EFFector Vol. 15, No. 20 July 12, 2002 ren@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 220th Issue of EFFector: * Privacy Groups Demand Protection of Users' Anonymity Online * EFF's Schoen Rebuts MPAA Answer Sheet on BPDG * Court Orders Site to be Less Findable * Administrivia For more information on EFF activities & alerts: http://www.eff.org/ To join EFF or make an additional donation: http://www.eff.org/support/ EFF is a member-supported nonprofit. Please sign up as a member today! * Privacy Groups Demand Protection of Users' Anonymity Online Urge Internet Providers Shield Clients From Spurious Suits Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release For Immediate Release: Friday, July 12, 2002 New York - A coalition of civil liberties and privacy groups today called on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other online companies to adopt policies protecting their users' right to anonymous speech on the Internet. That right has come under attack in recent years through a growing number of "cyberSLAPP" lawsuits, in which companies file suit just to discover the identity of their online critics - often in order to silence or intimidate them. In a cyberSLAPP suit, the target of anonymous online criticism typically files a lawsuit against a "John Doe" defendant and then issues an identity-seeking subpoena to an ISP. There is currently no legal requirement that ISPs notify their customers before complying with such subpoenas - even though many of the lawsuits are frivolous and have no chance of prevailing in court. "You can't fight to protect your privacy and anonymity when you don't even know that it's being attacked," said Paul Levy of the Public Citizen Litigation Group. The coalition noted that three major online service providers -- Yahoo, Earthlink and America Online -- already notify their customers when they receive subpoenas for identifying information, and urged hundreds of other webmasters and service providers to do the same. In a letter sent to over 100 ISPs, Internet discussion boards, and other online companies, the coalition asked each company to include in its privacy policy a promise that it would notify any customer whose personal information or identity is subpoenaed. The coalition, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and Public Citizen, also included a sample policy with its letter. The coalition also announced the opening of a new Web site on the issue, www.cyberslapp.org, which includes a broad range of information about the cyberSLAPP issue, from a list of "Frequently Asked Questions" for the general public, to legal briefs and other detailed information about ongoing legal battles. Links: For full release: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/20020711_eff_pr.html For more about cyberSLAPP and the ongoing legal battles: http://www.cyberslapp.org American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) website: http://www.aclu.org/ Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) website: http://www.cdt.org/ Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) website: http://www.epic.org/ Public Citizen website: http://www.citizen.org/ - end - * EFF's Schoen Rebuts MPAA Answer Sheet on BPDG The Motion Picture Association of America recently published a FAQ on the "Broadcast Flag" proposal. MPAA is seeking legislation which would require all makers of digital television equipment and software to follow "Compliance and Robustness Rules" it created in a forum called the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group. EFF, which participated in the BPDG, took exception to some of the MPAA's answers. Finding it misleading, and at times incorrect, we have rebutted and clarified the MPAA Broadcast Flag FAQ here: http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/archives/000148.html Links: Our response to MPAA: http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/archives/000148.html The original MPAA FAQ document, which is also reproduced in our rebuttal, is here: http://www.mpaa.org/Press/Broadcast_Flag_QA.htm Background information on the BPDG can be found on our BPDG Blog at: http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/ - end - * Court Censors Tax Site, Restricts Searches Electronic Frontier Foundation Asks Court to Reconsider Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release For Immediate Release: Friday, July 12, 2002 San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today asked a federal court in Oakland to reconsider its ruling earlier this year that Taxes.com rewrite its web pages to appear less prominently in major search engine results for its chief competitor, J.K. Harris & Co. On March 22, 2002, the court ordered Taxes.com to alter web pages that criticize J.K. Harris. The court reasoned that these pages violated trademark law and might divert consumers from J.K. Harris because the pages appear frequently in search engine results for "J.K. Harris". The EFF recently filed a "friend of the court" brief asking the court to reconsider its ruling. "The court mistakenly applied earlier cases relating to metatag abuse to a situation where Taxes.com had simply used its competitor's name in publishing truthful information," explained EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann. "The court has put trademark law on a collision course with the First Amendment." Metatags, which search engines use for indexing, are not visible on web pages and need not reflect the page's content. On the other hand, Taxes.com's criticism pages contributed significantly to the site's content. Taxes.com also filed a brief urging the court to reconsider. The case is J.K. Harris v. Kassel, No. C 02-0400 CW, and is pending in Oakland, California, before Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District in California. Links: For this release: http://www.eff.org/IP/20020710_eff_pr_taxes.html EFF's brief can be found at: http://www.eff.org/IP/20020710_taxes_com_amicus.html Earlier coverage of the case: http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/stories/edt0409e.shtml http://www.law.com/jsp/statearchive.jsp?type=Article&oldid=ZZZ9IVP8UZC http://www.inside-e-law.com/news/2002_04/20020411_trademark.htm - end - * Administrivia EFFector is published by: The Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA +1 415 436 9333 (voice) +1 415 436 9993 (fax) http://www.eff.org/ Editor: Ren Bucholz, Activist ren@eff.org To Join EFF online, or make an additional donation, go to: http://www.eff.org/support/ Membership & donation queries: membership@eff.org General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: ask@eff.org Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express permission. Press releases and EFF announcements & articles may be reproduced individually at will. To change your address, plese visit: http://action.eff.org/subscribe/ >From there, you can update all your information. If you have already subscribed to the EFF Action Center (i.e. gotten a password and sent a fax to Congress), please visit: http://action.eff.org/action/login.asp To unsubscribe from the EFFector mailing list, send an email to: alerts@action.eff.org with the word "Remove" in the subject. (Please ask ren@eff.org to manually remove you from the list if this does not work for you for some reason.) Back issues are available at: http://www.eff.org/effector To get the latest issue, send any message to: effector-reflector@eff.org (or er@eff.org) and it will be mailed to you automatically. You can also get it via the Web at: http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/current.html ++++++++++++++++++++++++ You received this message because eff-all@eff.org is a member of the mailing list originating from alerts@action.eff.org. To unsubscribe from all mailing lists originating from alerts@action.eff.org, send an email to alerts@action.eff.org with "Remove" in the subject line.
