Podcasts about electronic frontier foundation eff

A new exhibit at the Angel Island Immigration Station encourages visitors to consider the past and present of US border policy and border technology. The exhibit was curated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). We speak with Dave Maass, the Director of Investigations at the EFF. You can plan your visit to the exhibit here: https://www.aiisf.org/planyourvisit —- Subscribe to this podcast: https://plinkhq.com/i/1637968343?to=page Get in touch: lawanddisorder@kpfa.org Follow us on socials @LawAndDis: https://twitter.com/LawAndDis; https://www.instagram.com/lawanddis/ The post New Exhibit on Border and Immigration at Angel Island w/ Dave Maass appeared first on KPFA.

 Every now and again, a story that has a significant technology element really breaks through and drives the news cycle. This week, the Trump administration is reeling after The Atlantic magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg revealed that he was on the receiving end of Yemen strike plans in a Signal group chat between US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and other top US national security officials. User behavior, a common failure point, appears to be to blame in this scenario. But what are the broader contours and questions that emerge from this scandal? To learn more, Justin Hendrix spoke to:Ryan Goodman is the Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law at New York University School of Law and co-editor-in-chief of Just Security. He served as special counsel to the general counsel of the Department of Defense (2015-16).Cooper Quintin is a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He has worked on projects including Privacy Badger, Canary Watch, and analysis of state-sponsored malware campaigns such as Dark Caracal.

I get to chat with one of my favorite writers about his new book, "Picks and Shovels", as well as what it's like to invent a word that absolutely nails the current zeitgeist with "enshittification".Find this episode on your favorite podcast player here:https://pod.link/1647010767/ Here are some of the sources and references from this episode:Cory's website, "Craphound"https://craphound.comCory's daily link blog(HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)https://pluralistic.netCory at the Electronic Frontier Foundation(EFF)https://www.eff.org/about/staff/cory-doctorowCory's work at Tor Publishinghttps://torpublishinggroup.com/author/cory-doctorow/"‘What many of us feel': why ‘enshittification' is Macquarie Dictionary's word of the year"https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/nov/26/enshittification-macquarie-dictionary-word-of-the-year-explainedHow monopoly enshittified Amazonhttps://pluralistic.net/2022/11/28/enshittification/#relentless-payolaQuestions? Comments? Email:griff@didnothingwrongpod.com This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.didnothingwrongpod.com/subscribe

Tech Policy Press Associate Editor Ramsha Jahangir hosts a roundtable discussion on the first systemic risk assessments and independent audit reports from Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines produced in compliance with the European Union's Digital Services Act. Ramsha is joined by:Hillary Ross, program lead at the Global Network Initiative (GNI);Magdalena Jozwiak, associate researcher at the DSA Observatory; andSvea Windwehr, the assistant director of EU policy at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

From medicine to technology, our world is run by science. In this episode of the Marketing Speak podcast, join our dive into technology and its impact as we sit down with Brad Templeton to unravel the intricacies of our tech-driven world. Brad is the founding faculty for Computing & Networks at Singularity University and is Chairman Emeritus of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading cyberspace civil rights foundation.  Brad has used his extensive background in futurism to advise Google's self-driving car team and to share his insights on robocars at robocars.com and Forbes.com. He's also a guiding force in developing delivery robots and LIDAR technology and is a pioneer in micro-mobility and e-VTOL (flying car) solutions. Brad also founded ClariNet Communications Corp, the world's first dot-com company, and even holds the distinction of creating the legendary rec.humor.funny and www.netfunny.com. Don't miss out on this incredible discussion on the challenges and promises of technology, the delicate balance between convenience and privacy, and the future that awaits us in this rapidly evolving digital age. Whether you're a tech enthusiast or simply curious about the forces shaping our world, this episode is an absolute must-listen. Tune in! The show notes, including the transcript and checklist for this episode, are at marketingspeak.com/476.

In honor of Independence Day, we're revisiting our discussion with Cindy Cohn, executive director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). For many years, Cindy has been a champion for civil liberties in the digital space. In our conversation, she spoke about the EFF's history and mission, as well as the human rights issues she focuses on today. We hope you enjoy the holiday this week. We will return next week with a new episode. As technology has progressed, we have also seen emerging concerns for freedom of speech and privacy. Our guest today has spent the past 30 years defending individual liberties in the digital space. Cindy Cohn is the executive director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the leading nonprofit organization ensuring that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people. She started her career as a civil litigator in private practice, where she handled various cases related to technology. Then, in 1993, the EFF offered her the opportunity to serve as outside lead attorney in the case Bernstein v. Dept. of Justice, the successful First Amendment challenge to the US export restrictions on cryptography. Today, she handles legal matters involving NSA spying, platform censorship, and surveillance technologies, among other issues. Cindy has received numerous awards and honors for her work. In 2020, she was included in The Nonprofit Times Power and Influence Top 50 list, honoring movers and shakers. In today's discussion, Cindy talks about the fascinating origins of the EFF, how she became involved in human rights work, how her practice has evolved over the years, and her strategies for protecting people's privacy.

This week, we have a lively discussion with June Liebert and Cornell Winston, President and President-Elect, respectively, for the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL). The conversation centers around the upcoming AALL annual conference, scheduled for July 20-23, 2024, at the Hyatt Regency in Chicago.  June Liebert, Director of Information Services at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, kicks off the discussion by diving into the conference theme. She emphasizes the importance of librarians taking proactive leadership roles, particularly in the context of the rapidly evolving landscape influenced by Generative AI. June highlights the concept of "innovation intermediaries," individuals who not only generate innovative ideas but also ensure these ideas are implemented effectively. This theme resonates with the need for transformative thinking, urging librarians to embrace significant changes rather than settling for incremental improvements. This year's keynote speaker is Cory Doctorow, a renowned sci-fi author and advocate for digital rights, Doctorow's presence promises to bring a unique perspective on the intersection of technology and societal impact. June shares her enthusiasm for Doctorow, whose work with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and writings on "enshittification" – the degradation of online platforms over time – provide critical insights into the ethical implications of technological advancements. Doctorow's focus on the human impact of technology, rather than just the technology itself, offers valuable reflections for the legal information profession. Cornell Winston, law librarian at the United States Attorney's Office, provides a comprehensive overview of what attendees can expect from the conference. With over 60 educational programs, including a pre-conference workshop on AI strategy, the event promises rich learning opportunities. Cornell underscores the value of networking and connecting with peers, highlighting the inclusive environment fostered by the Host Program for first-time attendees. His advice to explore sessions outside one's usual domain and to meet new people each day encapsulates the spirit of professional growth and community building. As the conversation unfolds, the trio touches on the broader theme of innovation and technology within law libraries. June and Cornell discuss the shift from physical books to digital resources, reflecting on how generative AI and other technologies are reshaping the profession. June mentions the implementation of live closed captioning for sessions, a first for the conference, enhancing accessibility and providing real-time transcripts for attendees. June shares her experiences as the first Asian American president of the association, highlighting her efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. Cornell, looking ahead to his presidency, discusses plans to review AALL's governance structure and explore the future of law libraries in an increasingly digital world. The episode wraps up with a preview of the 2024 conference in Portland, Oregon, promising another enriching experience for the legal information community. Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   Contact Us: Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gebauerm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@glambert⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Transcript

"It's always so important to me that there has to be a thing to do, right? It has to be empowering. Folks are more aware, but there's a level of fatigue, and there's also a level of disempowerment in that knowledge. So that's the challenge: Making sure that folks aren't just aware, but that they feel like there's something they can do." - Nash SheardIn nonprofit work, raising awareness around your cause is essential. But awareness is only the first step. The ultimate goal is to inspire action that leads to lasting change.That's precisely what Nash Sheard aims to achieve at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit advocating for civil liberties in the digital security and privacy sectors. For over 30 years, EFF has held ground as frontrunners in the field. Yet as technology continues to play an increasingly significant role in our lives, it makes security and regulation more vulnerable than ever… and making their cause even more pressing.In this episode, Nash shares compelling stories from his early days as an activist that led him to the nonprofit world. You'll hear him describe how his firsthand experiences taught him the power of collaboration, what it means to be a true advocate, and the importance of empowering others to take action. We'll delve into the history of EFF, exploring its founding and the ongoing fight for digital security in a rapidly evolving world. Tune in for Nash's take on building trust and perseverance to develop a lasting connection with your audience that inspires lasting results. Contents1 - Nash's introduction to advocacy and protesting2 - First activist groups and introduction to digital security3 - History of EFF and current activism4 - Nash and EFF's definition of advocacy5 - Audience empowerment and cultivating trust6 - Nash's advice on diversity and inclusion LinksHistoric AgencyThe Electronic Frontier FoundationNash Sheard on LinkedInJohn Perry Barlow's EFF Blog PostCulture Built My Brand

This week Matt Guariglia drops in to talk about Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruises's Minority Report. We also discuss the history of policing in New York City and its impact on other cities. We jump into as eugenics, race and ethnicity in policing, gender dynamics, and the influence of World War I on the evolution of criminality in New York City and the rest of the United States as well as the Italian-American experience and the assassination of Joseph Petrosino. This is a fun talk about a somewhat overlooked Spielberg/Cruise collaboration. I hope you like it.About our guest:Matthew Guariglia is a historian and inter-disciplinary scholar serving as senior policy analyst for surveillance and technology policy at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) where he focuses on policy and advocacy related to how local & federal law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and private corporations use technology. He currently holds academic affiliations in the Emory University Department of History and at Indiana University and the Institute of American Thought in support of research into the long history of how the U.S. government collects information on individuals and the relationship between information technologies and punitive state power and activism.His first book Police and the Empire City: Race and the Origins of Modern Policing in New York is out now from Duke University Press. He is also the co-editor of the Essential Kerner Commission Report (Liveright, 2021). He has a PhD in History from the University of Connecticut where my dissertation was awarded the 2020 Outstanding Dissertation Award by the Immigration and Ethnic History Society.  He is also a researcher with years of experience with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requesting. His writing can also be found in the Washington Post, NBC News, TIME, Slate, VICE, MuckRock, and the Urban History Association's blog, The Metropole.

How are dark patterns and deceptive practices impacting fundamental rights such as freedom and privacy? The raise of Ai is exacerbating transparency issues and the potential for AI-powered dark patterns, highlighting the the importance of informed decision-making and the need for individuals to have the ability to enforce their rights.To understand more about it, Marie Potel-Seville sits with Cindy Cohn, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). From 2000-2015 she served as EFF's Legal Director as well as its General Counsel. Ms. Cohn first became involved with EFF in 1993, when EFF asked her to serve as the outside lead attorney in Bernstein v. Dept. of Justice, the successful First Amendment challenge to the U.S. export restrictions on cryptography.To go further:EFF Podcast:https://feeds.eff.org/howtofixtheinternetHave a question or need some support? Visit us at fairpatterns.com and follow us on LinkedIn: FairPatterns! Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Kids Online Safety Act Infographic Northeast Youth Ministry Summit (Register Now!!!) According to Wikipedia:   The "Kids Online Safety Act" (KOSA) is a bill introduced in the United States Senate by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D‑CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R‑TN) in February 2022[1] and reintroduced in May 2023; the bill establishes guidelines meant to protect minors on social media platforms.[2] The bill charges individual state attorneys general with enforcing the bill.[3] The bill has been criticized by civil rights organizations for potentially enabling censorship, including of material important to marginalized groups.[4]Bill summary[edit] The bill is summarized by the Congressional Research Service with the following: This bill sets out requirements to protect minors from online harms. The requirements apply to covered platforms, which are applications or services (e.g., social networks) that connect to the internet and are likely to be used by minors. However, the bill exempts internet service providers, email services, educational institutions, and other specified entities from the requirements. Additionally, covered platforms must provide (1) minors (or their parents or guardians) with certain safeguards, such as settings that restrict access to minors' personal data; and (2) parents or guardians with tools to supervise minors' use of a platform, such as control of privacy and account settings. Covered platforms must also; disclose specified information, including details regarding the use of personalized recommendation systems and targeted advertising; allow parents, guardians, minors, and schools to report certain harms; refrain from facilitating advertising of age-restricted products or services (e.g., tobacco and gambling) to minors; and annually report on foreseeable risks of harm to minors from using the platform. — Congressional Research Service summary, 118th Congress S. 1409 Criticism[edit] The bill has been criticized by members of the "Don't Delete Art" (DDA) movement and anti-censorship groups due to the chances of increased online surveillance and heavy censorship of artists' work. Along with support from the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Coalition Against Censorship, Fight for the Future, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, DDA has encouraged people to signal their opposition through an online petition that labels KOSA as one of several "Bad Internet Bills."[5] A letter sent to the United States Congress by Evan Greer—director of Fight for the Future—and signed by multiple civil society groups claims that KOSA could backfire and cause more harm to minors.[6][7] Fight for the Future has set up a Stop KOSA website for people to sign a petition and contact lawmakers against the bill.[8] Interpretation of harms[edit] Critics, including the EFF, notes that the bill's definition of harm toward minors leaves room for broad interpretation decided by the state attorneys general who are charged with enforcing the bill,[9][10] likening it to the FOSTA-SESTA bills.[11] The conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation has written that the initial 2022 iteration of KOSA doesn't go far enough, as the bill doesn't explicitly list transgender healthcare as a harm.[12][13] The inclusion of the phrase "consistent with evidence-informed medical information"[14] could be used by attorneys general to cherry-pick anti-trans sources as justification, since there is no definition of what "evidence-based medical information" can include.[15] Senator Blackburn, co-author of the bill, has argued that some education about racism and the civil rights movement overlaps with critical race theory, which she labels a "dangerous ideology" that can inflict "mental and emotional damage" upon children.[16] She has also explicitly stated that the bill will be used to censor content involving the transgender community.[17] EFF columnist Jason Kelly states that in the framework provided by the bill, that KOSA could be used to censor education about racism in schools since it could be claimed that it impacts mental health.[18] References[edit] ^ "Blackburn, Blumenthal Introduce Bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act". blackburn.senate.gov. May 2, 2023. Archived from the original on July 26, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. ^ "S.1409 — 118th Congress (2023-2024)". Congress.gov. Archived from the original on July 27, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. ^ "S.1409 — 118th Congress (2023-2024)". Congress.gov. Archived from the original on July 27, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. (Section 11 B) In any case in which the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a practice that violates this Act or a regulation promulgated under this Act, the State, as parens patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in a district court of the United States or a State court of appropriate jurisdiction...S. 1409 ^ Lorenz, Taylor (February 1, 2024). "Online safety legislation is opposed by many it claims to protect". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved February 1, 2024. ^ Nayyar, Rhea (July 26, 2023). "Artists Call on Congress to Stop 'Bad Internet Bills'". Hyperallergic. Archived from the original on July 27, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. ^ "Letter: 90+ LGBTQ and human rights organizations oppose KOSA". Fight for the Future. November 28, 2022. Archived from the original on July 26, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. ^ Feiner, Lauren (May 2, 2023). "Lawmakers update Kids Online Safety Act to address potential harms, but fail to appease some activists, industry groups". CNBC. Archived from the original on July 27, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. ^ "Stop KOSA". Fight for the Future. Archived from the original on September 27, 2023. Retrieved September 27, 2023. ^ Kelley, Jason (May 2, 2023). "The Kids Online Safety Act is Still A Huge Danger to Our Rights Online". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on July 26, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. It will be based on vague requirements that any Attorney General could, more or less, make up. ^ Molloy, Parker (July 27, 2023). "Congress is About to Pass a Very Bad Internet Bill. Here's How You Can Stop It". Substack. Archived from the original on July 27, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. The bill would enforce monitoring of anyone under the age of seventeen and give state attorneys general the power to censor content. ^ Philips, Sarah (July 27, 2023). "This Bill Threatens Access to LGBTQ+ Online Communities". Teen Vogue. Archived from the original on July 27, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. Like SESTA/FOSTA, KOSA creates the aforementioned duty of care for social media companies, giving state attorneys general the power to sue sites like Instagram or Twitter if they put up content they deem "harmful" for kids and teens. With SESTA/FOSTA, we saw that tech companies preferred to shut down already-policed content about reproductive justice, LGBTQ+ identities, and sex education than risk a lawsuit. ^ Eckert, Jared (March 21, 2022). "How Not To Keep Children Safe Online". The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on July 27, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. ^ Philips, Sarah (July 27, 2023). "This Bill Threatens Access to LGBTQ+ Online Communities". Teen Vogue. Archived from the original on July 27, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. KOSA's supporters might want to ignore the fact that it's a censorship bill in disguise, but the Heritage Foundation is saying the quiet part out loud. The hard-line conservative organization has openly said KOSA will help them censor the content conservatives don't want young people to have access to. ^ "S.1409". Congress.gov. May 2, 2023. Archived from the original on July 31, 2023. Retrieved August 1, 2023. Sec 3.b.2: the covered platform or individuals on the platform from providing resources for the prevention or mitigation of suicidal behaviors, substance use, and other harms, including evidence-informed information and clinical resources. ^ Molloy, Parker (July 27, 2023). "Congress is About to Pass a Very Bad Internet Bill. Here's How You Can Stop It". Substack. Archived from the original on July 27, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. (In a block quote from Evan Greer) The phrase "consistent with evidence-informed medical information" does nothing to prevent that, because AGs can always find cherry-picked studies to support their wild claims. They're doing this right now. In his "emergency" order attempting to ban gender-affirming care, Missouri's attorney general cited a Swedish study that claims there is a lack of evidence to support the efficacy and safety of gender-affirming care. There is no legal definition of "evidence-based." Those are just words. This bill will absolutely allow AGs to go after platforms for recommending speech they don't like to younger users. Tying the duty of care to specific mental health outcomes is also problematic because it will lead to suppression of all discussion around those important but controversial topics. ^ "Why Is Critical Race Theory Dangerous For Our Kids?". U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. July 12, 2021. Archived from the original on July 2, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. While parents struggle to help their children manage the mental and emotional damage inflicted by this dangerous ideology, the left will continue to re-write our education system to fit their woke agenda—and they won't stop until CRT is in every classroom in America. I will gladly stand with Tennessee parents to demand an end to this latest, unhinged attempt to brainwash our nation's children. ^ "Senator appears to suggest bipartisan bill would censor transgender content online". NBC. Archived from the original on September 6, 2023. Retrieved September 6, 2023. ^ Kelley, Jason (May 2, 2023). "The Kids Online Safety Act is Still A Huge Danger to Our Rights Online". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on July 26, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023. KOSA's co-author, Sen. Blackburn of Tennessee, has referred to education about race discrimination as "dangerous for kids." Many states have agreed and recently moved to limit public education about the history of race, gender, and sexuality discrimination.

In this episode of Privacy Files, we talk to Cindy Cohn, an American civil liberties attorney and the Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). In 2018, Forbes named Cindy one of America's Top 50 Women in Tech. Cindy's passion for internet law spans decades and has put her in the middle of landmark legal cases involving privacy, censorship and the Fourth Amendment. We begin the episode by discussing Cindy's lead role in the case of Bernstein vs. Department of Justice, challenging the United States' export restrictions on cryptography. Today, written software code is speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In all, we discuss a variety of topics from Big Tech's surveillance capitalism model to where the privacy legal battlefield is today. It was an honor to interview someone playing such a prominent role in defending Americans' rights to live privately and free from censorship. To donate or to present a case for the EFF to review: https://www.eff.org/ Check out the EFF's podcast How to Fix the Internet: https://open.spotify.com/show/4UAplFpPDqE4hWlwsjplgt OUR SPONSORS: Anonyome Labs - Makers of MySudo and Sudo Platform. Take back control of your personal data. www.anonyome.com MySudo - The world's only all-in-one privacy app. Communicate and transact securely and privately. Talk, text, email, browse, shop and pay, all from one app. Stay private. www.mysudo.com MySudo VPN - No personal information required to sign up. You don't even need a username and password. Finally, a VPN that is actually private. https://mysudo.com/mysudo-vpn/ Sudo Platform - The cloud-based platform companies turn to for seamlessly integrating privacy solutions into their software. Easy-to-use SDKs and APIs for building out your own branded customer apps like password managers, virtual cards, private browsing, identity wallets (decentralized identity), and secure, encrypted communications (e.g., encrypted voice, video, email and messaging). www.sudoplatform.com

In this episode of Unspoken Security (sponsored by ZeroFox), AJ Nash (VP & Distinguished Fellow of Intelligence, ZeroFox) is joined by Tarah Wheeler, who is not only the CEO at Red Queen Dynamics, but also a Senior Fellow for Global Cyber Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and Advisory Board Member for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).Tarah and AJ discuss some of the ongoing challenges facing small businesses as they attempt to defend themselves and their customers against cyber threats. Of particular interest in this conversation, Tarah has some passionate thoughts about a new Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulation regarding breach reporting that is set to go into effect in May 2024. You're definitely going to want to hear what she has to say on this!(Spoiler Alert: Things are about to get a lot harder for small businesses!)Lastly, as with all episodes of Unspoken Security, AJ asks his guests to reveal something they had never talked about before (something "unspoken"). Tarah struggled with this one a bit (partially because she already shared a great secret earlier in the show) before giving a very cool answer that led to AJ and Tarah planning a road trip together.What a way to finish the show!

As technology has progressed, we have also seen emerging concerns for freedom of speech and privacy. Our guest today has spent the past 30 years defending individual liberties in the digital space. Cindy Cohn is the executive director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the leading nonprofit organization ensuring that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people. She started her career as a civil litigator in private practice, where she handled various cases related to technology. Then, in 1993, the EFF offered her the opportunity to serve as outside lead attorney in the case Bernstein v. Dept. of Justice, the successful First Amendment challenge to the US export restrictions on cryptography. Today, she handles legal matters involving NSA spying, platform censorship, and surveillance technologies, among other issues. Cindy has received numerous awards and honors for her work. In 2020, she was included in The Nonprofit Times Power and Influence Top 50 list, honoring movers and shakers. In today's discussion, Cindy talks about the fascinating origins of the EFF, how she became involved in human rights work, how her practice has evolved over the years, and her strategies for protecting people's privacy.

In this final bonus Walled Culture podcast episode - recorded mid-2022 and kept under wraps as a special 1st anniversary episode, we welcome Fred von Lohmann, former Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Google copyright counsel. Our conversation starts with recalling how he got intrigued by copyright, crediting John Perry Barlow, and explaining how he was at the right juncture to become a tech enthusiast. Fred talks about his role at EFF during what was a unique time from a copyright perspective, characterised by pivotal court cases in the 2000s. He looks back at the impact and effects of the rights holders' battle against peer-to-peer (P2P) technology. Their fierce resistance against anything related to P2P, in his view, crippled the potential transition towards a decentralised Internet back then. He did see one silver lining from the aftermath: the P2P revolution opened music fans' eyes to what could be, pressuring the music industry to start meeting consumers' demand. Fred highlights the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) (invisible) role in shaping our daily lives. On the one hand, the DMCA gave a legal justification to rights holders' control over technology beyond the copyright realm by providing legal protections for Digital Rights Management (DRM). This has impacted various types of content, be it (now old-school) DVDs, eBooks or games. On the other, the DMCA boosted the Internet's success through the safe harbour regime, offering a shelter from the ‘open sea' with hurricanes of lawsuits. The latter troubled rights holders, leading Fred to discuss the emergence of (imperfect) copyright filters. In this context, he touches upon Google's Content ID, rights holder abuses, and the EU Copyright Directive's questionable filtering obligations. He puts forward a crucial, yet unanswered, question in this debate: “how do you build filters that are fair to users and also don't constrict creativity too much?” Finally, Fred briefly shares his insights on how copyright intersects with competition and innovation, especially in the context of software interfaces. In his closing remarks, he echoes some of Cory Doctorow's wisdom, as he emphasises the need to think about copyright's impact on fans and innovators.

En este increíble episodio, tenemos el honor de contar con la participación de una invitada de relevancia mundial: Katitza Rodriguez, directora de políticas de privacidad global de la Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Habló con nuestro equipo sobre su opinión acerca del nuevo intento de regulación de un Convenio Internacional sobre Cibercrimen impulsado por la ONU, sus aspectos positivos y negativos. Otro gran capítulo para seguir de cerca las nuevas tendencias en ciberseguridad.

From medicine to technology, our world is run by science. In this week's thrilling episode of Get Yourself Optimized podcast, join our dive into technology and its impact as we sit down with Brad Templeton to unravel the intricacies of our tech-driven world. Brad is the founding faculty for Computing & Networks at Singularity University and is Chairman Emeritus of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading cyberspace civil rights foundation.  Brad has used his extensive background in futurism to advise Google's self-driving car team and to share his insights on robocars at robocars.com and Forbes.com. He's also a guiding force in developing delivery robots and LIDAR technology, and is a pioneer in micro-mobility and e-VTOL (flying car) solutions. Brad also founded ClariNet Communications Corp, the world's first dot-com company, and even holds the distinction of creating the legendary rec.humor.funny and www.netfunny.com. Don't miss out on this incredible discussion on the challenges and promises of technology, the delicate balance between convenience and privacy, and the future that awaits us in this rapidly evolving digital age. Whether you're a tech enthusiast or simply curious about the forces shaping our world, this episode is an absolute must-listen. Tune in! The show notes, including the transcript and checklist to this episode, are at getyourselfoptimized.com/421.

A subset of the internet where communications between two parties or client-server transactions are obscured from search engines and surveillance systems by layers of encryption. The U.S. Navy designed the original Darknet by developing The Onion Router network, or TOR, back in the 1990s. Roger Dingledine and Nick Mathewson deployed the first alpha implementation in 2002 with some initial funding by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF.) The TOR Project became a non-profit in 2006 and is funded by the U.S, Sweden, different NGOs, and individual sponsors.

A subset of the internet where communications between two parties or client-server transactions are obscured from search engines and surveillance systems by layers of encryption. The U.S. Navy designed the original Darknet by developing The Onion Router network, or TOR, back in the 1990s. Roger Dingledine and Nick Mathewson deployed the first alpha implementation in 2002 with some initial funding by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF.) The TOR Project became a non-profit in 2006 and is funded by the U.S, Sweden, different NGOs, and individual sponsors. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode features Ernesto Falcon, senior legislative counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who recently announced his candidacy for California's Senate District 7. We discuss the role of the digital divide in his campaign and candidacy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On August 10th The Reno Worker (RW) published a Press Release from Mass Liberation Northern Nevada which claimed that the Douglas County Sheriff was working with Local far-right militias were working together on their response to a planned local Black Lives Matter (BLM) rally. In an article published the same day reporters working for the RW noted that “militia members were spotted throughout the grounds providing unofficial security aid to the Douglas County Sheriffs Office. Some of those who were present could be identified by patches. Militias that were present included the 3% Militia, the Northern Nevada Militia, as well some members of the Boogaloo Movement.” at the rally in their article “Minden, NV Proves America's “Sun Down Towns” Are Alive and Well.On October 22nd RW reported that these same militias had been identified by The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) as likely to work with Law Enforcement. The report notes “While these groups often define their operations in terms of defense of the public and protecting businesses, they are almost always aligned towards a particular political view. From this standpoint, through which they often see police and the US military as allies, their implicit goals overlap with preserving the long-term dominant culture of the US, largely perceived as traditionally pro-white and patriarchal systems of production and governance.”The email from Ron Elges that was a product of a FOIA request filed by EFF.An email was recovered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) from Ron Elges, a member of the Douglas County Sheriffs Office, that claimed that a member of a local militia was working with the Sheriff to provide security to a Trump rally on September 12th. The email claimed the individual was patrolling the “Minden-Tahoe Airport” and had performed a number of arrests. The full email is transcribed below and pictured left.On September 12, 2020 at approximately 0700, I received a call from [Redacted] stated he was local militia and has been securing the perimeter outside the Minden-Tahoe Airport. He stated they have spotted several individuals camping out and have arrested a few subjects. [Redacted] is in communication with with Douglas SO. [Redacted] received my phone number from the airport office and called in regards to enforcing the parking lot. He wanted to know if he should be denying people access to the parking lot.When Ron Elges was contacted in an additional FOIA request, he denied that this, or any further emails existed.If you'd like to read the rest of this article, consider subscribing to our Patreon here. At the $5 level, you'll receive the full article in Print on November 30th along with two other featured articles. At the $10 level, you'll be given access to articles digitally as soon as they're published, bonus articles that may be posted throughout the month, and you'll still receive the physical Zine on the 30th. If you'd like to support our Journalists independently, you can donate to Chris Torres' Cashapp, $headbutted and you can support JJ individually by donating to their Cashapp: $JJMazzucotelli.MilitiaNevadaRenoJournalismExtremismThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/1198501/advertisement

The Civil Liberties Director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), David Greene, joins Tim to talk about current efforts to ban the social media app TikTok from American users. The EFF describes itself as the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF says its “mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.”  In this episode, David talks about current legislation in the U.S. to ban the popular social media app called TikTok, but it has more far-reaching impacts than just TikTok. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/RESTRICT_Act_auphonic.mp3 TikTok is a short-form video hosting platform owned by a Chinese company called ByteDance. TikTok users create their own videos and submit them to the platform. Some videos can be as short as a few seconds, while others can be as long as 10 minutes. TikTok started in China under a different name, and continues in that country under its original brand. The social media app made its international debut in September of 2017. To date, the TikTok app has been downloaded more than 150 million times in the United States and has how surpassed 2 billion downloads globally. If you have kids, especially teenagers, you probably don't need me to tell you how popular the app is, but it's not limited to teenagers. Videos on TikTok are well known for going viral. This causes them to jump onto other platforms like Twitter and Instagram, where for some, their reach penetrates America's national consciousness. Sometimes a TikTok video will go viral to the extent that America's traditional media will pick up the story. But the TikTok story is more than that of just a popular app. That 150 million download number means that the app is installed on roughly 150 million American smart devices. This gives the social media platform access to data and information on those 150 million users. What complicates this is that ByteDance is a Chinese-owned company. And despite assurances from the company, a common fear is that the government of China is using this access to spy on Americans. Links Electronic Frontier Foundation "Patriot Act on Steroids:" Left and Right Unite Against Fear-mongering TikTok Ban, MSN TikTok Ban Faces Obscure Hurdle: The Berman Amendments, The Wall Street Journal Could the RESTRICT Act Criminalize the Use of VPNs?, Reason About this Episode's Guest David Greene David Greene, Senior Staff Attorney and Civil Liberties Director, has significant experience litigating First Amendment issues in state and federal trial and appellate courts. David currently serves on the steering committee of the Free Expression Network, the governing committee of the ABA Forum on Communications Law, and on advisory boards for several arts and free speech organizations across the country. David is also an adjunct professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, where he teaches classes in First Amendment and media law and was formerly an instructor in the journalism department at San Francisco State University. He has written and lectured extensively on many areas of First Amendment Law, including as a contributor to the International Encyclopedia of Censorship. Before joining EFF, David was for twelve years the Executive Director and Lead Staff Counsel for First Amendment Project, where he worked with EFF on numerous cases including Bunner v. DVDCCA. David also previously served as program director of the National Campaign for Freedom of Expression where he was the principal contributor and general editor of the NCFE Quarterly and the principal author of the NCFE Handbook to Understanding, Preparing for and Responding to Challenges to your Freedom of Artistic Expression. He also practiced with the firms Bryan Cave LLP and Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft. Way back in 1998, he was a founding member,

Mikko Hyppönen is considered one of the world's foremost cybersecurity experts. He is known for his work on IoT security, where he coined the term “The Hyppönen law”. Currently he is working as Chief Research Officer at Withsecure and as Principal Research Advisor at F Secure. He has lectured at the universities of Stanford and Oxford and is a regular contributor to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and Scientific American. He was named among the 50 most influential people on the web by PC World Magazine and listed in the FP Global 100 Thought Leaders list. He speaks regularly at conferences such as Black Hat, DEF CON, HackInTheBox, OWASP, RSA, SOURCE, Security BSides Las Vegas and Shmoocon. He has advised companies such as Microsoft, Facebook, HPE, Google, Huawei, Dell and Cisco. He also advises governments around the globe including the United States, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Mikko serves as Chairman on a number of industry organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Digital Citizens Alliance (DCA) and Internet Archive. He is also a member of the board of directors of the International Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR).Mikko sits down with us to chat about his background, the internet, the future of the web and what advice he would give to aspiring security professionals.Danny Boy smartly pours a “Finnish Long Drink”.Support the showContact BarCode Support us on Patreon Follow us on LinkedIn Tweet us at @BarCodeSecurity Email us at info@thebarcodepodcast.com Thanks for listening, and we will see you next round!

Attorney Aaron Mackey joins Tim to talk about how intelligence agencies, law enforcement and private companies are buying your data as part of larger surveillance operations. Is this against the spirit of the Fourth Amendment rights to privacy?  Aaron works for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or the EFF. The foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. It champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation. In this episode, Aaron talks about your privacy. How much you have, who's invading it, how they're doing it. And most importantly, what they're doing with your personal information. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Swiping_Your_Privacy_auphonic.mp3 You probably already know that you don't have much privacy. When you leave your house, cameras are watching. You have cameras throughout the city, sending images back to some central security hub. Then you have cameras homeowners install to watch their own property. In the process, you can't walk down any street without the possibility that you're being watched and recorded. But it's not just cameras. That smartphone in your pocket may be the most prolific source of your private data. The cloud knows where you are, where you were, how long you spent there, and in some cases, where you're going. It knows what you're thinking about based on what it hears you saying through the microphone and the search engine in the device itself. Did you use a social media app like Facebook, Twitter or Instagram? It's not just each of those sites that know what you're saying and doing. It's the network that the phone itself is connected to.  They know…and they share. They share your information, and you don't know who's seeing it, and what they're doing with it. You don't know how you're being judged. Aaron Mackey is a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I mentioned all of this to him, but I asked him the big question on my mind. We know these companies have our information, but is it all harmless? Links The Electronic Frontier Foundation Big Brother Watching? Government agencies buying cell phone, internet data to track Americans, Just the News Carpenter v. United States (2018) Supreme Court Case, National Constitution Center About this Episode's Guest Aaron Mackey Aaron Mackey is a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He works on free speech, anonymity, privacy, government surveillance and transparency. Before joining EFF in 2015, Aaron was in Washington, D.C. where he worked on speech, privacy, and freedom of information issues at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown Law. Aaron graduated from Berkeley Law in 2012, where he worked for EFF while a student in the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic. He also holds an LLM from Georgetown Law. Prior to law school, Aaron was a journalist at the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson, Arizona. He received his undergraduate degree in journalism and English from the University of Arizona in 2006, where he met his amazing wife, Ashley. They have two young children.  

Joining the podcast this week is Eva Galperin, Director of Cybersecurity for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). She is also the co-founder of the Coalition Against Stalkerware and has long been a champion for providing privacy and security for vulnerable populations around the world. “What is stalkerware?” many may ask. Stalkerware is considered a more personal way of invading someone's privacy such as using malware to track a person's activity on a device. Eva shares insights from her many years on the frontlines of digital privacy both educating the broader population on how to protect oneself while also navigating the labyrinth of new regulations and laws being created that impact digital privacy of the future. Be sure to visit StopStalkerware.org to learn more! Eva Galperin is EFF's Director of Cybersecurity Prior to 2007, when she came to work for EFF, Eva worked in security and IT in Silicon Valley and earned degrees in Political Science and International Relations from SFSU. Her work is primarily focused on providing privacy and security for vulnerable populations around the world. To that end, she has applied the combination of her political science and technical background to everything from organizing EFF's Tor Relay Challenge, to writing privacy and security training materials (including Surveillance Self Defense and the Digital First Aid Kit), and publishing research on malware in Syria, Vietnam, Lebanon, and Kazakhstan. Since 2018, she has worked on addressing the digital privacy and security needs of survivors or domestic abuse. She is also a co-founder of the Coalition Against Stalkerware. For links and resources discussed in this episode, please visit our show notes at https://www.forcepoint.com/govpodcast/e203

Tech sector asks Fifth Circuit to stop Texas's social media law from taking effect   The State of Texas's social media law which stops tech companies from taking down hate speech and misleading information has reached the Fifth Circuit in a motion that this organization – WashingTech – has participated in amicus filings for. We agree with NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) that this law impinges on platforms' First Amendment rights and the discretion Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act affords them to moderate content posted by third parties.    It would allow traditional media platforms, like Fox News, to ban progressive voices but require competing online platforms to host politically-motivated harmful content, including election misinformation.   Abortion advocates pushback against “people search” websites   Cyberscoop notes that abortion rights adovocates' privacy rights are put in jeopardy by people search websites, like BeenVerified, which share their personal contact information. Maleeha Aziz, deputy director of the Texas Equal Access Fund, told Cyberscoop that she   installed security cameras around her home because she lives in constant fear, because of her abortion advocacy, that anti-abortion extremists or solicitors will come knocking on her front door at any moment. Reuters exclusive: child pornography solicitations on Twitter have been showing up next to PBSKids ads   Several brands, as many as 30, to be exact, have had to limit their advertising on Twitter after Reuters found their ads showing up next to solicitations by pedophiles for content depicting child abuse. Disney, Coca Cola, NBCUniversal, PBS – are just some of the companies that were affected.   Privacy advocates want the FTC to tamp down on daycare apps   Privacy advocates are pushing back about daycare apps that let parents and caregivers stream videos of their babies in daycare. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argues that these platforms host images of kids in unsecure, cloud-based storage apps, and, in one case, an app called Tadpoles for Parents, shared these images on Facebook without notifying parents of their privacy policy.

Michaela dives deeper into the nexus of cyber and vulnerable populations through an interview with Eva Galperin, the Director of Cybersecurity at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Listen in on our conversation about stalkerware, privacy, and activism! Listen to the end of the episode to hear what the Cyber.RAR team is up to (plus the prospect of Season 2!?). If you'd like to reach out to us, send an email to cyberRAR.podcast@gmail.com!Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law of Obscenity and the Assault on Genius: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Lean_Back_EverywhereMaryland SB 134: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/victory-maryland-police-must-now-be-trained-recognize-stalkerwareResources for vulnerable populations: --EFF: https://www.eff.org/pages/tools --Access Now: https://www.accessnow.org/help/ --Department of Homeland Security: https://www.ready.gov/cybersecurity --Consumer Reports: https://securityplanner.consumerreports.org/

For this episode I interviewed Danny O'Brien (@mala) , current senior fellow at the Filecoin Foundation and special advisor to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Danny worked with the EFF for a very long time and has a podcast called How to Fix the Internet. During the interview we talked about  his experience of the early internet and what it was like to see it develop without significant influence from the left, his pub hangouts with cypherpunks before it ended, and the importance of taking part in technological spaces in the early days to political influence. Our first contact with one another contained a little bit of drama on Twitter as well which we discussed a bit. From our point of view, the importance of taking part in the crypto space at this moment trumps the accusations of being a psyop or of left-washing. If you liked the podcast be sure to give it a review on your preferred podcast platform. If you find content like this important consider donating to my Patreon starting at just $3 per month. It takes quite a lot of my time and resources so any amount helps. Follow me on Twitter (@TBSocialist) and join the r/CryptoLeftists subreddit and Discord to join the discussion.Support the show

In this episode our two hosts talk to an eclectic panel consisting of members of the Georgian affiliation of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called Electronic Frontiers Georgia. Among other topics, civil rights (especially in the digital age), sharing of ideas never mind other intellectual capital and why this still matters in socialist America are the focus of discussion. Plus Chris manages to recount most of the founding fathers of the US (gaps may be present... :-) Links: Electronic Frontiers Georgia: https://ef-georgia.org Electronic Frontier Foundation: https://www.eff.org Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org American Civil Liberties Union: https://www.aclu.org The Hacker Crackdown: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/101 The Electronic Frontier Alliance: https://www.eff.org/fight Shodan: https://www.shodan.io Shotspotter: https://www.shotspotter.com High velocity winds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm Super amigos: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0923928/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2 Chaos Communication Congress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Communication_Congress Authors of US constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States The Federalist Papers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers US Consitution: https://guides.loc.gov/constitution

The theme of this episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast is, “Be careful what you wish for.“ Techlash regulation is burgeoning around the world. Mark MacCarthy  takes us through a week's worth of regulatory enthusiasm. Canada is planning to force Google and Facebook to pay Canadian news media for links. It sounds simple, but arriving at the right price—and the right recipients—will require a hefty dose of discretionary government intervention. Meanwhile, South Korea's effort to regulate Google's Android app store policies, which also sounds simple, is quickly devolving into such detail that the government might as well call it price regulation—because that's what it is. And, Mark notes, even in China, which seemed to be moderating its hostility to tech platforms, just announced algorithm compliance audits for TenCent and ByteDance. Nobody is weeping for Big Tech, but anybody who thinks this kind of thing will hurt Big Tech has never studied the history of AT&T—or Rupert Murdoch. Incumbent tech companies have the resources to protect themselves from regulatory harm—and to make sure their competitors will be crushed by the burdens they bear. The one missing chapter in the mutual accommodation of Big Tech and Big Government, I argue, is a Rupert Murdoch figure—someone who will use his platform unabashedly to curry favor not from the left but from the right. It's an unfilled niche, but a moderately conservative Big Tech company is likely to find all the close regulatory calls being made in its favor if (or, more likely, when) the GOP takes power. If you think that's not possible, you missed the last week of tech news. Elon Musk, whose entire business empire is built on government spending, is already toying with occupying a Silicon Valley version of the Rupert Murdoch niche. His acquisition of nearly 10 percent of Twitter is an opening gambit that is likely to make him the man that conservatives hail as the antidote to Silicon Valley's political monoculture. Axios's complaint that the internet is becoming politically splintered is wildly off the mark today, but it may yet come true. Nick Weaver brings us back to earth with a review of the FBI's successful (for now) takedown of the Cyclops Blink botnet—a Russian cyber weapon that was disabled before it could be fired. Nick reminds us that the operation was only made possible by a change in search and seizure procedures that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and friends condemned as outrageous just a decade ago. Last week, he reports, Western law enforcement also broke the Hydra dark market. In more good news, Nick takes us through the ways in which bitcoin's traceability has enabled authorities to bust child sex rings around the globe. Nick also brings us This Week in Bad News for Surveillance Software: FinFisher is bankrupt. Israeli surveillance software smuggled onto EU ministers' phones is being investigated; and Google has banned apps that use particularly intrusive data collection tools, outed by Nick's colleagues at the International Computer Science Institute. Finally, Europe is building a vast network to do face recognition across the continent. I celebrate the likely defeat of ideologues who've been trying to toxify face recognition for years. And I note that one of my last campaigns at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was a series of international agreements that lock European law enforcement into sharing of such data with the United States. Defending those agreements, of course, should be a high priority for the State Department's on-again off-again new cyber bureau. Download the 402nd Episode (mp3)  You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

The theme of this episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast is, “Be careful what you wish for.“ Techlash regulation is burgeoning around the world. Mark MacCarthy  takes us through a week's worth of regulatory enthusiasm. Canada is planning to force Google and Facebook to pay Canadian news media for links. It sounds simple, but arriving at the right price—and the right recipients—will require a hefty dose of discretionary government intervention. Meanwhile, South Korea's effort to regulate Google's Android app store policies, which also sounds simple, is quickly devolving into such detail that the government might as well call it price regulation—because that's what it is. And, Mark notes, even in China, which seemed to be moderating its hostility to tech platforms, just announced algorithm compliance audits for TenCent and ByteDance. Nobody is weeping for Big Tech, but anybody who thinks this kind of thing will hurt Big Tech has never studied the history of AT&T—or Rupert Murdoch. Incumbent tech companies have the resources to protect themselves from regulatory harm—and to make sure their competitors will be crushed by the burdens they bear. The one missing chapter in the mutual accommodation of Big Tech and Big Government, I argue, is a Rupert Murdoch figure—someone who will use his platform unabashedly to curry favor not from the left but from the right. It's an unfilled niche, but a moderately conservative Big Tech company is likely to find all the close regulatory calls being made in its favor if (or, more likely, when) the GOP takes power. If you think that's not possible, you missed the last week of tech news. Elon Musk, whose entire business empire is built on government spending, is already toying with occupying a Silicon Valley version of the Rupert Murdoch niche. His acquisition of nearly 10 percent of Twitter is an opening gambit that is likely to make him the man that conservatives hail as the antidote to Silicon Valley's political monoculture. Axios's complaint that the internet is becoming politically splintered is wildly off the mark today, but it may yet come true. Nick Weaver brings us back to earth with a review of the FBI's successful (for now) takedown of the Cyclops Blink botnet—a Russian cyber weapon that was disabled before it could be fired. Nick reminds us that the operation was only made possible by a change in search and seizure procedures that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and friends condemned as outrageous just a decade ago. Last week, he reports, Western law enforcement also broke the Hydra dark market. In more good news, Nick takes us through the ways in which bitcoin's traceability has enabled authorities to bust child sex rings around the globe. Nick also brings us This Week in Bad News for Surveillance Software: FinFisher is bankrupt. Israeli surveillance software smuggled onto EU ministers' phones is being investigated; and Google has banned apps that use particularly intrusive data collection tools, outed by Nick's colleagues at the International Computer Science Institute. Finally, Europe is building a vast network to do face recognition across the continent. I celebrate the likely defeat of ideologues who've been trying to toxify face recognition for years. And I note that one of my last campaigns at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was a series of international agreements that lock European law enforcement into sharing of such data with the United States. Defending those agreements, of course, should be a high priority for the State Department's on-again off-again new cyber bureau. Download the 402nd Episode (mp3)  You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Katharine Trendacosta is Associate Director of Policy and Activism at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Her areas of expertise are competition, broadband access, intellectual property, net neutrality, fair use, free speech online, and intermediary liability. She is the former managing editor of science fiction and science website io9, and spent many years writing about technology policy and pop culture for various publications. Katharine notably talks about the good and the bad of the DMCA and the issues surrounding upload filters. She reflects on why the SOPA-PIPA debate mattered and how the underlying issues still linger. Katharine recalls how fanfiction sparked her interest in copyright and shares her hopes to see more smaller platforms pop-up as alternative avenues for creators and users.

Cory Doctorow (craphound.com) is a science fiction author, activist and journalist. In my circles, he's probably best known for his work with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Boing Boing, but he's also a renowned science fiction author in his own right, an MIT Media Lab Research Affiliate, a Visiting Professor of Computer Science at Open University, a Visiting Professor of Practice at the University of North Carolina's School of Library and Information Science, and co-founder of the UK Open Rights Group. In short: Cory is precisely the kind of polymath we love to engage with at the Boston Computation Club! Today, Cory joined us to discuss Big Tech - what's wrong with it and how to fix (read: DISMANTLE) it. The talk was engaging, exciting, elucidating - all that and a bag of chips. We really enjoyed talking to Cory and we hope you enjoy the recording! You can also view this talk in video form HERE.

The Quiet Way Advertisers Are Tracking Your BrowsingCookies are on the way out—but not enough is being done about browser fingerprinting. So what is it?Creepy cookies that track all your online activity are (slowly) being eradicated. In recent years major web browsers, including Safari and Firefox, have restricted the practice. Even Chrome has realized that cookies present a privacy nightmare. But stopping them ends only one kind of online tracking—others are arguably worse.Fingerprinting, which involves gathering detailed information about your browser's or your phone's settings, falls into this category. The tracking method is largely hidden, there's not much you can do to stop it, and regulators have done little to limit how companies use it to follow you around the internet.What Is Fingerprinting?By combining all this information into a fingerprint, it's possible for advertisers to recognize you as you move from one website to the next. Multiple studies looking at fingerprinting have found that around 80 to 90 percent of browser fingerprints are unique. Fingerprinting is often done by advertising technology companies that insert their code onto websites. Fingerprinting code—which comes in the form of a variety of scripts, such as the FingerprintJS library—is deployed by dozens of ad tech firms to collect data about your online activity. Sometimes websites that have fingerprinting scripts on them don't even know about it. And the companies are often opaque and unclear in the ways they track you.https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/static/browser-uniqueness.pdfhttps://hal.inria.fr/hal-01285470v2/documenthttps://github.com/fingerprintjs/fingerprintjshttps://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protection/blob/master/descriptions.mdhttps://www.propublica.org/article/meet-the-online-tracking-device-that-is-virtually-impossible-to-blockFingerprinting evolved alongside the development of web browsers and is intertwined with the web's history. As browsers have matured they have communicated more with servers—through APIs and HTTP headers—about people's device settings, says Bielova, who has studied the development of fingerprinting. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) first identified fingerprinting back in 2010. Since then fingerprinting has become increasingly common as advertisers have tried to get around cookie blocks and limits put on ad tracking by Google and Apple.https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/static/browser-uniqueness.pdfSo How Bad Is It?https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-quarter-of-the-alexa-top-10k-websites-are-using-browser-fingerprinting-scripts/https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/popets-2020-0041https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/researchers-use-gpu-fingerprinting-to-track-users-online/https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss2017/ndss-2017-programme/cross-browser-fingerprinting-os-and-hardware-level-features/How Can You Stop It?https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3308558.3313703https://www.wired.com/story/privacy-browsers-duckduckgo-ghostery-brave/https://blog.torproject.org/browser-fingerprinting-introduction-and-challenges-ahead/https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2020/01/07/firefox-72-fingerprinting/https://brave.com/privacy-updates/4-fingerprinting-defenses-2.0/Analyze and evaluate your site with web browsing tools. Inform your clients and educate them about conditions. Transparency is the best policy. Keep clients updated and aware of developments. A good place to start is to subscribe to the podcast where I track developments such as this.For business owners, CEOs, and marketing managers this podcast is for those who want to grow their business with social audio. You are going to understand now so that you can reap the benefits later.Mick Smith, Consultant M: (619) 227.3118 E: mick.smith@wsiworld.com Commercials Voice Talent:https://www.spreaker.com/user/7768747/track-1-commercials Narratives Voice Talent:https://www.spreaker.com/user/7768747/track-2-narrativesDo you want a free competitive analysis? Let me know at:https://marketing.wsiworld.com/free-competitive-analysis?utm_campaign=Mick_Smith_Podcast&utm_source=SpreakerWebsite:https://www.wsiworld.com/mick-smithLinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/wsi-smith-consulting/Make an appointment:https://app.hubspot.com/meetings/mick-smithBe sure to subscribe, like, & review The Doctor of Digital™ Podcast:https://www.spreaker.com/show/g-mick-smith-phds-tracksSign up for the Doctor Up A Podcast course:https://doctor-up-a-podcast.thinkific.com/

Brewster Kahle is founder and Digital Librarian of the Internet Archive, one of the largest libraries in the world. Next to his mission to provide universal access to all knowledge, he is a passionate advocate for public Internet access, as well as a successful entrepreneur (Thinking Machines, Wide Area Information Server and Alexa Internet) and a member of the Board of Directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The Internet Archive, which he founded in 1996, preserves petabytes of data - the books, Web pages, music, television, and software of our cultural heritage, working with hundreds of library and university partners to create a digital library, accessible to all. More than 1 million people use the Internet Archive every day. Most of them seek out the Wayback Machine, making 25+ years of web history accessible. He talks about the role of libraries, the Internet battles we've faced and are facing, licensing pains, the National Emergency Library, and how the Internet Archive's efforts to make culture and knowledge accessible through controlled digital lending are threatened by the publishers' lawsuit against the Archive. Key Takeaways: 00:00 Intro 02:38 Brewster shares a little background on the technologies he developed, what inspired him to develop them, and what is happening with them 04:38 Brewster talks about the Internet Archives and the Wayback Machine and what inspired their developments 07:13 Brewster talks about link rot, what it is, how it impacts Internet Archive and other issues that they have also faced 11:42 Brewster talks about copyright and how they are approaching the controversial issue of copyright as the Internet Archive 16:32 Brewster reflects on how link rot affects the law field 18:52 Brewster shares the problem with industries understanding the concept of a digital library as opposed to a brick and mortar library and the role those libraries have with print materials 21:38 Brewster explains how new users of Internet Archive can easily use it and how the pandemic has affected it 28:37 Brewster talks about the evolution of the Internet, the three key battles it faced and what he learned from it 33:51 Brewster talks about how he would like to see copyright evolve to make knowledge, storage, and sharing easier and more widespread 37:19 Brewster suggests the way forward and why there's still hope to turn the tide 40:26 Brewster expresses his hopes for the next 25 years for the Internet Archive Books Mentioned:  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7624.Lord_of_the_Flies  Harry Potter Shows Mentioned: https://www.alexa.com/  https://archive.org/details/opencontentalliance  https://www.internethalloffame.org/  https://www.wsj.com/  http://www.amazon.com/  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot  https://knightfoundation.org/  Guests Social Media Links: Website: https://archive.org/  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brewster-kahle-2a647652/  Twitter: https://twitter.com/brewster_kahle  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/brewster.kahle 

This episode welcomes Jillian York to discuss how to fix social media. Our chat covers everything from the France Haugen documents to the structure of social media, Global North intellectual circuits, reformism and antitrust, social media decentralization, digital colonialism, and more. Jillian York is an American free-expression activist and author. She serves as Director of International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and is a founding member of Deep Lab. Jillian is the author of the recently-released book, Silicon Values: The Future of Free Speech Under Surveillance Capitalism, out now on Verso Books. You can follow Jillian York on Twitter at @jilliancyork. Follow Tech Empire at @TechEmpireCast. Michael Kwet is at @Michael_Kwet and Tshiamo Malatji is at @tshimalatji.

Regulatory scrutiny will always be part of the bargain when it comes to the mass adoption of cryptocurrency. To talk about some of the current policy issues surrounding crypto, we spoke with Cindy Cohn, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). 25 years ago, Cindy helped lead the Bernstein vs. The Department of Justice court case, which established software code as protected speech under the US civil rights first amendment. If you enjoyed the show, don't forget to subscribe and leave a review. Start your crypto journey with Blockchain.com today. Sign up for a Wallet: blockchain.com/wallet Trade on the Exchange: exchange.blockchain.com

I don't need to disclaim my lack of a law degree when I state the fact that yes, it is legal to play copyrighted music on a podcast so long as the rights to the song have been cleared or the podcaster is following the fair use doctrine.  It's also a fact that podcasters can and do use copyrighted music in their podcasts every single day under the fair use doctrine. According to Professors of Law Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, the fair use doctrine applies to commercial music in podcasts.  But what happens when someone takes a different opinion on your assumed fair use? If you're lucky, you'll be forced to removing the music from your episodes. If you're unlucky, you fight it out in court.  A potentially more likely risk: It might get your podcast booted from directories like Spotify, YouTube, and more. And good luck getting in touch with a human at those big tech firms to plead your case.  So… is it worth it? You'll have to answer that for yourself? Will it ever be easy to use commercial music in a podcast? Maybe. I think the excellent work done by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other copyleft organizations will, eventually, pay off. Now, whether or not that happens soon enough for you to play commercial music in your podcast without fear of de-platforming or court summonses remains to be seen. We're not getting any younger!  ----- Links Mentioned: • Advancing Podcasting -  http://advancingpodcasting.xyz • Palle Bo on Twitter - http://twitter.com/radiovagabond • The Radio Vagabond podcast - https://www.theradiovagabond.com • Fair use and music for your podcast - https://podnews.net/article/fair-use-for-podcasters • Professor of Law Patricia Aufderheide - https://www.american.edu/soc/faculty/paufder.cfm • Professor of Law Peter Jaszi - https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/jaszi/bio • Section 230 - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 • Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) - https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca • Reclaiming Fair Use (book) - https://amzn.to/3iWOYtO • Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - https://www.eff.org • Copyleft.org - https://copyleft.org • Support Evo on Buy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/evoterra ----- A written-to-be-read article and a full transcript of the audio of this episode can be found at https://podcastpontifications.com/episode/using-music-in-your-podcast-fair-use-or-wise-choice. Visit https://twitter.com/evoterra for more podcasting insights from Evo Terra as they come. Buy him a virtual coffee to show your support at https://BuyMeACoffee.com/evoterra. And if you need a professional in your podcasting corner, please visit https://Simpler.Media to see how Simpler Media Productions can help you reach your business objectives with podcasting. Allie Press assists with the production and transcription of the show. Learn more about Allie at http://alliepress.net. Podcast Pontifications four times a week to provide ideas and ask questions every working podcaster should be thinking about. Subscribe today at https://PodcastPontifications.com. Photo by https://unsplash.com/@adkorte?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText (Adrian Korte) on https://unsplash.com/s/photos/music?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText (Unsplash) This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Podsights - https://podsights.com/privacy Support this podcast

Privacy-stealing browsers and search; Will Windows 10 ever end? Web browsers are our portal to the internet. All the data we want comes in through them; all the data we provide goes out through them. What needs to be checked in the biggest risks to our privacy and security? TOPICS * Windows 11 has been announced for release this fall. Should you upgrade right away? Can you upgrade even if you want to? * It only requires 3 pieces of 'anonymous data' to determine who the data belongs to. Sometimes less. * Browsers and privacy: Most web browsers requires a little bit of configuration in order to protect our privacy. In this first of several episodes discussing browsers and web search, I'll walk through the key things to watch for. My focus is on Mozilla Firefox, which I consider to be the overall best browser for usability, security, and privacy. But Firefox will NOT protect you if you use it badly. Listen in and then check the links below for additional information. ALSO...get on the mailing list for more tips and tricks. -- First five steps towards better browser privacy 1) Get and use Mozilla Firefox 2) Update Firefox's privacy settings - lots of information on this in the episode and the mailing list 3) Install the uBlockOrigin add-on and let it do it's thing (it doesn't require any configuration but you can change how it works). uBlockOrigin blocks a lot of advertisements and unwanted 'scripts'. Scripts are bits of website programming that ask your computer to do things which can compromise your privacy or security. 4) Install the Multi-account Containers add-on 5) Learn how to use Multi-account Containers and use them! HOMEWORK FOR NEXT TIME * Install uBlockOrigin and Multi-account Containers into Firefox (see links below) * Use mulit-account containers * Try the DuckDuckGo.com search engine instead of Google, if you haven't already * I'll be providing bonus information in the mailing list later this week! LINKS FROM THIS EPISODE Windows 11, Apple macOS and iOS updates * Microsoft's https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11 (Windows 11) home page * Microsoft's https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/windows-11-enterprise (Windows 11 for enterprise) page (for business users) * From ZDNet: https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-11-chaos-and-how-copying-apple-could-have-helped-microsoft-avoid-it/ (Windows 11 chaos, and how copying Apple could have helped Microsoft avoid it) * From ZDNet: https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-11-microsoft-apologizes-for-compatibility-confusion-hints-at-changes/ (Windows 11: Microsoft apologized for compatibility confusion, hints at changes) * Windows Central: https://www.windowscentral.com/how-check-if-your-pc-has-trusted-platform-module-tpm (How to check if your PC has a trusted platform module (TPM)) * Windows Central: https://www.windowscentral.com/one-thing-microsoft-didnt-discuss-windows-11-privacy (One thing Microsoft didn't discuss: WIndows 11 privacy) * Apple https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/06/macos-monterey-introduces-powerful-features-to-get-more-done/ (macOS Monterey coming this fall) * Apple https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-15-preview/ (iOS 15 (iPhone and iPad)) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/what-information-personally-identifiable (What Information is "Personally Identifiable"?) - even though this post from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is 12 years old, it's still valid and fascinating. Web Browser and Search Engine Security and Privacy * DNS over HTTPS (DoH) - https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-dns-over-https (Firefox DNS-over-HTTPS) * DuckDuckGo search engine * https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ (Mozilla Firefox) - privacy-focused web browser I recommend * https://www.chromium.org/ (Chromium Project) - web browser built on the technology behind Google Chrome without the Google "junk" * https://brave.com/ (Brave) - privacy-focused web browser also built on the Chromium...

If you were on the internet back in the day, you might remember the excitement that came with it. The technology, the opportunities, the democratization of knowledge, and a new way to freely communicate with everyone and about everything. Well, not quite so.“When EFF was founded on July 10, 1990, it was revolutionary to imagine ordinary people possessing technology that could instantly erase distance, create connection, and access much of the world's knowledge. The early Internet was an extraordinary place burgeoning with possibilities, and while the early users of digital world didn't necessarily reflect the wider world or always get things right, they could see that this “new home of Mind” would change everything.But EFF wasn't founded on a naïve belief that the coming change would create a digital utopia. Quite the contrary. For all the joy, creativity, and togetherness that technology can help bring, EFF took root because even from those early days it was clear that powerful new digital tools could be used to hurt as well as to heal. Censorship, corporate and government surveillance, and efforts to lock down and control innovation and innovators were all present from the beginning, too. EFF was created to fight against injustice and stand for freedom.Thirty years later we're still standing, and taller than ever before.”— Cindy Cohn | EFF Executive Director *Read the full piece EFF's 30th Anniversary: https://www.eff.org/tags/eff30_______________________GuestCindy Cohn | Executive Director at Electronic Frontier FoundationOn Linkedin

If you were on the internet back in the day, you might remember the excitement that came with it. The technology, the opportunities, the democratization of knowledge, and a new way to freely communicate with everyone and about everything. Well, not quite so.“When EFF was founded on July 10, 1990, it was revolutionary to imagine ordinary people possessing technology that could instantly erase distance, create connection, and access much of the world's knowledge. The early Internet was an extraordinary place burgeoning with possibilities, and while the early users of digital world didn't necessarily reflect the wider world or always get things right, they could see that this “new home of Mind” would change everything.But EFF wasn't founded on a naïve belief that the coming change would create a digital utopia. Quite the contrary. For all the joy, creativity, and togetherness that technology can help bring, EFF took root because even from those early days it was clear that powerful new digital tools could be used to hurt as well as to heal. Censorship, corporate and government surveillance, and efforts to lock down and control innovation and innovators were all present from the beginning, too. EFF was created to fight against injustice and stand for freedom.Thirty years later we're still standing, and taller than ever before.”— Cindy Cohn | EFF Executive Director *Read the full piece EFF's 30th Anniversary: https://www.eff.org/tags/eff30_______________________GuestCindy Cohn | Executive Director at Electronic Frontier FoundationOn Linkedin

EFF is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Guest Cindy Cohn is the Executive Director. THEME: The Past & Future of Digital LibertiesBIG IDEA: We don't have to settle. Some of our basic digital protections were once in jeopardy, like having access to encryption or preventing the authorities from looking through our phones during searches. In both those examples, EFF fought hard for our protections. There are plenty of threats to digital liberties worth fighting for today, like behavioral advertising, surveillance capitalism, platform-centrism. EFF's work over the last 30 years proves that engaged consumers have the power to make the internet a more open and thriving place. FAVORITE QUOTE:"When you go to buy a car, they don’t just hand you a car and send you to a website to buy your brakes; you get a car, it comes with brakes, and those work to protect you. Our tools need to be the same way. It shouldn’t be the case that they give you a ridiculously privacy-invasive default and you have to figure out your way through the settings to protect yourself. That’s not right, and we can change that."FUN FACTS:EFF was founded in 1990 and pre-dates the world-wide-web!EFF has 3 artists on staff and ~15 technologists. Their artwork can be found all over on EFF's Deeplinks BlogMORE:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech - The interoperability piece mentioned in the interviewThe Foilies 2021If you liked this episode, checkout Future Ethics and  SiempoThis episode's newsletter issue Love Campfire? Consider leaving a review or supporting us on Patreon

When we received the invitation to be part of the event co-hosted by Hacking Is Not A Crime & the Red Team Village, we wanted to do our part by sharing the stories of the non-profit groups involved, and presenting them to our magazine, podcast, and radio audience.It is an honor and a privilege to introduce to all of you some our old and new friends that are making a big difference for how the world perceives the role of the hacker in our modern society—what we lately call The Cyber Society.It doesn't matter how big or small these groups are; the heart and passion are what matter the most. We guarantee that each one of them is playing a huge role in ensuring we have safer computers, devices of all sorts, Internet, industries, grids, and overall a safer connected society—the one in which to live.Here's everyone we had a chance to chat with:Chloé Messdaghi, Hacking is not a CrimeKurt Opsahl, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)Casey Ellis, disclose.ioJack Cable, Stanford Internet ObservatoryBeau Woods,  I Am The CavalryWe hope you enjoy this group of organizations presented in this podcast. Be sure to listen to the other podcast as it brings additional organizations that care about the world's safety and that of the hacker community. Based on which group inspires you, be sure to join one or more of these outstanding organizations to learn, contribute, and give back.Our plan is to keep telling stories that share the collective knowledge of our community.Knowledge is power. Now more than ever!Guests On This EpisodeChloé Messdaghi, Co-Founder & Executive Director, Hacking is not a Crime | (@ChloeMessdaghi on Twitter)Beau Woods,  Co-Founder and Cyber Safety Advocate at I Am The Cavalry | Senior Advisor, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) (@beauwoods on Twitter)Kurt Opsahl, Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel at Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) (@kurtopsahl on Twitter)This Episode's SponsorsDevo: https://itspm.ag/itspdvwebBugcrowd: https://itspm.ag/itspbgcwebResources For The Non-Profit Organizations Represented In Both EpisodesHacking Is Not A Crime: https://www.hackingisnotacrime.org/ (@hacknotcrime on Twitter)Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): https://www.eff.org/ (@EFF on Twitter)Disclose.io: https://disclose.io/ (@disclose_io on Twitter)I Am The Cavalry: https://groups.google.com/g/iamthecavalry (@iamthecavalry on Twitter)Stanford Internet Observatory: https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io (@stanfordio on Twitter)Red Team Village: https://redteamvillage.org/ (@RedTeamVillage_ on Twitter)HackerCon: https://redteamvillage.io/hackerconTo see and hear more The Academy content on ITSPmagazine, visit:https://www.itspmagazine.com/the-academyCatch Both EpisodesPart 1: https://itsprad.io/the-academy-480Part 2: https://itsprad.io/the-academy-481Are you interested in sponsoring an ITSPmagazine Channel?https://www.itspmagazine.com/podcast-series-sponsorships

Andrés Arrieta is Director of Consumer Privacy Engineering for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), where he oversees projects and tech policy like blocking trackers online when you browse. He is also an advocate for better privacy, cybersecurity, and fair competition.  References: Privacy Badger Electronic Frontier Foundation Privacy Sandbox (Chromium) Global Privacy Control

This conversation amongst friends is a peek into the deep complexities of keeping Black, Indigenous, People of Color, and other marginalized folks safe while they activate and organize for liberation. Black Movement Law Project is about the intentional and deliberate work of first protecting (physically and legally) the people in movement spaces. At the same time, the work of BMLP is supporting local communities to develop sustainable infrastructure so that the people within movement spaces are empowered and cared for. BMLP’s origins thread back to Ferguson and with nash, even further back into the Occupy Movement.  Their work has been fundamental across the country as people protest police brutality and the terrorizing of Black and other mariginalized people by police. What surfaces in this conversation is the strategy and forward-thinking necessary to liberate marginalized folks when working within systems that are designed to subjugate them. Every move must be carefully turned over, anticipating the fall-out way down the road. Historically, as Abi asserts, the very institutions that cause the crises usually come out twice as strong in the end. Thus, with loud calls for accountability for the crimes of the white supremacist insurrectionists, movement people must be mindful of the unintended consequences. During this conversation, for example, Tanay, Nicole, Abi, nash, and Marques carefully turn over how policies regulating hate speech can eventually be used to clamp down on marginalized people trying to organize around systems of oppression. It was fascinating to listen to this “think tank” do its thinking. and see their understanding of the current state of anti-oppression work evolve. Their strategizing and BMLP operations are rooted in their lived experiences as People of Color on the ground during uprisings and their desire to support movement spaces from a place of relationship. No one gets thrown away. As nash says, “Liberation is collective or it’s non-existent.”   In this episode, we talked about: The origin story of the Black Movement Law Project, with its intention to create a proactive space for Black leadership in jail and legal support for the Black Lives Matter activists The priority and focus of  BMLP: to help build up the capacities and infrastructure in local Black-led communities to make movement work sustainable The work now in movement work: to create opportunities for entry The glaring differences in policing white supremacists v. Black activists fighting for their lives and Constitutional rights Monitoring hate speech on social media platforms The level of organization amongst white supremacists during the insurrection and the likelihood of support from the inside How white supremacist mobs in DC highlight Washingtonian’s need for statehood, a community that is mostly Black and without representation in the federal government The very complex difficulties in demanding accountability for the traitors while not putting Black and other marginalized folks at greater risk long term. The systems of accountability are built to oppress marginalized people. The way discernment and intuition guides each of their decision making in dangerous, critical moments What it means to live an inclusive life   Bio:   Tanay Lynn Harris Tanay Lynn Harris is the Founder and Principal Strategist of Tenacity Consulting. As a facilitator, organizer, and abolitionist, she advises and supports organizations to achieve equitable and transformative change through learning journeys and critical social consciousness. She is committed to holistic approaches to cultivating change-makers and ushering in liberation and transformation through the building and cultivation of relationships and reimagining a world anew. Tanay worked for the Center for African American Research and Public Policy at Temple University as a co-coordinator and was an educator in Philadelphia. Her time as a grassroots organizer in Philadelphia learning from leading activists, scholars, and building in the community, she learned more deeply Tanay has worked on some of the nation's leading high-profiled legal cases and pressing issues of our time. She is a former national organizer at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc (LDF) in New York City. Tanay worked with leaders and community members in various cities across the country to help build capacity and momentum, based on their collective needs and wants. She worked on several Supreme Court cases and was a member of the legal team for Mumia Abu-Jamal. Her work at LDF was at the intersection of death penalty abolition, criminal justice, juvenile justice, educational equity, and voter suppression. After her time at LDF, she worked with global ecumenical faith leaders around social justice and human rights issues through a liberation theology lens. Tanay leveraged legal support in Ferguson and Baltimore during the Uprising, to protect the rights of protestors and the community through holistic legal and technical support. She works with Black Movement Law Project where she continues to support as a community coordinator. Building the power of and with impacted people and communities is critical to creating meaningful and lasting change. Additionally, Tanay is dedicated to maternal and birthing persons' health and reproductive justice as a birth worker, researcher, and care worker. She is a Kindred Partner with the Black Mamas Matter Alliance and a member of the Maryland Maternal Health Taskforce. She is on the Advisory Board of CLLCTIVLY in Baltimore, which provides an ecosystem of support for Black-led businesses and organizations. Tanay is a graduate of Africana Studies/African American studies at Temple University and the Center for Social Impact Strategies from the University of Pennsylvania.   Nathan “nash” Sheard Nathan "nash" Sheard is a cofounder and legal organizer with Black Movement Law Project (BMLP). nash's work is informed by lived experience with aggressive and militarized policing, including racial profiling, the effects of biased broken windows policing tactics, and police brutality.  nash has worked extensively to help mitigate the damage of harmful interactions with law enforcement online and in over-policed communities. In addition to organizing with BMLP, nash is a founding member of the Mutant Legal activist collective and Associate Director of Community Organizing at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).  nash has spent close to a decade training communities in crisis on how to document police conduct, exercise their legal rights, counteract state repression, and actively participate in their own legal defense.   Marques Banks Marques Banks Works as a Justice Project Staff Attorney at the National Office of Advancement Project, a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization. Prior to joining, Advancement Project in 2020, Marques worked at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs as an Equal Justice Works Fellow sponsored by Covington & Burling, LLP.  During his fellowship, Marques challenged the criminalization of poverty, through direct representation and policy advocacy for individuals subject to overly onerous fines, fees and jail time for minor offenses. After his fellowship ended, Marques continued to work at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee challenging policing practices in the D.C. area. During law school, Marques interned at NAACP Legal Defense Fund. He worked as a research assistant for Professor Justin Hansford, Saint Louis University School of Law. He also participated in Columbus Community Legal Services’ Advocacy for the Elderly Clinic, representing individuals denied social security benefits. Marques helped create Black Movement-Law Project, an organization providing legal support to the activists and organizations of the Movement for Black Lives. He provided legal support in Ferguson, MO, Baltimore, MD, and other cities across the U.S. During the 2015 uprising in Baltimore, Marques trained hundreds of legal observers. Marques is a graduate of The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. He is a member of Law 4 Black Lives DC and Black Lives Matter DC.   Abi Hassen Abi Hassen is a political philosophy student, attorney, technologist, and co-founder of Black Movement Law Project, a legal support rapid response group that grew out of the uprisings in Ferguson, Baltimore and elsewhere.  Abi is currently a partner at O’Neill and Hassen LLP, a law practice focused on indigent criminal defense.  Prior to this current work, Abi was the Mass Defense Coordinator at the National Lawyers Guild. He has also worked as a political campaign manager and strategist, union organizer, and community organizer.  Abi is particularly interested in exploring the dynamic nature of institutions, political movements, and their interactions from the perspective of Complex Systems studies.   Resources: Bios for Tanay, nash, Marques and Abi Mumia Abul Jamal is an internationally celebrated black writer and radio journalist, a former member of the Black Panther Party who has spent the last 30 years in prison, almost all of it in solitary confinement on Pennsylvania’s Death Row. Dr. Ashon Crawley is a teacher, writer, and artist who engages a wide range of critical paradigms to theorize the ways in which “otherwise” modes of existence can serve as disruptions against the marginalization of and violence against minoritarian lifeworlds and as possibilities for flourishing. Section 230: “The most important law protecting internet speech.” Kettling: is a controversial police tactic for controlling large crowds during demonstrations or protests where police officers form large cordons which move to corral a crowd within a smaller, contained area. This tactic has resulted in the detention of  bystanders as well as protesters. — Thank you so much for joining us! Our conversation continues on Facebook in our Inclusive Life Community. You can also follow us on Instagram and learn more at www.inclusivelife.co. Please click here to leave a review for The Inclusive Life Podcast. Subscribe on your favorite podcast app to get notified when a new episode comes out! Instagram @inclusivelife Facebook @inclusivelife Facebook Group @Inclusive Life Website www.inclusivelife.co Subscribe to The Inclusive Life Podcast Apple Podcasts Spotify Google Podcasts

Welcome to "The Divide" – a new podcast from Light Reading exploring the ongoing digital divide: why it still exists, where it still exists and what needs to be done to fix it. Our guest is Ernesto Falcon, senior legislative counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). We discussed the need for nationwide fiber infrastructure in the US and what's holding that up, what the pandemic has revealed about broadband policy in the US, and what to expect from the incoming Biden administration on the broadband front.

JP Morgan Bets Big on Bitcoinnews coming from M. Corey Goldman via The StreetIn a research note to clients, analysts at JPMorgan Chase predicted a long-term bitcoin price target of more than $146,000 based on the assumption that the cryptocurrency will grow in popularity as an alternative to gold, which has traditionally been used as an inflation and volatility hedge, as well as protection against a falling U.S. dollar.“A crowding out of gold as an ‘alternative' currency implies big upside for bitcoin over the long term,” wrote JPMorgan Chase strategists led by Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou. However, “a convergence in volatilities between bitcoin and gold is unlikely to happen quickly, and is in our mind a multiyear process.TradingShot Chart via Trading View“This implies that the above $146,000 theoretical bitcoin price target should be considered as a long-term target, and thus an unsustainable price target for this year,” they said.US Federal Regulator Says Banks Can Conduct Payments Using Stablecoinsnews coming from Nikhilesh De via CoinDeskBrian Brooks, the Acting Comptroller of the Currency, said in a statement that while other nations have built real-time payments systems, the U.S. “has relied on” the private sector to create such technologies, seemingly endorsing the use of cryptocurrencies – specifically stablecoins – as an alternative to other real-time payment systems.Brooks has overseen the publication of two other interpretative letters and a number of other crypto-friendly moves during his time overseeing the agency, including a letter telling federal banks they can provide services to stablecoin issuers and store reserves for stablecoins.Last month, Brooks announced his support of a letter by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets that outlined how stablecoins should be regulated within the U.S. President Donald Trump has twice nominated Brooks to serve a full five-year term heading up the agency, including earlier this week. However, it's unclear whether the U.S. Senate will schedule a confirmation vote. As of press time, it does not appear likely it will do so before President-elect Joe Biden takes office on Jan. 20.Bitcoin Fighting Regulators

By now, it is no secret that companies of all kinds are regularly mining data, your data and doing all sorts of things with it. They use it to tailor what ads show up in your browser, what videos show up in your YouTube feed, the news stories that you see in your aggregator, their own product development, and, most notoriously, sell it to third parties for who knows what purposes. Many have been voicing their displeasure with this situation for years and finally regular people are starting to wake up to the fact that important information about them is being collected and used in ways they may or may not approve of.  The public backlash against this wholesale data acquisition has started to show itself in legislation around the world. The European Union passed laws years ago meant to curb Google’s monitoring of individuals and just recently California passed Proposition 24. This new law is meant to strengthen digital privacy laws, reducing how much companies can intrude on your digital life. While the proposition certainly identifies the right problem, does it identify the right solution?  The biggest indicator that Proposition 24 won’t work as planned is that California would be setting up a massive new agency with a $10 million annual budget. As anyone who knows anything about government is well aware, setting up a government agency is not the most efficient way to spend $10 million a year. Especially since all you really need to do is give people the opportunity to opt out of all the data collection and sharing that a given company does. All that needs to happen is there be a box for the user to check and a few lines of code to make sure that person’s data is not getting collected as it normally would. How easy is that to accomplish? It would take the software gurus at TARTLE about five hours to put together the necessary code. Five hours for a couple of people at a computer. Maybe throw in a couple bottles of kombucha to keep things moving. That’s a lot less than a state run agency with a building and dozens, if not hundreds of people working for it.  Of course, there should be some sort of enforcement, some way of making sure that companies really are opting people out. But let’s be honest, is the government really the best option here? After all, we learned years ago through the information leaked by Edward Snowden just how much information the government was collecting on people through means of, shall we say, dubious legality. Not to mention, these kinds of agencies have a tendency to grow overtime. While this agency would be a California agency at first, it would be a short period of time before other states followed suit, which would quickly morph into a federal agency. By that point, the rules and regulations concerning data would become so convoluted, they would make the convoluted terms of service we all blindly accept look like an Eric Carle children’s book. That is not a model for the future that any normal person wants to see.  What are we to do then? Well, you’ve heard the phrases “vote with your dollar” and “vote with your feet”. You can do something similar when you join TARTLE. You vote with your data. Don’t let the big companies and the government have it in the first place. You don’t have to worry so much about them honoring their opt-out protocols because we are doing it for you. Your data goes through our encryption and the only way it gets out is if you decide it should. We don’t even do anything with it without your permission.  While the stated intent behind Proposition 24 is good and something we wholeheartedly agree with at TARTLE, the legislation itself is as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said, “a mixed bag of partial steps both backwards and forwards”. Or to put it another way, good intentions do not good laws make. That is one of the real goals of TARTLE, to represent a third way. Our existence reminds people that they don’t have to choose between global conglomerates or massive governments. TARTLE reminds people that they can choose to manage things on their own, to take control of their data, and their lives. What’s your data worth? www.tartle.co Tcast is brought to you by TARTLE. A global personal data marketplace that allows users to sell their personal information anonymously when they want to, while allowing buyers to access clean ready to analyze data sets on digital identities from all across the globe. The show is hosted by Co-Founder and Source Data Pioneer Alexander McCaig and Head of Conscious Marketing Jason Rigby. What's your data worth? Find out at ( https://tartle.co/ ) Watch the podcast on YouTube ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC46qT-wHaRzUZBDTc9uBwJg ) Like our Facebook Page ( https://www.facebook.com/TARTLEofficial/ ) Follow us on Instagram ( https://www.instagram.com/tartle_official/ ) Follow us on Twitter ( https://twitter.com/TARTLEofficial ) Spread the word!

With the cost of surveillance and mass information gathering becoming cheaper and easier, laws are struggling to keep pace. Who is fighting for transparency and working to protect your digital rights? Our guest today is Danny O’Brien. Danny has been an activist for online free speech and privacy for over 20 years. He co-founded the Open Rights Group and has defended reporters from online attacks at the committee to protect journalists. He is now the Director of Strategy at Electronic Frontier Foundation. Show Notes: [0:59] - Danny began working with Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in 2005 but had been interested in them and digital rights overall since 1990 as a journalist. [2:18] - In the early days of EFF, the topics they were writing about seemed very theoretical to the everyday person. It became confusing, but a lot of these hypothetical situations were becoming reality in the early 2000s. [4:06] - The assistance Danny gave to journalists to keep them safer from online attacks began on a case by case basis. [6:23] - Danny explains that now they are seeing a rise in targeted attacks on journalists with government connections. [7:50] - The tools to conduct a spyware style monitoring of a particular person are now so ridiculously cheap. It can be anyone. In the early days, it always seemed like an attack was government based or done by professionals. [8:42] - Journalists in particular are highly targeted for attacks because they have likely upset someone they’ve reported about. [10:49] - When Gmail was hacked in 2009, it became apparent that the people that were targeted in that attack were Tibetan activists. [11:42] - There has been a shift into a professionalization of attacks. It is someone’s job to clock on, hack and make someone’s life unpleasant, and clock off. [13:10] - One of the key cases in the last several years in regards to digital privacy rights is the Apple San Bernardino case in which the FBI wanted a back door into the iPhone of a suspect in a shooting. [14:36] - There is a gray area where governments are saying that as long as they have the ability to do these things, they should.  [17:16] - The globalization of technology has caused confusion and blurred lines on what is legal and illegal in each country. [20:25] - Danny gives an example of a loophole in United States law regarding getting geolocation data from phones. [23:13] - The process of getting information is very murky especially in the United States. [24:41] - We need transparency before we will ever see reform. [26:40] - Google would do something called The Creepy Test where they would demonstrate something they could do internally and determine whether it was something that could be used in a “creepy” way. [28:29] - Something may seem like a great idea but wind up causing more bad than good. Danny uses apps for tracking the pandemic as an example. [30:20] - As technologists, we are capable of acting very quickly and reaching for a toolkit that we can use. [31:19] - Sometimes we have to be careful that the solutions that are the simplest from a technological point of view aren’t just shifting the complexity elsewhere.  [34:02] - The consequences of simply uploading photos online in regards to privacy were very unexpected at the start of the internet and social media. [35:49] - In the 90s there was a strong fight against encryption. Now that encryption is what holds entire economies together. [36:08] - While encryption is useful, it is also being used by cybercriminals to hide illegal activity, particularly child pornography. [39:00] - We used to argue about digital rights but now all rights are digital. Now, all laws are about the internet. [41:53] - Danny and Chris discuss the passage of a bill about the digital rights of sex workers that had several unintended consequences. [43:12] - There is a big push right now to undermine encryption particularly for fighting against sex trafficking. [44:04] - There are a lot of problems that have been created that were unintentionally created by technology that needs to be solved. [45:06] - Large companies, like Apple, Google, and Amazon, have a lot of control of our personal devices. [46:46] - We will start to see a lot of technological compromises between large companies and the government. [48:44] - Pick the privacy tools and try out different tools to find what works for you. It exercises your right to remove trackers and ads from your web experience. [50:27] - In order to exercise your rights, you need to know them. [52:38] - People wind up being the consumers of technology and they don’t become active citizens in this digital community. Education is important. [54:54] - Danny shares links to useful material to educate yourself on surveillance (listed in the Links and Resources). [57:21] - Sometimes, lawmakers don’t know all about these technological problems, so write to your lawmakers when you have concerns. [59:30] - EFF is membership driven and a huge proportion of their funding is from individual members. If you are interested in becoming a member or donating to EFF, visit their website for more information. Thanks for joining us on Easy Prey. Be sure to subscribe to our podcast on iTunes and leave a nice review.  Links and Resources: Podcast Web Page Facebook Page whatismyipaddress.com Easy Prey on Instagram Easy Prey on Twitter Easy Prey on LinkedIn Easy Prey on YouTube Easy Prey on Pinterest Open Rights Group Web Page Electronic Frontier Foundation Web Page Danny O’Brien on Twitter Surveillance Self-Defense (SSD at EFF) Security Education Companion (SEC at EFF)

A subset of the internet where communications between two parties or client-server transactions are obscured from search engines and surveillance systems by layers of encryption. The U.S. Navy designed the original Darknet by developing The Onion Router network, or TOR, back in the 1990s. Roger Dingledine and Nick Mathewson deployed the first alpha implementation in 2002 with some initial funding by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF.) The TOR Project became a non-profit in 2006 and is funded by the U.S, Sweden, different NGOs, and individual sponsors.

Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. Like "fair dealing" rights that exist in most countries with a British legal history, the fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works and turns on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work. The doctrine of "fair use" originated in the Anglo-American common law during the 18th and 19th centuries as a way of preventing copyright law from being too rigidly applied and "stifling the very creativity which law is designed to foster." Though originally a common law doctrine, it was enshrined in statutory law when the U S Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1976. The U S Supreme Court has issued several major decisions clarifying and reaffirming the fair use doctrine since the 1980s, most recently in the 1994 decision Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. History. The 1710 Statute of Anne, an act of the Parliament of Great Britain, created copyright law to replace a system of private ordering enforced by the Stationers' Company. The Statute of Anne did not provide for legal unauthorized use of material protected by copyright. In Gyles v Wilcox, the Court of Chancery established the doctrine of "fair abridgement", which permitted unauthorized abridgement of copyrighted works under certain circumstances. Over time, this doctrine evolved into the modern concepts of fair use and fair dealing. Fair use was a common-law doctrine in the U S until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976. The term "fair use" originated in the United States. Although related, the limitations and exceptions to copyright for teaching and library archiving in the U S are located in a different section of the statute. A similar-sounding principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions but in fact it is more similar in principle to the enumerated exceptions found under civil law systems. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright. In response to perceived over-expansion of copyrights, several electronic civil liberties and free expression organizations began in the 1990s to add fair use cases to their dockets and concerns. These include the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the American Library Association, numerous clinical programs at law schools, and others. The "Chilling Effects" archive was established in 2002 as a coalition of several law school clinics and the EFF to document the use of cease and desist letters. In 2006 Stanford University began an initiative called "The Fair Use Project" (FUP) to help artists, particularly filmmakers, fight lawsuits brought against them by large corporations. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

A subset of the internet where communications between two parties or client-server transactions are obscured from search engines and surveillance systems by layers of encryption. The U.S. Navy designed the original Darknet by developing The Onion Router network, or TOR, back in the 1990s. Roger Dingledine and Nick Mathewson deployed the first alpha implementation in 2002 with some initial funding by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF.) The TOR Project became a non-profit in 2006 and is funded by the U.S, Sweden, different NGOs, and individual sponsors.

Our special guest today is Eva Galperin who is the Director of Cybersecurity at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Prior to 2007, when she came to work for EFF, Eva worked in security and IT in Silicon Valley and earned degrees in Political Science and International Relations from San Francisco State University (SFSU). Her work is primarily focused on providing privacy and security for vulnerable populations around the world. To that end, she has applied the combination of her political science and technical background to everything from organizing EFF's Tor Relay Challenge, to writing privacy and security training materials (including Surveillance Self Defense and the Digital First Aid Kit), and publishing research on malware in Syria, Vietnam, Kazakhstan. When she is not collecting new and exotic malware, she practices aerial circus arts and learning new languages.EFF: https://www.eff.org/Security Education Companion: https://sec.eff.org/Coalition Against Stalkerware: https://stopstalkerware.org/Atlas of Surveillance: https://atlasofsurveillance.org/Eva Galperin is interviewed by Kendra Ash and John L. WhitemanFollow us, join us, be us:HomepageTwitterMeetupLinkedInYouTubeSupport the show (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Membership#tab=Other_ways_to_Support_OWASP)

Alexis Hancock is a Technologist at Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”).  In her role, she works to secure the web through HTTPS Everywhere, a Chrome extension that encrypts communications with many major websites, making your browser more secure.  She was previously a web developer and system administrator.  Alexis is passionate about encryption and tech equity for all and has been assisting activists and educators with their tech needs for almost 10 years.SSBT is hosted by Mauhan M Zonoozy, founder of Bubbl (acquired by Cricket Media), NYC-based angel investor, and Venture Architect Director at BCG Digital Ventures.  Guests: Alexis Hancock, Technologist at Electronic Frontier Foundation

Dave and I open up the latest episode of the Kaspersky Transatlantic Cable Podcast, looking at recent research from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Dave and I open up looking at an interesting unsecured server. The research from the EFF goes under the hood in regards to privacy and the Ring. In this case, the privacy violation is data sharing with third parties. While on the topic of privacy, we then hop across the pond and look at GDPR. I know, everyone’s favorite topic. In this article, we get a look at the financial impact of the regulation as compared to regulations in the US. The third story jumps into the world of corporate espionage. This fitness related story has some underlying data management issues that should put companies in an uneasy state when looking in the mirror. Our fourth story showcases the return of the notorious OurMine group. Instead of hacking into the celebrity or C-suite accounts that they have become synonymous with, the group has gained access to 15 of the National Football League (NFL) teams’ accounts. To close out the podcast, we revisit the Windows 7 end of service. While they said they were done with fixes, it seems that we – and they – spoke a bit too soon.

Paul, Doug and Tyler interview Mike Godwin about the creation of the EFF, why it was created and how he became involved, some of the first cases taken on by the EFF, Godwin's Law, the right to repair, freedom of speech, and much more! Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/psw for all the latest episodes! Show Notes: https://wiki.securityweekly.com/PSWEpisode636

Paul, Doug and Tyler interview Mike Godwin about the creation of the EFF, why it was created and how he became involved, some of the first cases taken on by the EFF, Godwin's Law, the right to repair, freedom of speech, and much more!  Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/psw for all the latest episodes! Show Notes: https://wiki.securityweekly.com/PSWEpisode636

We know that we're tracked, but what remains largely invisible is the massive economy working behind the scenes (or "mirror") to buy, sell, trade and bid on you and your data. I've seen estimates that claim there are up to 4000 data brokers in the US alone. And what's worse is that they are largely unregulated, making the data market a total free-for-all. What can you do to curb this tracking and selling of data? We'll discuss that in the conclusion of my interview with the EFF's Bennett Cyphers. Bennett Cyphers is a staff technologist on the Tech Projects team at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He contributes to a variety of different projects within EFF, most of them tied to privacy and competition. In the past year, he's worked on the tracker-blocking browser extension Privacy Badger, provided technical advice to lawyers and activists, and read and re-read the California Consumer Privacy Act. Before coming to EFF, he was a policy intern at Access Now and earned a Master's degree for work on privacy-preserving machine learning. In his spare time he designs t-shirts for fake punk rock bands. Further Info EFF’s Behind the One-Way Mirror: https://www.eff.org/wp/behind-the-one-way-mirror Setting Apple ID to zero (“limit ad tracking”): https://blog.tenjin.com/idfa-sends-all-zeros-on-ios-10-devices-2/Best & Worst Gifts for 2019: https://firewallsdontstopdragons.com/best-worst-gifts-2019/ The Scoring of America: https://www.worldprivacyforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WPF_Scoring_of_America_April2014_fs.pdfCorporate Surveillance in Everyday Life: https://crackedlabs.org/en/corporate-surveillance

If you've listened to even a handful of my shows, you are well aware that you're being tracked around the web. But even I was surprised by some of the things I learned in the recent white paper from the Electronic Frontier Foundation entitled "Behind the One-Way Mirror: A Deep Dive Into the Technology of Corporate Surveillance". One of the prime authors of this report, Bennett Cyphers, came on my show to walk us through the myriad and shocking ways that ad tech companies have found to identity us as we surf the web, use our smartphones, and even walk around the real world. Bennett Cyphers is a staff technologist on the Tech Projects team at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He contributes to a variety of different projects within EFF, most of them tied to privacy and competition. In the past year, he's worked on the tracker-blocking browser extension Privacy Badger, provided technical advice to lawyers and activists, and read and re-read the California Consumer Privacy Act. Before coming to EFF, he was a policy intern at Access Now and earned a Master's degree for work on privacy-preserving machine learning. In his spare time he designs t-shirts for fake punk rock bands. Further Info EFF’s Behind the One-Way Mirror: https://www.eff.org/wp/behind-the-one-way-mirror Setting Apple ID to zero (“limit ad tracking”): https://blog.tenjin.com/idfa-sends-all-zeros-on-ios-10-devices-2/Best & Worst Gifts for 2019: https://firewallsdontstopdragons.com/best-worst-gifts-2019/

Fra universitetsnetværk til hippieanarki, hyperkommercialisme og nu overvågningsøkonomi. Internetpionér Brad Templeton er kendt, som manden, der opfandt the DOT i dotcom. Han hjælper os med fejringen.Hvordan og hvorfor er internettet forandret fra at være landet med muligheder og frihed til at blive et forum for datakapitalisme og overvågning? Og hvordan genvinder vi vores privatliv og ytringsfrihed i fremtiden? Hvordan sikrer vi vores sociale værdier i en digital tidsalder?  Og hvordan kan erfaringer fra fortidens internet hjælpe os?Brad Templeton har en lang historie som internetpionér. Han var en del af det tidlige USENET, hvor åbne diskussioner fandt sted tilbage i 1980'erne. Han var med fra  dotcom-æraens start og siden en del af ledelsen af Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), der kæmper for grundlæggende menneskerettigheder og ytringsfrihed på internettet.For at undgå at blive alt for dystopisk vil Brad også genfortælle et par vittigheder fra nyhedsgruppen rec.humor.funny, som han administrerede i Usenets gyldne tider.Medvirkende:Brad Templeton, foredragsholder og IT-ekspertLink:Brad Templeton https://www.templetons.com/brad/Ps. Der er lidt lydproblemer i starten af interviewet. Vi beklager. 

Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting the new .org contract. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) fights for the civil liberties, free speech and privacy on the internet. The non-profit is vocal about domain name policy, and it’s latest salvo is over the new .Org contract ICANN signed. While others focus on the removal of price caps, […] Post link: EFF on domains and .org contract – DNW Podcast #250 © DomainNameWire.com 2020. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact editor (at) domainnamewire.com. Latest domain news at DNW.com: Domain Name Wire.

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Corynne McSherry, the Legal Director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), to discuss content moderation on big social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.   Aaron and Corynne address the issues of digital rights, how private companies like Facebook can censor content without implicating the First Amendment, and how transparency is so important as social media platforms come under increasing scrutiny for the content policies and practices.  EFF, a prominent digital rights non-profit, has been integrally involved in these issues, focusing on impact litigation around such issues as intellectual property, open access, and digital rights, among others.  Corynne and Aaron discuss the big concerns surrounding content moderation – Who should decide what we see? What speech can be regulated? Is it censorship? How can speech be regulated?   As always, we do not edit the content of our episodes.  Our conversation is as it was!  So, give a listen and let us know what you think.     Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Corynne McSherry Find Corynne’s contact information here as well as more on the EFF.   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

This week, I give you guys an update on the craziness that has been my life lately, including health issues and PorcFest 2019. What's in the News with stories on Air Force in debt, Julian Assange sentenced, legal kidnapping, Boy Scouts abuse, banning Styrofoam, and big brother. Also, and Ancap Apps segment on Health Excellence Plus, a free-market style health share that saved me thousands of dollars. This episode is brought to you by Health Excellence Plus, a health share that has saved my family thousands of dollars, and can save you money too. Also, brought to you by ForkFest, the third annual decentralized libertarian camping event that happens right before PorcFest, with no tickets and no one in charge. WHAT'S RUSTLING MY JIMMIES This episode will be a bit shorter this week as life has been crazy intense and busy for the Paxton family lately. I figured I would take a few minutes in this segment and just give you guys an update on me and mine. WHAT'S IN THE NEWS In debt news, the US Air Force is facing money problems, which have resulted in a shortfall of more than $4 billion in fiscal year 2019 so far. In heroes news, Julian Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks in a UK prison for skipping bail. In legal kidnapping news, police and child services forced a family apart for seven months after a false accusation. In abuse news, an expert who has been working with the Boy Scouts revealed that there may have been as many as 7,819 allegedly sexually abusive troop leaders and volunteers in the storied organization who allegedly abused 12,254 victims, according to newly released court documents. In ban all the things news, Maine became the first state to ban Styrofoam food containers. In big brother news, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU today asked a federal court to rule without trial that the Department of Homeland Security violates the First and Fourth Amendments by searching travelers' smartphones and laptops at airports and other U.S. ports of entry without a warrant. ANCAP APPS You guys have heard me talk about Health Excellence Plus on this show for a couple of weeks now as an advertiser, but I wanted to get a bit more personal with this now that our cancer issues are in the past. Find out more at https://thelavaflow.com/health.

Conversations At The Intersection Of IT Security And Society Guests Melanie Ensign, Uber | Bennett Cyphers, EFF Hosts Sean Martin | Marco Ciappelli Pretend for a moment that you are crushing it on Sunset Blvd. on one of those electric scooters that are all over the place in Los Angeles. You're minding your own business, enjoying yet another sunny day, going wherever you want to go, and nobody needs to know about it. Right? Wrong. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) is on the scene. Apparently, they really want to know what you're up to—or at least what your scooter is up to. There’s more to this story though. In this Unusual Gatherings episode, we talk about data collection, anonymization, sharing, re-aggregation, storage and the potential utilization of such data and, of course, what it means in terms of consumers’ privacy and identity as we use those services. We are having this conversation because LADOT is requesting that all the shared scooter companies give them all the data they collect as a condition “sine qua non” if they want to do business on the streets of L.A.. As you can imagine, this requirement to share ride information makes us citizens—regardless of the choice to use those specific types of transportation or not—a little worried for the many ways that our privacy can be affected by this practice. As it goes, we are not the only ones who are concerned: Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) didn’t celebrate when they heard of the news—and neither did Uber. In order to understand and consider the vast implications of this news, we invited Melanie Ensign from Uber and Bennet Cyphers from EFF to ride their electric scooters as fast as they could—and as carefully as possible—to meet us at the intersection of IT security and society to have a conversation with us. Soon after our request, they arrived, parked their scooters responsibly, grabbed some coffee, sat down, and had this conversation that goes in our books as: ITSPmagazine’s Unusual Gatherings XXVI: All your trips’ data belong to us — and so does your privacy. Read the full chronicle here https://www.itspmagazine.com/itspmagazine-unusual-gatherings/unusual-gathering-episode-xxvi __________ Thanks to our episode sponsor, Onapsis. Be sure to visit their directory listing on ITSPmagazine: https://www.itspmagazine.com/company-directory/onapsis __________ For more Unusual Gatherings, please visit: https://www.itspmagazine.com/unusual-gatherings

In second half of my interview with EFF's Bill Budington, Bill helps us understand how we can at least attempt to disguise ourselves on the web and basically try to blend in with the crowd. We'll also see how tools like EFF's Panopticlick can hep us pinpoint the things that are making us stand out, which enables us to be tracked more easily. Finally, we'll discuss several browsers and plugins that can help you preserve your privacy. If you missed Part 1, you can listen to it here: http://podcast.firewallsdontstopdragons.com/2019/03/10/enter-the-panopticon-pt1/. Guest Bio: Bill is a Senior Staff Technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He works on privacy and security-enhancing projects, such as the HTTPS Everywhere browser add-on and Panopticlick, a tool that alerts users users to how vulnerable they are to browser tracking. He has also contributed to projects such as Let's Encrypt and SecureDrop. Further Info: Is your browser giving you away? EFF's Panopticlick will tell you: https://panopticlick.eff.orgEFF's Surveillance Self Defense guide - learn how to keep yourself safe online! https://ssd.eff.org/Help EFF to help you: https://supporters.eff.org/

In the first part of my discussion with Bill Budington from the EFF, we're going to talk about some of the key ways in which we are tracked around the web as we surf from site to site. I'll ask Bill who is tracking up, why they're tracking us, and we'll get into some of the clever and downright devious methods by which we are tracked and recognized on the web. In part 2 (next week) Bill will help us understand why it's so hard to disguise ourselves on the web and how tools like EFF's Panopticlick can show us what's going on under the covers. We'll also offer up some solutions or at least mitigations for all this tracking. Guest Bio: Bill is a Senior Staff Technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He works on privacy and security-enhancing projects, such as the HTTPS Everywhere browser add-on and Panopticlick, a tool that alerts users users to how vulnerable they are to browser tracking. He has also contributed to projects such as Let's Encrypt and SecureDrop. Further Info: Is your browser giving you away? EFF's Panopticlick will tell you: https://panopticlick.eff.orgEFF's Surveillance Self Defense guide - learn how to keep yourself safe online! https://ssd.eff.org/Help EFF to help you: https://supporters.eff.org/donate/join-4

Hosted by Enigma's Head of Growth Tor Bair, our first special episode features Bruce Schneier. Bruce is one of the world's foremost security experts and researchers, having authored hundreds of articles, essays, and papers as well as over a dozen books. He is a fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, a lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), AccessNow, and the Tor Project. His latest book, "Click Here to Kill Everybody," explores the existential threats we've created by hyper-connecting our modern world - and how governments and people can move to protect our future, before it's too late. On this important episode, Bruce talks with Tor about new kinds of threats to our physical security, who bears the cost of these risks in society, why breaches like Equifax are only just the beginning, and what meaningful policies could help us to prevent catastrophe - if we move quickly. Going beyond our regular interviews, special episodes of Decentralize This! highlight important global issues and the leaders who are dedicated to solving them. For people building and scaling adoption of decentralized technologies, it is critical to understand the real problems and threats our world faces - the "Why" that helps define our "What." Why is it so critical that we build the right things and scale them the right way? What about the world must we work to change? ---- Relevant links: Bruce Schneier: https://www.schneier.com/ Berkman Klein Center: https://cyber.harvard.edu/ EFF: https://www.eff.org Click Here to Kill Everybody: https://www.amazon.com/Click-Here-Kill-Everybody-Hyper-connected-ebook/dp/B07BLMQKZK Enigma: www.enigma.co 
Enigma Blog: blog.enigma.co
 Enigma Twitter: www.twitter.com/enigmampc

Brad Templeton is founding faculty for Computing & Networks at Singularity University, and Chairman Emeritus and futurist of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the leading cyberspace civil rights foundation. He is on the board of the Foresight Institute He also advised Google's team developing self-driving cars, and writes about such cars at robocars.com. He also advises Starship on delivery robots and Quanergy in the LIDAR space. He founded ClariNet Communications Corp (the world's first "dot-com" company.) He also created rec.humor.funny, and its web site, www.netfunny.com, the world's longest running blog. 1m Current state of transportation technology - “The purpose of the city is transportation.” - The history of the city and the changes for horses, trains, trams, and cars What are some core problems in the transportation industry? - Congestion, affordable housing, and other related issues to how we move in cities 4m Self-driving vehicles (robocars) - To transport people and cargo 5m Emerging trends - Micro-mobility services like bikes and scooters - Waze - Flying cars - Electric cars - Tunneling (Elon Musk is working on tunneling, which could dramatically increase the surface area of a city by virtue of a 2-3m transportation system between multiple downtowns) - Online shopping and delivery robots 13m Brad’s vision for the future of cities - Single-person robot taxis available on demand cheaper than owning a car - Prediction systems and traffic allocations coordinated by the city - Means to manage “the commons” like highways - Significant free time enabled by robocars - Van dispatching - Energy efficiencies - Software eats the world - Virtual infrastructure - Easier to get around, more interesting things to do in cities - How we design streets to still be interesting 35m Are cities beginning to implement new structures for transportation? - They are still founded on legacy technology derived from 19th century technology - It will be a challenge to get the cities we want 40m Lessons the Internet taught the world - Simple infrastructure and easy to replace components - Put the smartness in the software and sensors 45m How can transportation systems support us in times of disaster? - Robotic transportation can help with evacuations - Thinking ahead we can design new approaches to distaster situations - Earthquakes and terrorist attacks harder to predict and solve for 49m Have fatalities in the driverless car industry created a checks and balances system? - Unfortunate lessons that were made from mistakes should prevent future injury 53m How close are we to not needing test drivers? - Waymo is the leader in the space, currently operating with 400 Beta testers in Phoenix, AZ - GM and others have claimed they will reach this goal by 2020 - It will be a land rush between companies to service cities in this way, with high competition in San Francisco 58m What is the legality at the moment for robocars? - Governments are acting quickly around the world to not be left out of this emerging industry - Some permits issued at the state level for commercial service 60m Flying cars - Batteries have gotten better and drone designs have upgraded the technologies for flying cars - Hybrid vehicles exist that can go anywhere to anywhere, road to air, from 30 to 150 miles - Hubs by the waterfront - Firefighters, ambulance and police, maybe the first to have such vehicles - BlackFly claims to have a flying car ready for mass market by the end of the year - Uber has been working on developing a flying taxi service - Hybrid designs can be as efficient if not more so than regular cars - Greater access to the larger landscape in nature and rural areas - Cheap, low-energy, flying cars will be a competitive alternative to existing transportation options 70m What are some other exciting trends to keep track of or questions to ponder? - Videoconferencing and telepresence with robots - Cars that can protect themselves

Words and MusicLayne Crawford (O) 2018he Open Audio License is a free music license created in 2001 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).[1] It provides freedom and openness of use for music and other expressive works

The reports of net neutrality’s death have been greatly exaggerated. We still have time for Congress to reinstate the federal rules that were struck down by the FCC. In the meantime, states like California are taking matters into their own hands, passing landmark state-level legislation to preserve a level playing field on the Internet. Ernesto Falcon from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) explains why Net Neutrality is not dead and how states are stepping in to try to fill the gap. Prior to joining EFF, Ernesto worked as a legislative staffer for two Members of Congress (2004-2010). He then became Vice President of Government Affairs at Public Knowledge where he advocated on behalf of consumers on copyright issues and broadband competition. During his tenure, Public Knowledge was successful in achieving one of the largest consumer victories in telecom policy by defeating AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile. The following year, PK and EFF scored a major victory for consumers by rallying the Internet community to defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). After eight years in Washington DC, he returned to his home state of California to go to law school at McGeorge School of Law in order to strengthen his digital rights advocacy. Now, as an attorney, he is excited to rejoin the fight for consumers and Internet freedom. For Further Insight: Website: https://eff.org/ Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/EFFFalcon LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ernestofalcon/ 

Where were you on the night of June 22nd? Your cellular provider knows. And until that date just a few weeks ago, if law enforcement wanted that info, all they had to do was ask. But we’re not just talking about one night… they know every place you’ve been, throughout the day, every day, going back months or even years. Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must now get a warrant to obtain this highly sensitive information and show probable cause. In our interview today, I have a truly thought-provoking discussion around the landmark Carpenter vs United States ruling with Shahid Buttar, a lawyer and grassroots organizer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). We delve into the history behind cell phone data access in the United States and why a basic right to privacy is fundamental to any democracy.  Shahid Buttar leads EFF's grassroots and student outreach efforts. He's a constitutional lawyer focused on the intersection of community organizing and policy reform as a lever to shift legal norms, with roots in communities across the country resisting mass surveillance. From 2009 to 2015, he led the Bill of Rights Defense Committee as Executive Director. After graduating from Stanford Law School in 2003, where he grew immersed in the movement to stop the war in Iraq, Shahid worked for a decade in Washington, D.C. He first worked in private practice for a California-based law firm, with public interest litigation projects advancing campaign finance reform and marriage equality for same-sex couples (as early as 2004, when LGBT rights remained politically marginal). From 2005 to 2008, he helped build a national progressive legal network and managed the communications team at the American Constitution Society for Law & Policy, before founding the program to combat racial & religious profiling at Muslim Advocates. For Further Insight: Website: https://eff.org/efa  Twitter URL: https://twitter.com/Sheeyahshee / https://twitter.com/EFF Facebook URL: https://www.facebook.com/EFF Become part of the Electronic Frontier Alliance: organizing@eff.org Help me to help you! Visit: https://patreon.com/FirewallsDontStopDragons

Flashpoint Editorial Director Mike Mimoso talks to Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) about the high stakes of online privacy, defending human rights, and protecting vulnerable populations against surveillance and censorship. 

In our 209th episode of The Cyberlaw Podcast, Stewart Baker, Susan Esserman, Maury Shenk, Jim Lewis, Jamil Jaffer, and the hosts of National Security Law Today, a podcast of the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security: CLOUD Act sneaks into law, moots Microsoft Ireland case; the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) advertises its impotence; the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); Big Tech rides high, or at least higher than EFF; Section 230 immunity is breached. Look for more breaches ahead; Trump Administration imposes $60 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods – and more – for IP violations; the Federal Communications Commission rule would further discourage US purchases of Chinese telecom infrastructure; Iranian hackers charged with massive thefts of IP; Uber’s self-driving car raises questions about how good the tech really is; meanwhile, AI looks at least good enough to kill off a few lawyers, or at least their jobs; Facebook and Cambridge Analytica: is this a phony scandal, and does that matter? New York, Massachusetts, and the United Kingdom start beating on company; risks for the right; bad thoughts, no transport! China’s social credit system is looking more and more like Black Mirror (or maybe like Lyft’s nasty Social Justice Warrior/Southern Poverty Law Center mashup); speaking of which, firearms demo videos banned from YouTube. Our guest interview is with Michael Page, Policy and Ethics Advisor at OpenAI. The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.  

Bio Victor Pickard (@vwpickard) is an Associate Professor of Communication at the Annenberg School for Communication. His research focuses on the history and political economy of media institutions, media activism, and the politics and normative foundations of media policy. Before coming to Annenberg, he taught at New York University in the media, culture, and communication department. Previously he worked on media policy in Washington, DC as a Senior Research Fellow at the media reform organization Free Press and the public policy think tank the New America Foundation. He also taught media policy at the University of Virginia and served as a Media Policy Fellow for Congresswoman Diane Watson. Pickard's work has been published in numerous anthologies and scholarly journals, including Critical Studies in Media Communication, Journal of Communication; Media, Culture & Society; Global Media and Communication; International Journal of Communication; Communication, Culture & Critique; New Media and Society; Journal of Communication Inquiry; Newspaper Research Journal; Journal of Internet Law; International Journal of Communication Law and Policy; CommLaw Conspectus: Journal of Communications Law and Policy; Political Communication; Journal of Information Policy; Digital Journalism; Journalism Studies; Communication & Critical/Cultural Studies; and Communication Theory. He is a frequent commentator on public and community radio and he often speaks to the press about med ia-related issues. His op-eds have appeared in venues like the Guardian, the Seattle Times, the Huffington Post, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Atlantic. In 2009, Pickard was the lead author of the first comprehensive report on the American journalism crisis, "Saving the News: Toward a National Journalism Strategy" (published by Free Press as part of the book Changing Media: Public Interest Policies for the Digital Age). He is the co-editor of the books Will the Last Reporter Please Turn out the Lights (with Robert McChesney, published by The New Press) and The Future of Internet Policy (with Peter Decherney, published by Routledge), and he is the author of the book America's Battle for Media Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform (published by Cambridge University Press). Resources University of Pennsylvania - Annenberg School for Communication  America's Battle for Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform by Victor Pickard (Cambridge University Press)   Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt (Penguin Books, 2011) News Roundup The FCC's effort to overturn net neutrality in one word: chaos The FCC's efforts to overturn the net neutrality rules have descended into total and complete chaos. First of all, it's hard to find anyone other than telecom companies, and the beltway insiders that represent them,  that support Ajit Pai's plan to overturn the rules at the December 14th meeting. A new Morning Consult poll finds that some 52% of Americans support net neutrality , with 29% who say they don't know. Just eighteen percent outright oppose. Further, the opposition to Ajit Pai's efforts appears to be bipartisan, with 53% of Republicans and Democrats coming in at just 2 points higher--55% who support the existing net neutrality rules. And then there's the Pew Research study showing that just 6% of comments submitted in the net neutrality docket are genuine, with others being fake and duplicates. Yet the FCC doesn't appear to be accounting for the onslaught of fake comments submitted in this proceeding.  And a man was arrested and charged for threatening to kill Congressman John Katko if he failed to support net neutrality. Twenty-eight year old Patrick D. Angelo left a voicemail for Katko saying "Listen Mr. Katko, if you support net neutrality, I will support you. But if you don't support net neutrality, I will find you and your family and I will kill…you…all. Do you understand?" This is according to the U.S. Attorney's office. So the net neutrality debate has assumed a very unhealthy tone. Perhaps the FCC should wait on overturning the rules. That would certainly seem to be the most democratic way to go. Incidentally, some 200 businesses, including Airbnb, Tumblr, Pinterest and others sent a letter to Ajit Pai on Cyber Monday urging him to hold on overturning the rules.  Supreme Court hears location-tracking case The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in Carpenter v. U.S. --that's the cellphone location data tracking case. The defendant was suspected of serving as a lookout during several armed robberies in Detroit. Authorities used Carpenter's cell phone location data to determine his proximity to the robberies. They found that Carpenter was indeed nearby to where the crimes took place.  He was convicted and is now serving a 116-year sentence. But the justices seemed to lean in support of Carpenter's argument that his 4th Amendment rights were violated--despite the third party doctrine which holds that individuals give up their right to privacy in information disclosed to third parties. Robert Barnes covers this in the Washington Post.  Pushback against tattoo recognition technology The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is suing the U.S. government -- specifically the Department of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security--for its work on developing a tattoo recognition technology. EFF sees the effort as an intrusion into civil liberties. Harper Neidig reports in The Hill.  GAO: Tech severely lacks diversity A new Government Accountability Officer report found that people of color are disproportionately underrepresented within tech firms.  Congressman Bobby Scott--Ranking Member of the House Education and Workforce Committee--ordered the study. The report found that some 10% of Hispanic and 7% of Black workers had Bachelors or Masters-level technology degrees, yet they represent only 5% or less of tech companies.   Softbank bids for Uber Softbank has initiated a formal, $48 billion takeover bid for Uber--the embattled ride-sharing company. Softbank offered to purchase Uber shares despite 3rd Quarter losses of $1.5 billion, which was up from $1.1 billion Uber lost in the second quarter. Eric Newcomer reports for Bloomberg.  Bitcoin takes off Finally, the digital currency Bitcoin had banner week last week. It jumped to over $11,000, from just $1,000 in the spring. Is it a bubble? Should it be regulated? Should the Fed create its own cryptocurrency? And, most importantly, what the hell is it??? Those are the questions being asked this week as Nasdaq prepares to trade Bitcoin. Michael Derby reports in the Wall Street Journal.           

Date: December 04th, 2014 ITS Rio was joined by two of the most important organizations on Internet rights’ protection for a conversation about distributed surveillance. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was created in 1990 by visionaires such as John Perry Barlow, Mitch Kapor and John Gilmore in response to the lack of informed governmental practices regarding emerging technologies. EFF has, since the, became one of the most important organizations on the fight for fundamental rights on the internet. Panoptikon Foundation is based in Poland, aiming at protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms against modern forms of surveillance. The event aimed at sharing knowledge, strategies and lessons learned about surveillance. It was part of the « South America Project », through which representatives of Panoptykon and EFF collaborated with local groups in Mexico, Colombia, Brazil and Argentina. Follow us: // Facebook: on.fb.me/1LwlAVy // Twitter: bit.ly/1LcG2Jw

Brad Templeton is founding faculty for Computing & Networks at Singularity University, and Chairman Emeritus and futurist of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the leading cyberspace civil rights foundation. He is on the board of the Foresight Institute. He also advised Google's team developing self-driving cars, and writes about such cars at robocars.com. He also advises Starship on delivery robots and Quanergy in the LIDAR space. He founded ClariNet Communications Corp (the world's first "dot-com" company.) He also created rec.humor.funny, the world's longest running blog.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Related: All proceeds from the sale of The Open Organization will be donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation Dragon Con Lost Wonder Workshop Dash Scratch and Scratch Jr. FIRST Kindle Fire Coby’s recommended reading list Visible Ops Private Cloud: From Virtualization to Private Cloud in 4 Practical Steps Anything by Clayton Christensen D&G (and Coby) Term of the Week: The Dinocorn   We Give Thanks Coby Holloway for being our special guest star! Special Guest: Coby Holloway.

The O’Reilly Security Podcast: DRM in unexpected places, artistic and research hindrances, and ill-anticipated consequences.In this best of 2016 episode, I revisit a conversation from earlier this year with Cory Doctorow, a journalist, activist, and science fiction writer. We discuss the unexpected places where digital rights management (DRM) pops up, how it hinders artistic expression and legitimate security research, and the ill-anticipated (and often dangerous) consequences of copyright exemptions.Early in 2016, Cory and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) launched a lawsuit against the U.S. government. They are representing two plaintiffs—Matthew Green and Bunnie Huang—in a case that challenges the constitutionality of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is a notoriously complicated copyright law that was passed in 1998. Section 1201 is the part that relates to bypassing DRM. The law says that it's against the rules to bypass DRM, even for lawful purposes, and it imposes very severe civil and criminal penalties. There's a $500,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence for a first offense provided for in the statute. Here, Cory explains some of the more subtle consequences that arise from DRM in unexpected places. An urgent need to protect individual rights and freedoms Everything has software. Therefore, manufacturers can invoke the DMCA to defend anything they’ve stuck a thin scrim of DRM around, and that defense includes the ability to prevent people from making parts. All they need to do is add a little integrity check, like the ones that have been in printers for forever, that asks, ‘Is this part an original manufacturer's part, or is it a third-party part?’ Original manufacturer's parts get used; third-party parts get refused. Because that check restricts access to a copyrighted work, bypassing it is potentially a felony. Car manufacturers use it to lock you into buying original parts. This is a live issue. Apple has deprecated the 3.5-millimeter audio jack on their phones in favor of using a digital interface. If they put DRM on that digital audio interface, they can specify at a minute level—and even invent laws about—how customers and plug-in product manufacturers can engage with it. Congress has never said, ‘You're not allowed to record anything coming off your iPhone,’ but Apple could set a “no record” flag on audio coming out of that digital interface. Then they could refuse to give license for users to decrypt the audio, making it illegal to use. Simply by using the device, users would be agreeing to accept and honor that no-record stipulation, and bypassing it would be illegal. DRM hinders legitimate research and artistic expression Matthew Green [one of the plaintiffs in the EFF lawsuit] has a National Science Foundation grant to study a bunch of technologies with DRM on them, and the Copyright Office explicitly said he is not allowed to do research on those technologies. The Copyright Office did grant a limited exemption to the DMCA to research consumer products, but it excludes things like aviation systems or payment systems like Green wants to research. Bunnie Huang [the other plaintiff] is running up against similar limitations on bypassing DRM to make narrative films with extracts from movies. We have one branch of the government refusing to grant these exemptions. We have the highest court in the land saying that without fair use, copyright is not constitutional. And we have two plaintiffs who could be criminal defendants in the future if they continue to engage in the same conduct they've engaged in in the past. This gives us standing to now ask the courts whether it’s constitutional for the DMCA to apply to technologies that enable fair use, and whether the Copyright Office really does have the power to determine what they grant exemptions for. Our winning this case would effectively gut Section 1201 of the DMCA for all of the anticompetitive and the security-limiting applications that it's found so far. DCMA exemptions can have serious consequences The Copyright Office granted an exemption for tablets and phones so people could jailbreak them and use alternate stores. This exemption allows individuals to write the necessary software to jailbreak their own personal devices but does not allow individuals to share that tool with anyone else, or publish information about how it works or information that would help someone else make that tool. So, now we have this weird situation where people have to engage in illegal activity (trafficking in a tool by sharing information about how to jailbreak a phone) to allow the average user to engage in a legal activity (jailbreaking their device). This is hugely problematic from a security perspective. Anyone can see the danger of seeking out randos to provide binaries that root a mobile device. To avoid prosecution, those randos are anonymous. And because it’s illegal to give advice about how the tool works, people have no recourse if it turns out that the advice they follow is horribly wrong or ends up poisoning their device with malware. This is a disaster from stem to stern—we're talking about the supercomputer in your pocket with a camera and a microphone that knows who all your friends are. It's like Canada’s recent legalization of heroin use without legalizing heroin sales. A whole bunch of people died of an overdose because they got either adulterated heroin or heroin that was more pure than they were used to. If the harm reduction you’re aiming for demands that an activity be legal, then the laws should support safe engagement in that activity. Instead, in both the heroin and device jailbreak examples, we have made these activities as unsafe as possible. It's really terrible. The security implications really matter, because we hear about vulnerabilities and zero-days and breaks against IoT devices every day in ways that are really, frankly, terrifying. Last winter, it was people accessing baby monitors; this week, it was ransomware for IoT thermostats and breaks against closed-circuit televisions in homes.

The O’Reilly Security Podcast: DRM in unexpected places, artistic and research hindrances, and ill-anticipated consequences.In this best of 2016 episode, I revisit a conversation from earlier this year with Cory Doctorow, a journalist, activist, and science fiction writer. We discuss the unexpected places where digital rights management (DRM) pops up, how it hinders artistic expression and legitimate security research, and the ill-anticipated (and often dangerous) consequences of copyright exemptions.Early in 2016, Cory and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) launched a lawsuit against the U.S. government. They are representing two plaintiffs—Matthew Green and Bunnie Huang—in a case that challenges the constitutionality of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is a notoriously complicated copyright law that was passed in 1998. Section 1201 is the part that relates to bypassing DRM. The law says that it's against the rules to bypass DRM, even for lawful purposes, and it imposes very severe civil and criminal penalties. There's a $500,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence for a first offense provided for in the statute. Here, Cory explains some of the more subtle consequences that arise from DRM in unexpected places. An urgent need to protect individual rights and freedoms Everything has software. Therefore, manufacturers can invoke the DMCA to defend anything they’ve stuck a thin scrim of DRM around, and that defense includes the ability to prevent people from making parts. All they need to do is add a little integrity check, like the ones that have been in printers for forever, that asks, ‘Is this part an original manufacturer's part, or is it a third-party part?’ Original manufacturer's parts get used; third-party parts get refused. Because that check restricts access to a copyrighted work, bypassing it is potentially a felony. Car manufacturers use it to lock you into buying original parts. This is a live issue. Apple has deprecated the 3.5-millimeter audio jack on their phones in favor of using a digital interface. If they put DRM on that digital audio interface, they can specify at a minute level—and even invent laws about—how customers and plug-in product manufacturers can engage with it. Congress has never said, ‘You're not allowed to record anything coming off your iPhone,’ but Apple could set a “no record” flag on audio coming out of that digital interface. Then they could refuse to give license for users to decrypt the audio, making it illegal to use. Simply by using the device, users would be agreeing to accept and honor that no-record stipulation, and bypassing it would be illegal. DRM hinders legitimate research and artistic expression Matthew Green [one of the plaintiffs in the EFF lawsuit] has a National Science Foundation grant to study a bunch of technologies with DRM on them, and the Copyright Office explicitly said he is not allowed to do research on those technologies. The Copyright Office did grant a limited exemption to the DMCA to research consumer products, but it excludes things like aviation systems or payment systems like Green wants to research. Bunnie Huang [the other plaintiff] is running up against similar limitations on bypassing DRM to make narrative films with extracts from movies. We have one branch of the government refusing to grant these exemptions. We have the highest court in the land saying that without fair use, copyright is not constitutional. And we have two plaintiffs who could be criminal defendants in the future if they continue to engage in the same conduct they've engaged in in the past. This gives us standing to now ask the courts whether it’s constitutional for the DMCA to apply to technologies that enable fair use, and whether the Copyright Office really does have the power to determine what they grant exemptions for. Our winning this case would effectively gut Section 1201 of the DMCA for all of the anticompetitive and the security-limiting applications that it's found so far. DCMA exemptions can have serious consequences The Copyright Office granted an exemption for tablets and phones so people could jailbreak them and use alternate stores. This exemption allows individuals to write the necessary software to jailbreak their own personal devices but does not allow individuals to share that tool with anyone else, or publish information about how it works or information that would help someone else make that tool. So, now we have this weird situation where people have to engage in illegal activity (trafficking in a tool by sharing information about how to jailbreak a phone) to allow the average user to engage in a legal activity (jailbreaking their device). This is hugely problematic from a security perspective. Anyone can see the danger of seeking out randos to provide binaries that root a mobile device. To avoid prosecution, those randos are anonymous. And because it’s illegal to give advice about how the tool works, people have no recourse if it turns out that the advice they follow is horribly wrong or ends up poisoning their device with malware. This is a disaster from stem to stern—we're talking about the supercomputer in your pocket with a camera and a microphone that knows who all your friends are. It's like Canada’s recent legalization of heroin use without legalizing heroin sales. A whole bunch of people died of an overdose because they got either adulterated heroin or heroin that was more pure than they were used to. If the harm reduction you’re aiming for demands that an activity be legal, then the laws should support safe engagement in that activity. Instead, in both the heroin and device jailbreak examples, we have made these activities as unsafe as possible. It's really terrible. The security implications really matter, because we hear about vulnerabilities and zero-days and breaks against IoT devices every day in ways that are really, frankly, terrifying. Last winter, it was people accessing baby monitors; this week, it was ransomware for IoT thermostats and breaks against closed-circuit televisions in homes.

This time On the Road at the 2016 ABA Annual Meeting, hosts Sharon Nelson and John Simek speak with Electronic Frontier Foundation Executive Director Cindy Cohn, United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Federal Judge James Jones, and Chairman and Associate Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School Mohammed Hafez about the ongoing quest to prevent terrorism. Mohammad mentions that the increased visibility of global terrorist attacks has given rise to a discourse about how we should best deal with this issue, by understanding the nature of terrorism and how it has evolved over the years. Judge Jones gives a brief background on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court), which was established in 1978. Each judge serves as a duty judge in the court’s secure location in Washington D.C. for a week at a time to receive applications from the Department of Justice for surveillance of individuals suspected of terrorists activities. Cindy provides her thoughts on the concept of using the mechanisms of big data to predict who is going to engage in terrorist activity and the extent to which the FISA Court has approved mass surveillance procedures and programs that involve collection and/or analysis of large swathes of information. They close the interview by further investigating the versatility of terrorist organizations and how terrorism has transformed over time.e. Cindy Cohn is the executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). From 2000-2015 she served as EFF’s legal director as well as its general counsel. Ms. Cohn first became involved with EFF in 1993, when the EFF asked her to serve as the outside lead attorney in Bernstein v. Dept. of Justice, the successful First Amendment challenge to the U.S. export restrictions on cryptography. James Parker Jones is a United States federal judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia and the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He is a 1962 graduate of Duke University and a 1965 graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law. Mohammed M. Hafez earned his Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2000. He is now an associate professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Previously, he served as a counterterrorism consultant to the U.S. government and visiting assistant professor of political science at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.

Mark Rumold of the Electronic Frontier Foundation discusses the Freedom of Information Act—its latest triumphs and stumbles and how it connects to the exhibition Chasing Justice. Mark Rumold is a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), focusing primarily on access to information, government secrecy, and national security issues. As part of EFF's Transparency Project, Mark regularly represents EFF in cases under the federal Freedom of Information Act. As a result of his transparency work, tens of thousands of pages of previously secret government documents have been made available to the public.

Jerod speaks with Jamie Lee Williams, legal fellow with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The two discuss the expansive Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and a recent circuit court ruling criminalizing password sharing.

Jerod speaks with Jamie Lee Williams, legal fellow with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The two discuss the expansive Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and a recent circuit court ruling criminalizing password sharing.

At the ABA TECHSHOW, Cindy Cohn gave a keynote speech discussing the NSA, the fourth amendment, the Apple vs. FBI case, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Afterwards, she stopped by to discuss these very relevant topics with Legal Talk Network hosts Bob Ambrogi and Dennis Kennedy. They talk about how the NSA is gathering and filtering our online communications, why Cohn believes this mass data diversion doesn’t meet the Constitution’s definition of a warrant, and why average (non-terrorist) citizens should care. The keynote speaker then touches on the currently pending Apple vs. FBI case and the long-term security risks of being required to have backdoors in our devices. They end the interview with a quick discussion about how lawyers can provide assistance, if they are interested. Cindy Cohn is the executive director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit working across the board to bring American’s constitutional and legal rights into the digital age. The National Law Journal named Ms. Cohn one of 100 most influential lawyers in America in 2003, noting, “[I]f Big Brother is watching, he better look out for Cindy Cohn.”

Show #106, Hour 1 | Guests: Bob Hoffman is the author of Marketers Are From Mars, Consumers Are From New Jersey, former head of two advertising agencies, and writer of the industry blog, The Ad Contrarian which was named one of the world’s most influential advertising and marketing blogs by Business Insider. In 2012 Bob was selected Ad Person of the Year by the S.F. Advertising Club Noah Swartz is a Staff Technologist on the Tech Projects team at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He works on the various software the EFF produces and maintains, including but not limited to Privacy Badger. Before joining EFF Noah was a researcher at the MIT Media Lab as well as a technomancer and free software/culture advocate. Sandy Pelland is the founder of lifestyle destination website MomLifeTV and member of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). Her site’s mission: Being a Mom is one of the most rewarding experiences. But, parenting isn’t always easy. Sometimes you just need help. At MomLifeTV, we’ve assembled talented professionals and organizations who give you great tips, advice and information. We also feature great stories from Moms, to help you, on your journey through Motherhood. Dave Yoon is co-founder/creator of Been Choice which adds a new twist to the ad blocking game: users can opt in to see advertising, and get paid in exchange for being tracked! Earlier this week the Apple App Store pulled Been Choice over privacy concerns; Been Choice has resubmitted it for approval. Dave spent a decade with MIO Partners (McKinsey Investment Office) as Engagement Manager, then Portfolio Manager, before co-founding Been, Inc. | Show Summary: Angie explores ad blockers, ad technology, privacy, and the overall ad industry with a diverse panel of experts.

Podcast Patent Victory? The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), reported that they had successfully convinced the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to invalidate key claims in the so-called “podcasting patent.” You can read more about this on their site by clicking here. Picking Up Where Serial Left Off I recently subscribed to the Undisclosed-Podcast. […] I have other podcasts that might be of interest to you. See my list of shows at http://CliffRavenscraft.com/podcast Let's Work Together! Would you like to connect with me through one-on-one coaching or through one of my paid mastermind groups? If so, visit my WORK WITH ME PAGE and submit an application today.

Personal Audio’s founder Jim Logan created and patented an idea which, in his eyes, covers the concept of podcasting. “This is the story of the American inventor,” Richard Baker, Personal Audio’s vice president of licensing, says. Personal Audio has filed lawsuits against several podcasters and media companies, claiming patent infringement by popular programs such as NBC’s The Adam Carolla Show and by CBS for its podcast distribution of multiple shows including The Voice and Meet the Press. On the other side, The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has spearheaded a campaign dubbed “Save Podcasting!” to rescind Personal Audio’s patent. EFF’s goal is to revoke Personal Audio’s right to compensation from any podcast program. Daniel Nazer, a staff attorney working on the campaign, represents EFF on the program. On this edition of Lawyer2Lawyer Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams talk with Richard Baker and Brad Liddle, Personal Audio’s president of licensing, and Daniel Nazer of EFF to hear their thoughts on what defines a patent troll, the specifics behind the cases, and more. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

On this week's all-star episode, we present a real rags to riches story from Tim Angel, owner of ZooGue, a company that manufactures cases for iPhones, iPads and other mobile gear. You'll also hear from tech journalist Rob Pegoraro, who writes a weekly column for USA Today, who reports on Samsung's latest flagship smartphone, the Galaxy S4, why Wall Street has gone insane over Apple, the worth, or lack thereof, of Facebook Home, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and their "Who Has Your Back?" summary of how major sites defend your privacy from government intrusion. Next up on this week's show, cutting-edge commentator Daniel Eran Dilger, from Roughly Drafted Magazine and AppleInsider, talks about those peculiar comments from BlackBerry's CEO that tablets will be a non-factor within five years, and have never made profits, despite the evidence of the iPad's ongoing success. Daniel will also continue his evaluation of the mobile platform wars, and why tech and financial pundits continue to misunderstand Apple.

The Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society (CIS) and the Stanford Law and Technology Association (SLATA) presents "Suing the Spooks: NSA Litigation and the Future of Privacy" with Cindy Cohn and Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Ann Brick of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).