coldtail.com
EFF Joins Amicus Brief in Support of Student Speech on Social Media Print
Written by Administrator   
Wednesday, 26 November 2014 14:50

This week EFF joined an amicus brief in support of a college student who was expelled from school for comments he made on Facebook.

Craig Keefe was a nursing student at a public college in Minnesota when he posted several comments on his Facebook profile expressing frustration about certain aspects of the nursing program, including what he considered to be favoritism of female students. Keefe also engaged in a dispute with one of his classmates, calling her a "stupid bitch." While his Facebook profile was publicly viewable, he was off-campus when he posted his comments and did not use any school resources.

Keefe’s Facebook comments were brought to the attention of school administrators, who concluded that the comments constituted "behavior unbecoming of the profession and transgression of professional boundaries."

Keefe sued the school administrators under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a federal statute that gives citizens a right to sue state government institutions or officials for violations of individual rights under the federal Constitution. He argued that the expulsion violated his free speech and due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A federal trial judge in Minnesota disagreed and ruled in favor of the school administrators.

We joined the Student Press Law Center, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, and the National Coalition Against Censorship in filing the amicus brief in support of Keefe in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief argues that the First Amendment protects Keefe because his comments, in part, related to matters of public concern, including alleged gender discrimination in the nursing program. The brief also highlights Supreme Court precedent that states that college students have greater free speech rights than minor students, and that off-campus speech receives greater protection than on-campus speech.

While courts across the country have been struggling with determining how much jurisdiction public school officials should have over the social media lives of students, we believe that Keefe’s case involves a clear violation of his constitutional rights.

Related Issues: 

Share this: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google+ Share on Diaspora  ||  Join EFF
Read more...
 
Appeals Court Must Fix Dangerous 'Innocence of Muslims' Copyright Ruling Print
Written by Administrator   
Tuesday, 25 November 2014 07:54
Faulty Decision from Ninth Circuit Panel Endangers Free Speech, Historical Record

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a coalition of technology and free speech organizations are asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to fix a disastrously wrongheaded copyright ruling that required an online service provider to take offline—and keep offline—a controversial video that has been the center of a global debate.

This case, Garcia v. Google, centers on "The Innocence of Muslims," a short video on YouTube that sparked protests worldwide in the fall of 2012 with its anti-Islamic content. The video was even linked for a time to the attack on an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, although that was later refuted.

"The Innocence of Muslims" includes a five-second performance from an actress named Cindy Lee Garcia, who says she was tricked into appearing in the film. Garcia sued Google under copyright law, insisting she had a copyright interest in her performance and demanding that Google take the video off YouTube and all other platforms. A district court refused to order the removal, noting that Garcia was not likely to succeed with her claim. A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit agreed that the claim was "debatable," but still ordered Google to remove all copies of "Innocence of Muslims" until the case was resolved.

"Based on an absurd copyright claim, the Ninth Circuit issued a order requiring an online platform to edit the historical record," said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry. "The ruling may have been well-intentioned, but it was both bad law and bad policy and that will have dangerous consequences for future creators."

The ruling shocked many in the legal and creative communities, and Google appealed the panel's ruling to the full Ninth Circuit. In an amicus brief filed in that appeal today, EFF argues that the panel's order violates basic legal procedure, ignores the public's free speech rights, and undermines core copyright principles.

"Ms. Garcia understandably wants to distance herself from this film. She was hoodwinked, and she has legal options to hold the producer of this film to account. However, copyright infringement is not one of those options," said EFF Staff Attorney Vera Ranieri. "If allowed to prevail, this case will prompt abuse of the copyright system and chill protected speech."

The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, the Center for Democracy and Technology, New Media Rights, and Public Knowledge joined EFF in this brief.

For the full amicus brief in Garcia v. Google:
https://www.eff.org/document/amicus-brief-24

For more on this case:
https://www.eff.org/cases/garcia-v-google-inc

Contact:

Vera Ranieri
   Staff Attorney
   Electronic Frontier Foundation
   This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Share this: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google+ Share on Diaspora  ||  Join EFF
Read more...
 
EFF Co-launches Global Coalition on Net Neutrality, as the Battle for an Open Internet Heats Up Print
Written by Administrator   
Tuesday, 25 November 2014 06:43

Today EFF is proud to join 35 groups from 19 countries around the world to officially launch the campaign website of a new global coalition for net neutrality, at http://www.thisisnetneutrality.org/.

Global Net Neutrality Coalition

The breadth and diversity of this coalition underlines how net neutrality has truly become a global issue. While Internet users in the United States are speaking up in favor of the reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service, across the Atlantic activists are also fighting to preserve Europe's open Internet, which has been placed in jeopardy again this week. (Europeans can take action here.)

Although the powerful players in the net neutrality debate and the appropriate solutions to address the problem differ from country to country, the underlying objectives of open Internet advocates around the world are the same. That's why we have decided to come together to clearly state those objectives with a unified voice. The first step in speaking together was to agree on a simple shared definition of net neutrality, translated into eleven languages:

Net neutrality requires that the Internet be maintained as an open platform, on which network providers treat all content, applications and services equally, without discrimination.

This definition doesn't imply that Internet providers can't use reasonable methods to manage their networks, for example to ensure that all applications from voice calls to downloads run smoothly, or to secure their networks from malicious uses like denial-of-service attacks. Neither does it mean they can't offer users different tiers of service at different price points, such as a residential-level service and a business-level service.

But it does mean that these measures must not be used as a pretext to police communications on their networks, to bestow unfair commercial advantages on their own or particular third-party content, or to create a walled garden where only certain applications, services or protocols are welcome.

Of course our work doesn't end with just a definition. Right now coalition members from around the world are working to develop an information bank that will be hosted at http://www.thisisnetneutrality.org/ containing details of net neutrality laws, policies and practices in their countries, which can be used as an advocacy and education resource. Using this information, we aim to prove that high speeds and low costs for users are compatible with an open, competitive Internet.

Help us spread the word about why net neutrality isn't just an issue that affects one country, but is a fundamental building block of the Internet we want around the world. Attached to this post are images that you can use to signal your support for this new global coalition on your social network of choice.

Links

Share images

 Keeping the Internet open and equal

 Keeping the Internet open and equal

Global Net Neutrality Coalition


Share this: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google+ Share on Diaspora  ||  Join EFF
Read more...
 
Censoring the Web Isn't the Solution to Terrorism or Counterfeiting. It's the Problem. Print
Written by Administrator   
Tuesday, 25 November 2014 05:16

In politics, as with Internet memes, ideas don't spread because they are good—they spread because they are good at spreading. One of the most virulent ideas in Internet regulation in recent years has been the idea that if a social problem manifests on the Web, the best thing that you can do to address that problem is to censor the Web.

It's an attractive idea because if you don't think too hard, it appears to be a political no-brainer. It allows governments to avoid addressing the underlying social problem—a long and costly process—and instead simply pass the buck to Internet providers, who can quickly make whatever content has raised rankles “go away.” Problem solved! Except, of course, that it isn't.

Amongst the difficult social problems that Web censorship is often expected to solve are terrorism, child abuse and copyright and trade mark infringement. In recent weeks some further cases of this tactic being vainly employed against such problems have emerged from the United Kingdom, France and Australia.

UK Court Orders ISPs to Block Websites for Trade Mark Infringement

In a victory for luxury brands and a loss for Internet users, the British High Court last month ordered five of the country's largest ISPs to block websites selling fake counterfeit goods. Whilst alarming enough, this was merely a test case, leading the way for a reported 290,000 websites to be potentially targeted in future legal proceedings.

Do we imagine for a moment that, out of a quarter-million websites, none of them are false positives that actually sell non-infringing products? (If websites blocked for copyright infringement or pornography are any example, we know the answer.) Do we consider it a wise investment to tie up the justice system in blocking websites that could very easily be moved under a different domain within minutes?

The reason this ruling concerns us is not that we support counterfeiting of manufactured goods. It concerns us because it further normalizes the band-aid solution of content blocking, and deemphasises more permanent and effective solutions that would target those who actually produce the counterfeit or illegal products being promoted on the Web.

Britain and France Call on ISPs to Censor Extremist Content

Not content with enlisting major British ISPs as copyright and trade mark police, they have also recently been called upon to block extremist content on the Web, and to provide a button that users can use to report supposed extremist material. Usual suspects Google, Facebook and Twitter have also been roped by the government to carry out blocking of their own. Yet to date no details have been released about how these extrajudicial blocking procedures would work, or under what safeguards of transparency and accountability, if any, they would operate.

This fixation on solving terrorism by blocking websites is not limited to the United Kingdom. Across the channel in France, a new “anti-terrorism” law that EFF reported on earlier was finally passed this month. The law allows websites to be blocked if they “condone terrorism.” “Terrorism” is as slippery a concept in France as anywhere else. Indeed France's broad definition of a terrorist act has drawn criticism from Human Rights Watch for its legal imprecision.

Australian Plans to Block Copyright Infringing Sites

Finally—though, sadly, probably not—reports last week suggest that Australia will be next to follow the example of the UK and Spain in blocking websites that host or link to allegedly copyright material, following on from a July discussion paper that mooted this as a possible measure to combat copyright infringement.

How did this become the new normal? When did politicians around the world lose the will to tackle social problems head-on, and instead decide to sweep them under the rug by blocking evidence of them from the Web? It certainly isn't due to any evidence that these policies actually work. Anyone who wants to access blocked content can trivially do so, using software like Tor.

Rather, it seems to be that it's politically better for governments to be seen as doing something to address such problems, no matter how token and ineffectual, than to do nothing—and website blocking is the easiest “something” they can do. But not only is blocking not effective, it is actively harmful—both at its point of application due to the risk of over-blocking, but also for the Internet as a whole, in the legitimization that it offers to repressive regimes to censor and control content online.

Like an overused Internet meme that deserves to fade away, so too it is time that courts and regulators moved on from website blocking as a cure for society's ills. If we wish to reduce political extremism, cut off the production of counterfeits, or prevent children from being abused, then we should be addressing those problems directly—rather than by merely covering up the evidence and pretending they have gone away.

Related Issues: 

Share this: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google+ Share on Diaspora  ||  Join EFF
Read more...
 
EFF to Court: Don’t Waste Time, A “Picture Menu” is Not Patentable Print
Written by Administrator   
Tuesday, 25 November 2014 03:26

Yesterday, EFF filed an amicus brief at the Federal Circuit urging it to confirm that U.S. Patent No. 6,585,516 improperly claims ineligible abstract ideas. In the brief, we argue that the patent on using picture menus stored in a database to create meals should never have been granted in the first place. But more importantly, EFF argues that the Federal Circuit should confirm that quick, early decisions as to patent eligibility are vital to clearing our system of bad patents.

U.S. Patent 6,585,516, owned by DietGoal Innovations, LLC, is a pretty typical bad patent. It’s got a complex-sounding title (“Method and system for computerized visual behavior analysis, training, and planning”), a few practically-meaningless flow charts (look at all the arrows!), and a claim that says not much more than “showing pictures of meals on a computer so people can pick what to eat that day” (this is not actually the text of the claim, but it is a fair paraphrase).

DietGoal is also a typical troll. Since 2011 it’s sued over 70 different companies, including restaurant chains such as Pita Pit, Taco John’s, and Panda Express. This is a favorite tactic of trolls: go after those who rarely encounter patent litigation in hopes that they won’t fight back.

But at least one defendant did fight back: Bravo Media. Bravo was sued for offering the public recipes (and presumably pictures) from its “Top Chef” show. Unlike many defendants faced with a troll lawsuit, Bravo did not just settle. Instead, Bravo filed, and won, a motion for “summary judgment” (a court procedure that can end the case before it goes to a jury). The court found the patent invalid because it claimed matter that is ineligible for patent protection.

DietGoal appealed that decision, but given the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alice v. CLS Bank regarding what patents can and can not cover, and a recent Federal Circuit opinion, we don’t expect DietGoal’s patent to survive. In fact, when Alice was decided, we used DietGoal’s patent as our example of the kind of patent that was destined to be thrown out. We said as much in our amicus brief.

But more importantly, we urge the Federal Circuit to recognize that courts should decide motions about whether patent claims are abstract (and therefore, invalid) as quickly as possible. Trolls, even when they have a patent that is likely invalid, often get to repeatedly sue companies because it is too expensive to fight back. Unfortunately, settling with a troll is often cheaper than fighting. The courts, however, can make it easier for defendants to fight by recognizing that whether a patent claims ineligible abstract ideas is often something that can be decided early, without massive expenses and without giving the troll the opportunity to extort settlement.

We filed the amicus brief on behalf of a diverse group of non-profits and industry associations: Application Developers Alliance, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, EFF, Engine Advocacy, the National Restaurant Association, and Public Knowledge.

Related Issues: 

Share this: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google+ Share on Diaspora  ||  Join EFF
Read more...
 
Rain or Shine: Bay Area Internet Users Take the Net Neutrality Fight to City Hall Print
Written by Administrator   
Monday, 24 November 2014 07:40

Photo by Steve Rhodes; CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

"We want information to flow like water,” protesters yelled outside San Francisco City Hall in the pouring rain, rallying in support of keeping the Internet open.  The rally was in advance of a public forum inside City Hall on the looming net neutrality debate.

The San Francisco Bay Area has been one of the most vocal places in the nation in the fight for net neutrality, and there's a reason: Internet openness is crucial to the path-breaking artists, technologies, and businesses that thrive in this state.

The Bay Area is home to some of the world’s most recognized technology companies and bleeding-edge inventors and creators. And although this region certainly has a heavy stake in the outcome of the FCC’s net neutrality decision, the vast majority of policy conversations are happening in DC.

That’s why EFF collaborated with other local and national organizations at San Francisco City Hall last Thursday to host “Bay Area Speaks: A People’s Hearing on the Future of the Internet.” Joined by Former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, librarians, public officials, and environmental activists, hackers, entrepreneurs, and educators, everyday Internet users from diverse Bay Area communities packed the room at City Hall to testify on why Internet openness is central to our lives.

The Rally

Corporate telecom puppet by David Solnit

The evening began with a rally outside. Holding up a giant puppet of a suit holding a money bag labeled “I$P” and a briefcase that read “net profit,” demonstrators braved the rain Thursday evening to make sure their voice is heard.  Protestors projected giant images in front of City Hall that read “Information Flows Vs. Slow Lanes” and “Net Freedom vs. Corporate Control.”

And as the rain poured, the net neutrality rally was joined in front of City Hall by demonstrators calling for justice for 43 disappeared students in Mexico. Back and forth in solidarity, activists shared the stage. Common threads emerged on corruption, transparency, and the centrality of organizing online for all projects of social justice and political change. A theme was clear: when corporations or governments control how we access information and connect to each other, democracy loses.

Inside City Hall

Jennifer Johns sings to a packed room.

The room was packed. Silently, Oakland musician and activist Jennifer Johns walked to the front before breaking out into a powerful song that brought the room to a focused attention.

EFF’s Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry kicked off the event, helping to remind us that only a few short months ago the FCC proposed a set of rules that would have given Internet providers clearance to charge websites to reach users faster.

But millions of people took action.

“And what happened?” McSherry asked the room. “The world changed. The FCC heard us load and clear… and last week we learned that the President heard us loud and clear.” The week before the hearing, net neutrality activists experienced a huge gain in momentum when President Obama came out in full support of bright-line net neutrality rules that would protect the open Internet, leaving the FCC to re-write their proposal.

Despite having received invitations, none of the FCC Commissioners made it to San Francisco for the night. Still, long time public interest champion and former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps flew in from Washington D.C. to speak. He reminded us what a world without net neutrality will looks like:

“If Internet service providers can unilaterally decide what news we can hear and what news we can’t, who can advocate online and who can’t, who can get the word out about rallies like the one here tonight… If they can decide that online fast lines will become the playground of the few rather than the common right of all of us, then we are in for real trouble in this country. And we will not be able to solve any of the problems that this country faces right now.”

Internet Users Shared Their Stories

mytubethumbplay
Privacy info. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com

We heard from librarian Amy Sonnie, outreach director for Oakland Public Libraries, who pointed out, ”Net neutrality is critical for intellectual and academic freedom in the digital age.” Public interest advocates like Ana Montes from The Utility Reform Network, and Malkia Cyril from Media Action Grassroots Network, spoke out. Internet entrepreneurs and technologists like Dan Jasper CEO of Bay area ISP Sonic.net and Tim Pozar of Fandor.com joined the call for FCC rules that will protect net neutrality.

We heard from public officials like Oakland City Council President Rebecca Kaplan, Chris Witteman from the California Public Utilities Commission, and San Francisco Chief Officer of Innovation Jay Nath, all talking about how local governments are fighting for net neutrality rules that will protect local Internet users.

Musicians and artists spoke out. As Thao Nguyen, a popular independent musician put it, “It is plain to see now more than ever, that no musician can release a record, reach listeners or to grow a fan base without the ability to share their work unimpeded on the Internet.”

An organizer from Greenpeace shared how the centrality of the open Internet to their political organizing, Naomi Most from the Noisebridge hackerspace in San Francisco talked about the Internet has a level playing field, and advocacy interests of all stripes joined us: a representative from Engine Advocacy talked about the needs of startups, Paul Goodman of the Greenlining Institute talked about why net neutrality is an issue of particular importance for racial justice, and Dave Steer, advocacy director at Mozilla, talked about why they continue to fight for an open Internet.

We Will Continue to Fight

Throughout this year four million Internet users commented to the FCC demanding regulators enact real, clear net neutrality rules that will prohibit Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down how we access parts of the web.  Over 99% of the comments in the rulemaking were calling on the FCC to craft the kinds of rules that will protect Internet users from censorious and discriminatory conduct by Internet service providers.

To be more specific, Internet users are asking the FCC to change the way the service of providing access to the Internet is classified under federal law. Right now, the FCC legally considers Internet access to be an “information service,” but legally the FCC is only allowed to enact meaningful net neutrality consumer protections if Internet  access is reclassified as a “telecommunications service” (under Title 2 of the 1934 Communications Act). As Dave Steer from Mozilla put it, “Full Title II reclassification is the cleanest, simplest path forward.”

The policies might seem complicated, but the concept isn’t. New political blogs, artist websites, startups, or growing businesses that can’t afford expensive fees for better service will face new barriers to success, leaving users with even fewer options and a less diverse Internet.

The future of the Internet is our future. It is why Bay Area activists stood with signs of giant cell phones and laptops in the rain outside San Francisco City Hall last Thursday.

And as the net neutrality debate looms in Washington D.C., we will continue to speak out, raise our voice, and we won’t stop fighting until we get the kinds of policies that will serve the information needs of our communities. Stay tuned. It’s not over yet.


Share this: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google+ Share on Diaspora  ||  Join EFF
Read more...
 
Stupid Patent of the Month: Who Wants to Buy Teamwork From Penn State? Print
Written by Administrator   
Monday, 24 November 2014 06:10

Ever wanted to own the latest in “teamwork” technology? Well, you’re in luck. On December 8, Penn State is holding a large patent auction, and one of the items is U.S. Patent 8,442,839. This patent purports to describe an improved collaborative “decision-making process.” As well as being a good example of a silly patent, this month’s winner highlights concerns with universities trying to monetize their patent portfolio. Why would a university, which presumably has a mission of promoting knowledge and innovation, sell an unsuccessful patent that has no value except to a troll?

First, a little background. In April this year, Penn State held its first patent auction. It offered exclusive licenses to dozens of patents but only received a single bid (meaning that it likely didn’t even recover the cost of holding the auction). This is consistent with experience at other schools. Evidence shows that the vast majority of technology transfer offices lose money for their university. Selling old patents brings universities little revenue but risks contributing to the wider economic harm from patent trolling. Indeed, over 60 universities (paywall) have sold patents to infamous patent troll Intellectual Ventures.

Many, including EFF, have expressed concerns with universities selling to patent trolls. To its credit, Penn State says that it does not want to foster patent trolling. And it has included some licensing terms that will discourage trolls from buying its patents (including a six month bar on filing infringement actions). But it is difficult to see how a patent like U.S. Patent 8,442,839 would have value to anyone but a troll.

The patent, titled “Agent-based collaborative recognition-primed decision-making,” includes a single independent claim. Steps include “receiving information regarding a current situation to be analyzed,” interacting to receive “assistance in the form of assumptions or expectancies about the situation,” and using “collected information to determine whether a decision about the situation is evolving in an anticipated direction.”

The patent reads a little like what might result if you ate a dictionary filled with buzzwords and drank a bottle of tequila. A typical passage explains:

Story building also involves information gathering, but it is more than cue-driven information investigation, because the agents are still unclear about what cues to investigate. Therefore, the key is to identify a collection of cues which the team needs to pay attention to. Our model adopts a combination of two mechanisms: hypothesis exploration and experience synthesization.

In other words: learn from experience. The patent examiner originally rejected the application as not directed to patentable subject matter. Penn State responded by amending its claim to “include a team-oriented computer architecture that transforms subject matter.” In other words, it took an abstract patent and said, “Do it on a computer.”

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has put a stop to this kind of nonsense. We think Penn State’s patent would be found invalid under Alice v. CLS Bank. But even invalid patents have value to patent trolls. This is because they can use the cost of litigation to extort settlements. Indeed when patent trolls are actually forced to litigate to the merits, they lose over 75% of the time.

We urge Penn State and all universities to be more responsible. Instead of selling patents that have little value except as litigation weapons, universities should focus on true technology transfer—partnering with others to bring new technologies into the world. And universities should end their opposition to patent reform. We have a petition calling on universities to support patent reform here. Sign it now!

Related Issues: 

Share this: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google+ Share on Diaspora  ||  Join EFF
Read more...
 
EFF Joins the Call for a NIST We Can Trust Print
Written by Administrator   
Friday, 21 November 2014 08:03

It’s looking like we might be on the brink of another crypto war. The first one, in the 90s, was a misguided attempt to limit the public’s access to strong, secure cryptography. And since then, the reasons we need the good security provided by strong crypto have only multiplied. That’s why EFF has joined 20 civil society organizations and companies in sending a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to “re-emphasize the importance of creating a process for establishing secure and resilient encryption standards, free from back doors or other known vulnerabilities.”

As the letter points out, in September 2013, ProPublica, the Guardian, and the New York Times revealed that the NSA had systematically “circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or digital scrambling” that protects the Internet, “collaborating with technology companies in the United States and abroad to build entry points into their products.” As ProPublica explained,

[T]he agency used its influence as the world’s most experienced code maker to covertly introduce weaknesses into the encryption standards followed by hardware and software developers around the world.

And these broken standards appear to have led to a serious impact on U.S. technology companies, which "may lose as much as $35 billion in the next three years from foreign customers choosing not to buy their products over concern they cooperate with spy programs.”

Although NIST has taken some steps to remedy these problems, more is needed “to rectify NIST’s trust deficit.” The letter lists specific recommendations to improve transparency, strengthen NIST’s cryptography work, and increase public understanding and engagement. For example:

NIST should establish a policy wherein the Agency publicly explains the extent and nature of the NSA’s consultation on future standards and any modifications thereto made at NSA’s request.and NIST should begin a review process to ensure that wherever possible the same information is published for standards that are currently in use.

The coalition’s recommendations were “heavily echoed in the reports submitted by the members of NIST’s appointed Committee of Visitors (CoV). The CoV is a distinguished panel of experts appointed by NIST. . .” The CoV also made recommendations to NIST, several of which are emphasized in the letter:

NIST must expand to include independent full-time technical expertise and additional funding in order to decrease reliance on the NSA and other members of the Intelligence Community.

We hope that NIST will take the recommendations seriously. U.S. businesses are suffering, and the NSA’s actions have made the Internet less safe for everyone. Serious action is needed to restore trust in NIST— and to protect the public good. 

You can read the full text of the letter and see the signatories here


Share this: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google+ Share on Diaspora  ||  Join EFF
Read more...
 
«StartPrev12NextEnd»

Page 1 of 2