.

For this post and related links:
<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004994.php>

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* Help Bust Two Bad Patents!

EFF's Patent Busting Project fights back against bad patents
by filing requests for reexamination against the worst
offenders. We've successfully pushed the Patent and
Trademark Office to reexamine patents held by Clear Channel
and Test.com, and now we need your help to bust a few more.

A company called NeoMedia has a patent on reading an "index"
(e.g, a bar code) off a product, matching it with
information in a database, and then connecting to a remote
computer (e.g., a website). In other words, NeoMedia claims
to have invented the basic concept of any technology that
could, say, scan a product on a supermarket shelf and then
connect you to a price-comparison website. To bust this
overly broad patent, we need to find prior art that
describes a product made before 1995 that might be something
like a UPC scanner, but which also connects the user to a
remote computer or database. Take a look at the description
and please forward it to anyone you know who might have
special knowledge in this area:
<http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/prior.php?p=neomedia>

You can send your prior art tips in here:
<http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/contribute.php?p=neomedia>

Also in our sights is a patent on personalized subdomains
>from Ideaflood. For example, a student named Alice might
have personalized URL "http://alice.university.edu/" that
redirects to a personal directory at
"http://www.university.edu/~alice/." Ideaflood says that it
has a patent on a key mechanism that makes this possible. We
need prior art that describes such a method being used
before 1999, specifically using DNS wildcards, html frames,
and virtual hosting. Prior art systems might have existed in
foreign ISPs, universities, or other ISPs with web-hosting
services. You can find the prior art description here:
<http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/prior.php?p=ideaflood>

And please send tips in here:
<http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/contribute.php?p=ideaflood>

For more on the Patent Busting Project:
<http://www.eff.org/patent/>

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* Homeland Security to "Target" Millions in Data-Mining
System

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently published
a notice in the Federal Register disclosing the existence of
a "new system of records" -- the Automated Targeting System
(ATS) -- that assigns "risk assessments" to millions of U.S.
citizens who seek "to enter or exit the United States" or
whose work involves international trade. The system appears
to involve the data-mining of massive amounts of information
derived from a wide variety of sources, including Passenger
Name Record (PNR) data obtained from commercial air
carriers.

The "risk assessments" generated by the system will be
retained for "up to forty years," according to DHS, in order
to "cover the potential lifespan of individuals associated
with terrorism or other criminal activity." But wait -- just
because you're currently innocent, that doesn't mean you get
a free pass. As the notice goes on to explain:

"All risk assessments need to be maintained because the risk
assessment for individuals who are deemed low risk will be
relevant if their risk profile changes in the future, for
example, if terrorist associations are identified."

DHS has exempted all of the data contained in the ATS from
the "access" and "correction" requirements of the Privacy
Act of 1974, which means that citizens have no right to
learn about their own "risk assessments" or to challenge
them. Franz Kafka, call your office.

For this post and related links:
<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004980.php>

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* Sun Releases Java Under GPL

This week, Sun Microsystems announced that it is releasing
the Java source code under the GPL free software license,
meaning anyone is free to copy, redistribute, modify, and
make many other uses of the code. Free Software Foundation
founder Richard Stallman hailed the release as one of the
most significant software contributions by any company to
the free software community. ZDNet and Sun's site have more
details:
<http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=199>
<http://www.sun.com/2006-1113/feature/index.jsp>

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* Nominate a Pioneer for EFF's 2007 Pioneer Awards!

EFF established the Pioneer Awards to recognize leaders on
the electronic frontier who are extending freedom and
innovation in the realm of information technology. This is
your opportunity to nominate a deserving individual or group
to receive a Pioneer Award for 2007.

The International Pioneer Awards nominations are open both
to individuals and organizations from any country.
Nominations are reviewed by a panel of judges chosen for
their knowledge of the technical, legal, and social issues
associated with information technology.

How to Nominate Someone for a 2007 Pioneer Award:

You may send as many nominations as you wish, but please use
one email per nomination. Please submit your entries via
email to pioneer@eff.org. We will accept nominations until
January 15, 2007.

Simply tell us:

1. The name of the nominee,

2. The phone number or email address or website by which the
nominee can be reached, and, most importantly,

3. Why you feel the nominee deserves the award.

Nominee Criteria:

There are no specific categories for the EFF Pioneer Awards,
but the following guidelines apply:

1. The nominees must have contributed substantially to the
health, growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based
communications.

2. To be valid, all nominations must contain your reason,
however brief, for nominating the individual or organization
and a means of contacting the nominee. In addition, while
anonymous nominations will be accepted, ideally we'd like to
contact the nominating parties in case we need further
information.

3. The contribution may be technical, social, economic, or
cultural.

4. Nominations may be of individuals, systems, or
organizations in the private or public sectors.

5. Nominations are open to all (other than current members
of EFF's staff and board or this year's award judges), and
you may nominate more than one recipient. You may also
nominate yourself or your organization.

6. Persons or representatives of organizations receiving an
EFF Pioneer Award will be invited to attend the ceremony at
EFF's expense.

More on the EFF Pioneer Awards:
<http://www.eff.org/awards/pioneer/>

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* miniLinks
The week's noteworthy news, compressed.

~ Universal CEO: Pirates Are to Pirate Ships, as Fans Are to
iPods
"These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and
they all know it," Doug Morris says.
<http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003380831>

~ RIAA Explodes at Claim That It's Unfriendly to Fair Use
Cary Sherman claims consumer electronics industry is
"extremist."
<http://techdirt.com/articles/20061113/082502.shtml>

~ Europe-based Legal Advice for Free Software Developers
New "Freedom Task Force" will be based in Zurich,
Switzerland, advising and enforcing the GPL.
<http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/2006q4/000159.html>

~ Crimson Tide of Litigation
University of Alabama asks court to forbid artist from using
"famous crimson and white color scheme."
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/us/12artist.html>

~ GNU's Not Anti-trust
Full judicial opinion and commentary on Daniel Wallace's
attempt to have the GPL declared anti-competitive.
<http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2006/11/gnu-gnu.html>

~ Does Opt-Out Copyright Violate First Amendment?
Larry Lessig's Kahle v. Gonzales is heard by the Ninth
Circuit.
<http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003602.shtml>

~ ITU Makes Bid to Control "Security in Cyberspace"
The new secretary general of the UN's ITU Telecoms
Development Bureau, Hamadoun Toure, wants to take the lead
in governing security issues online.
<http://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=598>

~ Who's Censoring Whom?
State Net censorship monitors the OpenNet Initiative talks
to Wired News.
<http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72104-0.html>

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . :

* Administrivia

EFFector is published by:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
<http://www.eff.org/>


Sabu

You know, this is sad to say, but with all that the EFF is doing I don't think It will be enough to undo the damage that has been done to this country.

+ We now have GPS madated to us by our government to be used in our cell phones...a total government spy program. You can not even connect a cell phone now without this government spy program that they spin as safety to you

I realy wish the EFF would start looking into this cell phone craze more, even the way you buy software/games through them is dodgy. Where is my backup copy? why cannot I keep a copy? Why should i have to pay to download it on my cell phone when I could get it free on the net then transfer it to my phone? The cell phone will reject these games that work fine on other cell phones. I bought a cell phone, not a damn ipod. I just feel this type of thing is going way overboard and there needs to be some type of guidelines, rules, where it is in favor of the public and not the big corperations. I cannot just change cellphone providers when i find out that these rules are bogus like this, they dictate whatever they want at this point. Its like becoming an AOL customer and finding that alot of things you want to do are blocking AOL on the internet and you cannot change, you have a contract,, the service is now useless to you and they just say TOUGH, you signed the contract. AOL is getting banned all over because of the abuse from their proxies that they have chosen to do nothing about and, probably couldn't do anything about it if they tried, it is so widespread abuse. If you have AOL now, just join our zirc channel and see

http://www.bluetack.co.uk/irc.html

I cannot blame zirc for making the decision to block them, they are dangerous

Just because some idiots thinks they made it a law, it is not legal, and not a law.....Why shoulld we have to live in an idiotic state now because of them?

There are so many areas that are untouched, I realy wish the EFF would expand on these areas.

firstaid