A federal judge has dismissed Jewel v. NSA, a case from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of AT&T customers challenging the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans’ phone calls and emails.

via EFF Plans Appeal of Jewel v. NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Case | Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The government had argued, first, that sovereign immunity applied and, second, that the state secrets and related privileges would prevent the introduction of critical evidence. The judge, however, avoided ruling on these (potentially controversial) grounds, and instead ruled that the harm alleged was a “generalized grievance shared … by all or a large class of citizens,” citing Seegers v. Gonzalez (this is sometimes called “ducking the question”).

The EFF plans to appeal.

The central question in the privacy debate that EFF and our partners at the ACLU of Northern California and the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley have been having with Google about Google Book Search is whether this exciting new digital library/bookstore is going to maintain the strong protections for reader privacy that traditional libraries and bookstores have fought for and largely won.

via Warrants Required: EFF and Google’s Big Disagreement about Google Book Search | Electronic Frontier Foundation.

I think I can safely say that I am in agreement with the ACLU and EFF on this one. Warrants, requiring judicial approval, are an important safeguard, although not perfect. They are routine for most investigations of physical locations, and, I think, ought to be so for virtual ones as well.

Of course, this prevents large-scale “data mining” activities by governments, who could conceivable flag suspicious activity for future investigation  —  but that, I think, is how it should be.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lethem and EFF on why Google Book Search needs privacy guarantees (boingboing.net)
• Legal advocates ask for privacy protections in Google Books (news.cnet.com)
• Google responds to publishers (inpropriapersona.com)

In the ringtone case [part of U.S. v. ASCAP], ASCAP’s argument is the mirror image of the NMPA’s on interactive streams: It contends that ringtones involve a public performance when they’re first delivered to a cellphone, and again when the phone rings. My favorite part of ASCAP’s latest brief is when it explains what makes a ringtone a public performance: “It need only be ‘capable’ of being performed to the public; whether the ringtone is set to play, and indeed whether anyone hears it, is of no moment” (emphasis added).

Some folks may pick ringtones precisely because the public will hear and admire them, just as some people carry boom boxes in public or sing as they shop. But as the advocacy groups note, copyright law provides a specific exemption from infringement claims for performances that aren’t transmissions to the public, seek no commercial advantage and collect no compensation. Does that ring a bell?

via A big week for copyrights and piracy | Technology | Los Angeles Times.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation adds its opinion on the matter, which seems right on to me:

Fortunately for consumers, ASCAP’s theory is foreclosed by the Sony Betamax ruling, where the Supreme Court held that because it’s a fair use for you to time-shift TV, it’s also perfectly legal for Sony to sell you a VCR to do it. Sony did not have to run a second fair use gauntlet for its commercial VCR-selling business.

In short, if there’s no infringement liability for the customer, there can be no secondary liability for the carriers. (ASCAP also has a theory that the carriers are direct infringers because they set up the system that causes phones to ring in public, but that theory is pretty handily wiped out by the recent Cablevision ruling, where the court found that setting up a “remote DVR” service doesn’t make you a direct infringer when your customers use it.)

Or, put another way, if it’s noninfringing for you, it’s also noninfringing for a technology company to provide you with the means to do it.

via ASCAP Wants To Be Paid When Your Phone Rings.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lawyers claim ringtones are public performance (theregister.co.uk)
• Ringing up cash: ASCAP suing AT&T for ringtone “performance” (arstechnica.com)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has introduced a useful new tool called TOSBack:

Terms-Of-Service and other website policies form the foundation of your relationship with social networking sites, online businesses, and other Internet communities. But most people become aware of these terms only when there’s a problem. TOSBack was created to help you monitor the policies for the websites you use everyday, and show how they change over time.

via TOSBack | The Terms-Of-Service Tracker.

A few examples of recent highlights from the tool include:

• Facebook’s policies changed on June 2nd
• GoDaddy changed its Domain Name Registration Agreement on May 22nd
• eBay changed its User Agreement on May 15th

Related articles by Zemanta

• EFF tracking policy changes at Google, Facebook and others (news.cnet.com)
• EFF Posts ‘Terms of Service’ Tracker (wired.com)
• TOSBack Monitors Terms of Service Changes to Google, Facebook, and 42 Others (lifehacker.com)
• TOSBack: EFF’s Much-Needed Terms of Service Tracker (radar.oreilly.com)