Hi, all-
As some of you certainly know, Section 230 of the Communications Decency
Act[1] is a key legal tool that we use to protect speech on Wikipedia.
A group of state-level attorney generals have recently asked the US federal
government to weaken Sec. 230. A couple of organizations have weighed in on
the proposal:
CDT:
https://www.cdt.org/blogs/andrew-mcdiarmid/2507section-230-under-attack-sta…
EFF:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/state-ags-threaten-gut-cda-230-speech…
And a more academic take from Eric Goldman:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2287622&download=yes
This is fairly core to what we do, obviously, so Stephen and I are
monitoring it closely. Your involvement (questions, proposals for action,
proposals for inaction, etc.) is (as always!) welcome.
Luis
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
Luis Villa wrote:
>...
> we'll continue to look out for opportunities that make sense
> ourselves, and of course the community should always feel
> able and empowered to start things as well....
The Foundation uses Google Drive/Docs internally. And extensively so,
right? Why don't you publish a request that Google secure it such that
you are able to abide by your existing international privacy policy
obligations when using their systems, such as by developing a secure
end-to-end encrypting client for Drive, Docs, and Gmail, as they are
already rumored to be working on in
http://rt.com/usa/google-experimenting-nsa-encryption-report-230/
You could ask the same of Apple, Yahoo, Skype, Microsoft, etc. Is
there any reason this would not be prudent?
I hope your move went well.
Best regards,
James
Hi, all-
As some of you may have seen, we posted this this morning:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/18/wikimedia-foundation-letter-transparen…
Letting people know that we'd signed on to this letter:
https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/weneedtoknow-transparency-letter.pdf
Given last week's discussion here, I wanted to shed a little more light
here on why we signed this:
* Mission/Values: There has been some skepticism (like from MZ) about
whether PRISM is sufficiently related to our mission and values for us to
take action. Without getting into that general question, it is clear that
the Foundation's ability to be transparent with the community is absolutely
critical, so we thought this action was very clearly within the scope of
our mission/values.
* International: This letter is very deliberately focused on an issue
(transparency) that benefits all Wikimedians, not just Americans, and
generally uses language that matches that.
As I said last week, and mention again in the blog post, we'll continue to
look out for opportunities that make sense ourselves, and of course the
community should always feel able and empowered to start things as well.
I will be offline a good chunk of today (moving apartments - bad timing!)
but will try to monitor this thread and respond as quickly as I can to any
questions.
Thanks-
Luis
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
The following appeared as a guest blog post for the Harvard Business Review:
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/07/a_call_to_boycott_us_tech_plat.html
A Call to Boycott U.S. Tech Platforms Over the NSA's PRISM Surveillance
by Gerd Leonhard | 10:00 AM July 16, 2013
I want to make one thing perfectly clear: this blog post is not an
attack on the U.S., and my message is not anti-American. I have lived
in the U.S. on and off for almost 12 years. I went to college in
Boston (Berklee), my kids are both U.S. citizens as well as German
citizens, and we have deep admiration for many American customs,
traits, people and places.
But ever since 9/11, the U.S. government seems to have gone down a
(until recently) secret path towards some kind of 'digital
totalitarianism', with increasing disregard for other countries'
mindsets and cultures.
The latest developments around PRISM and the NSA dragnet operations
uncovered by Edward Snowden, in my view, severely damage the fragile
fabric of the new global ecosystem, which we so sorely rely on in
order to collectively tackle truly urgent global issues such as
energy, pollution, food, climate change, (cyber-)terrorism and
inequality.
Yes, of course, as more details about the NSA's mass surveillance
activities are coming to light, it is also becoming clear that at
least the other intelligence tribe members of UKUSA — i.e. the '5
Eyes' group (the U.S., the U.K., New Zealand, Australia, Canada) are
pretty much doing the same thing, with Germany and France not far
behind. But still: at the heart of this global collusion to hoover up
every bit of information about hundreds of millions of citizens under
the pretense of fighting crime and terrorism sits the U.S. government,
so let me start there.
The past few weeks have been game-changing for the U.S./Europe
relationship, with the EU Commission already hinting at moving cloud
computing centers to Europe, many parliamentarians proposing to review
international trade agreements and data exchange practices, and German
chancellor Merkel heading towards a pre-election show-down on these
very issues. It is not actually the fact that surveillance is real
that scares Europeans, it is that now, everyone apparently is a
legitimate target — yes we scan, because we can!
Little is being done by the U.S. government to address Europe's
concerns, and most Americans seem to consider this whole affair a
non-issue. (Granted, this sentiment may be softening a bit.) See the
charts below:
[Graph: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/assets_c/2013/07/snowdensupport-4461.html ]
But, it is a big deal. And more people need to understand just how big.
For context, let's go back to 1788 and take a look at the words of
James Madison, fourth president of the United States:
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations."
The utter disrespect with which U.S. law enforcement agencies have
violated the most basic international agreements on data security,
basic citizens' rights and even diplomatic immunity is very worrisome,
and will soon force people around the globe to rethink our
relationship with 'all things USA' — whether it's President Obama and
the U.S. government, or U.S.-based telecoms, technology companies and
internet platforms such as Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon,
Yahoo and even Dropbox.
Meanwhile, President Obama seems happy to preside over this Orwellian
affair with a newfound disregard for the basic privacy rights of
citizens, which he previously expressed with great vigor back in 2005
and 2007, when he was still just a senator (watch these NYT videos).
This is incredible — life is indeed stranger than fiction!
Let's be clear about this: for Europeans, in particular, the American
shift towards state-sanctioned 'data totalitarianism' will have
significant impact on whether we will do business with U.S.-based
companies that are in technology, media, cloud computing, social
networking, telecommunications, e-commerce or 'big data', for they
seemingly cannot do anything else than comply with the laws — and
their extreme interpretations — as they are now (i.e. the Patriot Act,
FISA courts, etc).
Therefore, some 50-75% of the worlds' largest digital communications
and technology enterprises are now facing a seriously wicked dilemma:
do they comply with FISA orders or do they protect their users (half
of which are not even U.S. citizens)?
The bottom line is that currently all non-U.S. citizens seem to have
no real protection, no recourse, no oversight... no power, and no
rights. This is totally and utterly unacceptable and cannot be swept
under the rug as 'business as usual'.
Sure, variations of the same plots are happening in China and in
Russia, but who would have thought that the formerly alleged bastion
of liberty and freedom, the United States of America, would resort to
these sorts of global dragnet activities? This is wrong and that's all
there is to it.
I believe that if this situation is not resolved very soon, non-U.S.
internet users will be left with pretty much one option: some kind of
a boycott or 'strike' — i.e. the explicit non-participation in those
platforms and services that are subject to the totalitarian
application of laws such as the U.S. Patriot Act.
The future of U.S.-based technology companies is at stake here, as is
the future of U.S./EU relationships.
To remedy the situation, the leading U.S. internet and technology
companies, led by Apple, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Facebook need
to:
1. Unequivocally side with their real stakeholders — i.e. their users
— and specifically assure us Europeans that they will act on our
behalf, and seek to protect us against the abuse that has surfaced in
the past few weeks.
2. Mount a strong campaign to urge President Obama and the U.S.
Congress to stop these global mass surveillance activities,
immediately, and put appropriate approval, remedy and redress
mechanisms in place that are more in line with EU provisions, i.e.
requiring actual cause for data surveillance activities, needing
individual warrants, and informing the public on what the procedure
is.
3. Urge the government to agree to a public trial of Edward Snowden
that could take place in a neutral location such as at the
International Court of Justice in the Hague.
The U.S. government needs to:
1. Acknowledge the mistakes and rights violations that have occurred
as far as the mass surveillance of global citizens are concerned, and
uncover all additional instances. Dismissing the Director of National
Intelligence (James Clapper) seems like another plausible step towards
resolution, as well, given the fact that he pretty much lied to
Congress.
2. Immediately discontinue the practice of spying on global citizens
without individual warrants, and only in strict congruence with
international laws and regulations.
3. Agree to a fair, public and open trial of Edward Snowden (see above).
If no action along these lines is taken, I think that the
international community and hereto faithful users of American
technologies and internet platforms will have no choice but to
consider taking serious and possibly quite dramatic action to
safeguard against this 'totalitarian surveillance creep'.
Some such actions for the international community may include:
1. Temporarily halting the EU-US data exchange programs for travelers
(PNR and TFTP), which could potentially lead to a significant
disruption of commercial air traffic between the U.S. and Europe (the
review was already scheduled before the Snowden affair and is already
in progress at the Commission).
2. Cut or significantly reduce ties with U.S.-based internet portals
and service providers and shift business to providers based in other
countries that are subject to international laws and explicit
supervision (i.e. that can guarantee that appropriate processes and
safeguards are in place). By extension, this would also concern the
rest of the "5 Eyes" group, i.e. the UK, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand.
3. Pause or even halt the current Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement
discussions until these demands, above, are met. Yes, I know, this
could be quite painful for some EU countries but ... would they rather
be 'collateral damage' now or take collective action to address
potential long-term issues?
4. Open or expand cloud computing facilities in Europe (Luxembourg and
Switzerland seem like good locations) and around the world. Until now,
the U.S.-based providers have dominated the global cloud business
because of faster innovation and much larger investments in this
sector — Europe needs to catch up urgently.
5. As global consumers, we just may need to stop using all U.S.-based
services that won't voluntarily comply with international standards of
data protection.
6. Offer a United Nations-supervised trial location and some kind of
asylum to Edward Snowden, perhaps in the EU.
This is a game-changing moment, and it's time for global citizens to
act. America: we love you, but enough is enough!
GERD LEONHARD
Gerd Leonhard is a futurist, author, and CEO of The Futures Agency.
Hi all,
some of you might be aware that we are currently untertaking a joint effort
to build up an effective monitoring system for the EU. I have just
introduced Dimitar Dimitrov (user: dimi_z) as our coordinator in Brussels
on the WMF blog:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/16/our-man-in-brussels-dimitar-dimitrov/
Please don't hesitate to get in touch with him directly if you have any
ideas how to improve our communication - apart from this list which is IMHO
a very valuable forum to discuss political affairs.
Best wishes,
Jan
--
Jan Engelmann
Leiter Politik & Gesellschaft
-------------------------------------
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Obentrautstr. 72
10963 Berlin
Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0
www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
**** Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales
Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition!
http://wikipedia.de ****
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
FYI. (it is my opinion that WMF should support any effort promoting
such an amendment to the copyright act)
https://law.resource.org/pub/edicts.html
TEXT OF THE PETITION
To promote access to justice, equal protection, innovation in the
legal marketplace, and to codify long-standing public policy, the
Copyright Act of the United States, 17 U.S.C., should be amended as
follows:
“Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative
rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar
official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public
policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or
local as well as to those of foreign governments.”
This language comes directly from Section 206.01, Compendium of Office
Practices II, U.S. Copyright Office (1984). It reflects clear and
established Supreme Court precedent on the matter in cases such as
Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834) and Banks v.
Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888). The law belongs to the people, who
should be free to read, know, and speak the laws by which they choose
to govern themselves.
--
Mathias Schindler
Projektmanager
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
web: http://www.wikimedia.de
mail: mathias.schindler(a)wikimedia.de
Ceterum censeo opera officiales esse liberandam -
http://urheberrecht.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
[+Advocacy advisors]
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Tobias <church.of.emacs.ml(a)googlemail.com>wrote:
> Three weeks ago, the foundation asked for community input on the
> surveillance program PRISM (and perhaps similar programs that have
> surfaced since).
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PRISM
>
> To quote from that page: "We will consider all feedback, but, because
> events are moving quickly, we feel we need to make a decision on this by
> June 21, 2013."
>
> Has there been any response yet? Surely evaluating all the feedback
> cannot take longer than two weeks...?
>
It did take time. The feedback was quite inconclusive, and many of the
options for action had a variety of flaws, so trying to decide what to do
next was difficult.
On Friday, we gave a quick summary on the talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:PRISM#Update
I'll probably post some more details on the talk page in the next day or
two, but suffice to say that we continue to listen for options that are
aligned with our values and likely to have an impact on the discussion.
Luis
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
Hi, all-
Just an FYI that SJ asked some interesting/relevant questions on the
Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline pages:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundatio…
To be clear, there are no current plans (that I know of) to revise the
policy, but several people may find discussion of the
strengths/shortcomings of the current process interesting, and I would be
interested to get the sense of the group on these questions and where we
might go in the future.
Luis
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
Hi again,
so I spent some time looking into the problem and wrote a short summary
at http://twkozlowski.net/russian-wikipedia-under-threat-again/
(<shameless promotion mode="off" />) -- if anyone cares about what's
happening outside of the US, that is.
As described in the summary, there are plans for a massive strike on the
Russian Internet (Runet) on August 1, with the bill being described as
the Russian equivalent of SOPA. It also looks to me like there is some
public opposition against the bill (a petition to the President of
Russia already has over 130,000 signatures with just 100,000 being
required), so the situation is developing quite interestingly.
-- Tomasz
Hi there,
two months after the "smoking cannabis" controversy, the Russian
Wikipedia is in trouble again, this time over an anti-piracy legislation
that will come into force on August 1 and which might result in
Wikipedia as a whole -- not just a few articles -- being blacklisted in
the country.
The Russian parliament introduced anti-drug and anti-child pornography
legislation last year, and it's already successfully used to censor
encyclopaedic articles, so I guess it's time for more radical steps now;
the new law might lead to banning websites that just /link/ to sites
which hold content copyrighted by others.
RIA Novosti has more information on the subject:
<http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130709/182150416/Russian-Wikipedia-Faces-Ban-Due-…>
I'm CC-ing the advocacy advisors mailing list because this lies within
their area of expertise; when responding to this e-mail, please make
sure to include both lists.
-- Tomasz