[Advocacy Advisors] Request for consultation: Possible amendments to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

[James Salsman]

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Stephen LaPorte <slaporte at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Amgine <amgine at wikimedians.ca> wrote:
>>
>> The problem is more how we should participate, rather than whether. Is
>> the advocacy campaign proposing specific actions, or leaving it to the
>> imaginations of supporters?
>
> Here is a page that others may use next week: http://www.fixthecfaa.com/

Is that an answer to Amgine's question?

The proposed amendments would open editors to felony charges involving
decades of possible jail time for using published web sources to which
they have legitimate access if a prosecutor decides that such use on
Foundation projects isn't explicitly allowed by the site's terms of
service. This is far worse for the editor community than simply having
to remove URLs on request as SOPA or PIPA would have required if they
had passed, and would likely expose even project readers to the same
criminal liability for clicking on links to sources without terms
explicitly allowing such use.

The Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline explicitly
contemplates the use of banner space to promote a political cause. If
this CFAA amendment proposal doesn't rise to the level justifying such
an action, then what would?