Liam,
Given that 1/1000th sampling of article readers' access logs has
recently been increased to complete archival for 30 days, it seems
preposterous and misleading to suggest that "we have relatively
minimal exposure in the legal/technical sense." Would you please
elaborate?
I would prefer using banner space to urge a boycott of and individual
court actions against the companies who have been acquiescing to the
government's data access demands until Congress passes a law
abolishing and forbidding the practice of eavesdropping, because of
the high rate of incarceration in the US. Do you believe there is a
direct causal relationship from the extent of surveillance and the
number of criminal convictions involving mandatory minimum sentences
in the US?
Sincerely,
James Salsman
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Following this...
As those of you on the Wikimedia-L list will have seen, I may have started a
little self-perpetuating storm over there by asking what implications
(moral, legal, technical) PRISM has for us.
I think it's been fairly well clarified that we have relatively minimal
exposure in the legal/technical sense due to the limited amount of
information we keep secretly anyway.
Of more potential interest, to me personally at least, is what moral
implications this has for us.
As was mentioned over there, apparently the WMF is preparing a blogpost
about this topic to publicly deny any association with the concept. I think,
as was suggested, that it is important this IS drafted publicly on Meta to
make sure that the wording doesn't smack of hiding behind carefully chosen
phrases like "no 'direct' access" such as was used by other tech
companies.
Moreover, there is now
https://www.stopwatching.us/ that many of our 'close
friends' like the EFF, Mozilla, Internet Archive, American Library
Association... have signed up to. I do NOT think that this is an equivalent
of SOPA in the sense that we should take protest action on our own sites,
but I DO think it is worthwhile our joining this list of signatories. It
would seem to me to be, literally, the least we could do to declare
opposition to something that directly harms our mission of providing
uncensored (directly, or by self-censorship for fear of gov't reprisal)
access to knowledge to people.
-Liam / Wittylama
wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
On 12 June 2013 04:51, Stephen LaPorte <slaporte(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello advocacy advisors,
To follow up on Liam's note, the EFF has published two statements on PRISM
and government surveillance.
"International Customers: It's Time to Call on US Internet Companies to
Demand Accountability and Transparency" -
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/international-customers-its-time-call…
"86 Civil Liberties Groups and Internet Companies Demand an End to NSA
Spying" -
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/86-civil-liberties-groups-and-interne…
--
Stephen LaPorte
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia
Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer
for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
capacity.
_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors