Thanks for the update
This is a good stand to take, seeing that our vision and mission demands it of us.
*Dumisani Ndubane* Monitoring & Evaluation Strategist Wikimedia Foundation
✆ | +27 74 587 8616 ✉ | dndubane@wikimedia.org dndubane@wikimedia.org
*"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."*
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Nadine Le Lirzin nlelirzin@wikimedia.fr wrote:
Thank you, Katherine. At once for such a precise update and for going ahead. Also many thanks to all who dedicate time and work to this case.
Nadine Le Lirzin Wikimédia France
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 at 01:42, Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
Great update, thank you.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
I’d like to share an update and next steps in our lawsuit against the
U.S.
National Security Agency (NSA), Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA.[1] As
you’ll
recall, in March 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation joined eight other plaintiffs in filing a suit in United States Federal District Court
against
the NSA[2] and the Department of Justice,[3] among others. We have been represented pro bono[4] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[5]
and
the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.[6] The law firm Cooley LLP[7] has also been serving as pro bono co-counsel for the Foundation.
Since we’re coming on the three-year anniversary, I wanted to offer a reminder of why we filed this suit. Our challenge supports the
foundational
values of our movement: the right to freedom of expression and access
to
information. Free knowledge requires freedom of inquiry, particularly
in
the case of challenging and unpopular truths. Each day people around
the
world engage with difficult and controversial subjects on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Pervasive mass surveillance brings the threat
of
reprisal, creates a chilling effect, and undermines the freedoms upon
which
our projects and communities are founded. In bringing this suit, we
joined
a tradition of knowledge stewards who have fought to preserve the
integrity
of intellectual inquiry.
Our lawsuit challenges dragnet surveillance by the NSA, specifically
the
large-scale seizing and searching of Internet communications frequently referred to as “Upstream” surveillance.[8] The U.S. government is
tapping
directly into the internet’s “backbone”[9]—the network of high-capacity cables, switches, and routers that carry domestic and international communications—and seizing and searching virtually all text-based
internet
communications flowing into and out of the United States. It’s this backbone that connects the global Wikimedia community to our projects. These communications are being seized and searched without any
requirement
that there be suspicion, for example, that the communications have a connection to terrorism or national security threats.
Last May, we reached an important milestone: a Federal Court of
Appeals[10]
in the United States ruled[11] that the Foundation alone had plausibly alleged “standing”[12] to proceed with our claims that Upstream mass surveillance seizes and searches of the online communications of
Wikimedia
users, contributors and Foundation staff in violation of the U.S. Constitution and other laws. The Court of Appeals’ ruling means that we
are
the sole remaining plaintiff among the nine original co-plaintiffs.
There
is still a long road ahead, but this intermediate victory makes this
case
one of the most important vehicles for challenging the legality of this particular NSA surveillance practice.
As a result of our win in the appellate court, we are now proceeding to
the
next stage of the case: discovery.[13] In the U.S. court system,
parties
use the discovery stage to exchange evidence and ask each other
questions
about their claims. We have requested information and documents from
the
government, and they have made similar requests from us. The entire
phase,
which will also involve research and reports from experts, is expected
to
last the next few months.
As part of our commitment to privacy, I want you to know about what
this
stage of the case means for our data retention practices. Our goal in bringing this lawsuit was to protect user information. In this case,
like
other litigation in which we engage, we may sometimes be legally
required
to preserve some information longer than the standard 90-day period in
our
data retention guidelines. These special cases are acknowledged and permitted by our privacy and data retention policies.[14]
As always, however, we remain committed to keeping user data no longer
than
legally necessary. We never publish the exact details of
litigation-related
data retention, as part of our legal strategy to keep personal data
safe.
And we defend any personal data from disclosure to the maximum extent, taking both legal and technical measures to do so. We are keeping
sensitive
material encrypted and offline, and we have the support of the
experienced
legal teams at the ACLU and Cooley in ensuring its safety and
integrity.
Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA is currently one of the only freedom of expression and access to knowledge cases being prosecuted against government surveillance overreach. Unfortunately, the recent extension
of
these surveillance practices by the U.S. Congress[15] demonstrates that
the
courts may well be the only venue to stop or restrict these practices.
The nature of litigation means that we will not always be able to
discuss
certain details of any case in public. For example, deliberations about tactical or strategic decisions will need to remain confidential in
order
to preserve the attorney-client privilege.[16] In such situations, particularly in a sensitive and important case like this, we are always balancing the need for confidentiality with our commitment to
transparency.
So while some information will not be public, we want to be available
to
address your questions, should you have any. Please direct them to Greg Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org, who can help provide answers.
We will continue keeping you updated on our progress and anything that might affect our communities and visitors to the Wikimedia sites.[17]
I would like to thank Tilman Bayer, Nuria Ruiz, Faidon Liambotis,
Andrew
Otto, James Alexander, Brandon Black, Byron Bogaert, Dan Foy, Grace Gellerman, Aeryn Palmer and Jim Buatti for their extensive dedication
to
this case. And thanks to the C-levels supporting this work, Eileen Hershenov, Victoria Coleman, and Toby Negrin.
Yours, Katherine
[1]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union [6] https://knightcolumbia.org/ [7] https://www.cooley.com/ [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals [11]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) [13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law) [14] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines [15] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-
surveillance/trump-signs-bill-renewing-nsas-internet-
surveillance-program-
idUSKBN1F82MK
[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege [17] https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/
*Previous updates for your review:*
June 23 2017 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/ June 16 2017 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/ May 23 2017 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/ December 9 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/09/wikimedia-v-nsa- hearing-fourth-circuit/ October 17 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/10/17/wikimedia-v-nsa-appeal-hearing/ May 9 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/09/wikimedia-nsa-appeal/ April 11 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/11/new-resource-wikimedia-nsa/ February 17 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/17/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-filed/ December 15 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/15/wikimedia-nsa-notice-of-appeal/ October 23 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-
lawsuit-dismissal/
September 28 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/28/wikimedia-nsa-first-hearing/ September 4 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/04/motion-to-dismiss-
wikimedia-v-nsa/
March 10 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/
-- Katherine Maher
Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher@wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Philippe Beaudette
philippe@beaudette.me 415-275-1424 415-889-9614 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe