Podcasts about free expression project

WATCH ALL FREE SPEECH FRIDAY EPISODES ON MY YOUTUBE CHANNELThe stated goal of the Take it Down Act is to combat non consensual intimate images (NCII), colloquially known as revenge p**n. This includes things like AI generated nude deep fakes and other explicit imagery shared without a person's consent. Cracking down on this seems great right? Sadly that's not what this law does. What the Take It Down Act *actually* does is make it so that anyone, at any time, can get content posted about them online that they don't like taken off the internet within 48 hours, no questions asked. Becca Branum, Deputy Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology's Free Expression Project has been fighting this law. She joins me to break down exactly how the Take It Down Act will function and the terrifying ways the Trump administration is already planning to weaponize it. ***** Buy a subscription to my Tech and Online Culture newsletter, User Magazine to support my work!!

The TAKE IT DOWN Act is the first major U.S. federal law to squarely target non‑consensual intimate imagery (NCII) and to include a component requiring tech companies to act. Long handled via a patchwork of state laws, it criminalizes NCII at the federal level—both authentic images and AI-generated digital forgeries—and requires that platforms remove reported NCII within 48 hours of notification by a victim or victim's representative. TAKE IT DOWN passed with wide bipartisan support—unanimously in the Senate, and 409-2 in the House. Melania Trump championed it, and it is expected that President Trump will sign it. And yet, some of the cyber civil rights organizations that have led the fight to mitigate the harms of NCII over many years have serious reservations about the bill as passed. Why?Lawfare Contributing Editor Renée DiResta sits down with Mary Anne Franks, President and Legislative & Technology Policy Director at the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, and Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law at the George Washington Law School; Becca Branum, Deputy Director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology; and Adam Conner, Vice President, Technology Policy at the Center for American Progress to unpack what the bill does, why it suddenly cruised through on a rare bipartisan wave of support, and whether its sweeping takedown mandate will protect victims or chill lawful speech. This is a nuanced discussion; some of the guests support specific aspects of the bill, while disagreeing about the implementation of others. Expect clear explanations, constructive disagreement, and practical takeaways for understanding this important piece of legislation.More resources:TAKE IT DOWN Act Legislative Summary and TextBecca Branum and Tom Bowman's letter urging changes to TAKE IT DOWN prior to passageCyber Civil Rights InitiativeSenate press release upon House signing, including list of 120 supporting organizationsTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Professor Werbach is joined by Kevin Bankston, Senior Advisor on AI Governance for the Center for Democracy & Technology, to discuss the benefits and risks of open weight frontier AI models. They discuss the meaning of open foundation models, how they relate to open source software, how such models could accelerate technological advancement, and the debate over their risks and need for restrictions. Bankston discusses the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's recent recommendations on open weight models, and CDT's response to the request for comments. Bankston also shares insights based on his prior work as AI Policy Director at Meta, and discusses national security concerns around China's ability to exploit open AI models.  Kevin Bankston is Senior Advisor on AI Governance for the Center for Democracy & Technology, supporting CDT's AI Governance Lab. In addition to a prior term as Director of CDT's Free Expression Project, he has worked on internet privacy and related policy issues at the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Technology Institute, and Meta Platfrms. He was named by Washingtonian magazine as one of DC's 100 top tech leaders of 2017. Kevin serves as an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches on the emerging law and policy around generative AI.  CDT Comments to NTIA on Open Foundation Models by Kevin Bankston  CDT Submits Comment on AISI's Draft Guidance, "Managing Misuse Risk for Dual-Use Foundation Models" Want to learn more? ​​Engage live with Professor Werbach and other Wharton faculty experts in Wharton's new Strategies for Accountable AI online executive education program. It's perfect for managers, entrepreneurs, and advisors looking to harness AI's power while addressing its risks.  

On February 26, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, two pivotal cases that could alter the landscape of free expression on the internet. In this episode, we sat down with CDT's Director of the Free Expression Project, Kate Ruane, and Vice President of the Center for Civil Rights and Technology, K.J. Bagchi to discuss the two cases that are challenging the constitutionality of the controversial Texas and Florida social media laws.

Note: This podcast episode was recorded BEFORE the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions on the crucial online free expression cases: Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh. Nevertheless, we've chosen to release this episode NOW because the conversation contains important information about the potential risks to users' free speech that is more relevant than ever. While the legal landscape may have shifted since this recording, the principles of protecting free expression and fostering an open and inclusive digital environment are not going away. In the Gonzalez and Taamneh opinions, the Supreme Court dodged any detailed consideration of Section 230 or the role of recommendation algorithms in enabling access to online speech, but we can expect that those topics will be back before the Court before long. So, let's dive into this discussion and keep advocating for the preservation of free speech in the online world. The Center for Democracy & Technology – along with six other technologists with expertise in online recommendation systems – filed an amicus brief in the case of Gonzalez v. Google. The brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that Section 230's liability shield applies to claims against interactive computer service providers based on their recommendation of third-party content, because those claims treat providers as publishers. Here to talk a little bit about the amicus brief is Jonathan Stray, Senior Scientist at the Berkeley Center for Human-Compatible AI and Caitlin Vogus, (former) Deputy Director of CDT's Free Expression Project (currently Deputy Director of Advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation). More on our host, Jamal: bit.ly/cdtjamal More on Caitlin: cdt.org/staff/caitlin-vogus/ More on Jonathan: jonathanstray.com/me (CDT relies on the generosity of donors like you. If you enjoyed this episode of Tech Talk, you can support it and our work at CDT by going to cdt.org/techtalk. Thank you for putting democracy and individual rights at the center of the digital revolution.) Attribution: sounds used from Psykophobia, Taira Komori, BenKoning, Zabuhailo, bloomypetal, guitarguy1985, bmusic92, and offthesky of freesound.org.

The Supreme Court heard two cases this week that could upend Silicon Valley. On this week's On The Media, a look at the fragile law holding the modern internet together. Plus, how a century-long PR campaign taught Americans to love the free market and loathe their own government.  1. Emily Birnbaum [@birnbaum_e], tech lobbying reporter with Bloomberg, Mark Joseph Stern [@mjs_DC], senior writer at Slate, and Emma Llanso [@ellanso], director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, on two cases argued in front of the Supreme Court this week and how they could impact the future of the internet. Listen. 2. Naomi Oreskes [@NaomiOreskes], professor of the history of science at Harvard University and the co-author, with Erik M. Conway, of “The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market,” on century-old PR campaign, conducted by big business, to imbue Americans with a quasi-religious belief in the free market. Listen. 3. China Miéville, a speculative fiction writer and author of the recent book, "A Spectre, Haunting: On the Communist Manifesto," on the ebb and flow of the text's popularity through the decades, and what we might draw from it today. Listen.Music:Nocturne No.1 in B-Flat Major Op.9. No1 (Chopin) - Ivan MoravecBallade No. 2 in F, Op. 38 (Chopin) - Maurizio PolliniMarch for the 3rd Regiment of Foot - Liberty Tree Wind Players The New East Louis Toodle-Oo (Duke Ellington) The People United Will Never Be Defeated - Carla Bley, Charlie Haden, Don Cherry Stolen Moments - Ahmad Jamal Trio

The Supreme Court heard two cases this week that could upend Silicon Valley. On this week's On The Media, a look at the fragile law holding the modern internet together. Plus, how a century-long PR campaign taught Americans to love the free market and loathe their own government.  1. Emily Birnbaum [@birnbaum_e], tech lobbying reporter with Bloomberg, Mark Joseph Stern [@mjs_DC], senior writer at Slate, and Emma Llanso [@ellanso], director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, on two cases argued in front of the Supreme Court this week and how they could impact the future of the internet. Listen. 2. Naomi Oreskes [@NaomiOreskes], professor of the history of science at Harvard University and the co-author, with Erik M. Conway, of “The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market,” on century-old PR campaign, conducted by big business, to imbue Americans with a quasi-religious belief in the free market. Listen. 3. China Miéville, a speculative fiction writer and author of the recent book, "A Spectre, Haunting: On the Communist Manifesto," on the ebb and flow of the text's popularity through the decades, and what we might draw from it today. Listen.Music:Nocturne No.1 in B-Flat Major Op.9. No1 (Chopin) - Ivan MoravecBallade No. 2 in F, Op. 38 (Chopin) - Maurizio PolliniMarch for the 3rd Regiment of Foot - Liberty Tree Wind Players The New East Louis Toodle-Oo (Duke Ellington) The People United Will Never Be Defeated - Carla Bley, Charlie Haden, Don Cherry Stolen Moments - Ahmad Jamal Trio On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

Voting in the U.S. midterm elections closed on Tuesday, and as of Sunday morning, November 13, Democrats secured another majority in the Senate. But ballots are still being counted in key races that will determine which party controls the House. It is clear, however, that the margins determining leadership in both chambers will be extremely small. In order to explore how the elections may impact the legislative debate over tech policy issues, Tech Policy Press editor Justin Hendrix spoke with three experts from civil society groups that regularly engage with lawmakers to find what scenarios and considerations are front of mind, even as we wait for the final tally:Emma Llansó, Director of the Free Expression Project, Center for Democracy and TechnologyYosef Getachew, Director of the Media and Democracy Program, Common CauseMatt Wood, Vice President of Policy and General Counsel, Free Press

The Supreme Court has never heard a Section 230 case—until now. Earlier this month, the justices agreed to review Gonzalez v. Google, in which the plaintiffs argue that YouTube's “targeted recommendation” of videos falls outside Section 230 immunity. How did we get Section 230? Why is it important? What would the Internet look like without it? Emma Llansó, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology, joins the show to explain how Section 230 came to be, how it has been implemented over the last quarter century, why Congress's one amendment of it (via FOSTA) was a disaster, and why the upcoming Supreme Court case is so crucial.

When we talk about content moderation, we often focus on companies at the application layer of the internet, like the Facebooks and Twitters of the world. But there are a whole bunch of other companies in the internet stack that have the power to knock things offline. So what is similar or different about content moderation when it moves into the infrastructure layers of the internet? Evelyn spoke with Alissa Starzak, the Vice President and Global Head of Public Policy at Cloudflare and Emma Llanso, the Director of CDT's Free Expression Project to explore this increasingly pressing question.

When we talk about content moderation, we often focus on companies at the application layer of the internet, like the Facebooks and Twitters of the world. But there are a whole bunch of other companies in the internet stack that have the power to knock things offline. So what is similar or different about content moderation when it moves into the infrastructure layers of the internet? Evelyn spoke with Alissa Starzak, theVice President and Global Head of Public Policy at Cloudflare and Emma Llanso, the Director of CDT's Free Expression Project to explore thisincreasingly pressing question.

This week, UnityNow's Toby Davis sits down with Jacqueline Merrill, head of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Campus Free Expression Project, to discuss her team's findings on key questions of viewpoint diversity and discourse on American college campuses. How does the social media-driven political tension of today compare to '50's McCarthyism and ‘80's / ‘90's political correctness? Do college students have more diverse friend groups, in terms of both ideology and demographics, than previous generations, or has there been a degree of sorting in recent years? And if most undergrads say they want to hear views different from their own, then where is the push towards censorship and de-platforming coming from?As all of these questions and more are addressed, the two explore what solutions are available to encourage a diverse and open discourse on campuses. These include the Project's own action recommendations on policies to implement and ways to promote them, as well as some encouraging success stories from both faculties and student groups across the nation!You can find our guest's bio here:https://bipartisanpolicy.org/person/jacqueline-pfeffer/You can learn more about BridgeUSA, which was mentioned on the program, here:https://www.bridgeusa.org/Follow UnityNow!https://twitter.com/UnityNowPodcasthttps://www.unitynowpodcast.comBecome a Member:Get full access: https://www.patreon.com/unitynowGet UnityNow! Gear: https://shop.unitynowpodcast.com#UnityNow #JacquelineMerrill #CampusFreeExpression

The shooting in Buffalo raises questions about the effectiveness of content moderation. Is the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism the answer to how social media can moderate extremist content? Guest: Emma Llansó, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology Host: Ray Suarez Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The shooting in Buffalo raises questions about the effectiveness of content moderation. Is the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism the answer to how social media can moderate extremist content? Guest: Emma Llansó, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology Host: Ray Suarez Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The shooting in Buffalo raises questions about the effectiveness of content moderation. Is the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism the answer to how social media can moderate extremist content? Guest: Emma Llansó, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology Host: Ray Suarez Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The shooting in Buffalo raises questions about the effectiveness of content moderation. Is the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism the answer to how social media can moderate extremist content? Guest: Emma Llansó, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology Host: Ray Suarez Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The shooting in Buffalo raises questions about the effectiveness of content moderation. Is the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism the answer to how social media can moderate extremist content? Guest: Emma Llansó, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology Host: Ray Suarez Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on Lawfare's Arbiters of Truth series on disinformation, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Emma Llansó, the director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT). They discussed the Global Internet Forum, or GIFCT, a consortium which houses a shared database of content that platforms use to remove terrorism-related material. Emma makes the case for why it's worth paying attention to—and why she finds it concerning.They also talked about CDT's lawsuit against President Trump over his recent executive order aiming to constrain platforms' leeway to moderate content, which the CDT is arguing violates the First Amendment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week on Lawfare's Arbiters of Truth series on disinformation, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Emma Llansó, the director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT). They discussed the Global Internet Forum, or GIFCT, a consortium which houses a shared database of content that platforms use to remove terrorism-related material. Emma makes the case for why it’s worth paying attention to—and why she finds it concerning. They also talked about CDT’s lawsuit against President Trump over his recent executive order aiming to constrain platforms’ leeway to moderate content, which the CDT is arguing violates the First Amendment.

We have an exciting show for you this week! In this episode of Tech Talk, you will hear from Mana Azarmi, Policy Counsel, Hannah Quay-de la Vallee, Senior Technologist, and Liz Woolery, Deputy Director of the Free Expression Project, as we discuss the EARN IT Act. A well-intentioned new bill aimed at combating child sexual exploitation online, threatens to erode free speech on online platforms and also poses a serious threat to strong end-to-end encryption and secure commutations as we know it. Let’s talk tech! Read more on EARN IT Act: https://cdt.org/insights/the-earn-it-act-puts-us-all-at-risk/ More on Mana: https://twitter.com/ManaAzarmi More on Hannah: https://cdt.org/staff/hannah-quay-de-la-vallee/ More on Liz: https://twitter.com/LizWoolery More on our host, Jamal: https://bit.ly/cdtjamal Attribution: sounds used from Psykophobia, Taira Komori, BenKoning, Zabuhailo, bloomypetal, guitarguy1985, bmusic92, and offthesky of freesound.org.

Human rights experts around the world have warned that the rush to tackle terrorist activity online has had worrying implications for fundamental human rights and freedom of speech. How do we differentiate between ‘free speech’ and speech that aims to incite violence? In this episode we find out how governments and tech platforms are attempting to strike a balance between protecting our safety, and protecting our rights. Join Flora Deverell and Jacob Berntsson as they speak to Emma Llanso, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and Dr. Krisztina Huszti-Orban, senior legal advisor to the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-terrorism and Human Rights. As governments and tech platforms across the world work to combat online extremism, this conversation asks – where should we draw the line, and how can we ensure our fundamental freedoms are protected?

Responding to hate speech is difficult because its definition remains unclear. However, the reiterated theme throughout the University of Delaware's conference on free speech was the importance of positive communication. The title of the third session was “Difficulties of Responding to Hate Speech on Digital Platforms.” Panelists were Emma Llanso, Free Expression Project director at Center for Democracy and Technology; Brittan Heller, Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard; and Jessie Daniels, Hunter College and The Graduate Center at CUNY. UD's Communication Department hosted "Speech Limits in Public Life: At the Intersection of Free Speech and Hate" on March 14 to 15, 2019. Legal experts and free speech scholars from around the country discussed how to define hate speech and respond to it both digitally and on college campuses. Read more about the conference at www.cpc.udel.edu/news/Pages/the-speech-divide.aspx.

Responding to hate speech is difficult because its definition remains unclear. However, the reiterated theme throughout the University of Delaware's conference on free speech was the importance of positive communication. The title of the sixth session was “Non-legal responses to hate speech on digital platforms.” The panelists were Brandi Collins-Dexter, Media, Democracy & Economic Justice Campaign Director at Color of Change; Carmen Scurato, Senior Policy Counsel, Free Press; Emma Llanso, Free Expression Project director at the Center for Democracy and Technology. UD's Communication Department hosted "Speech Limits in Public Life: At the Intersection of Free Speech and Hate" on March 14 to 15, 2019. Legal experts and free speech scholars from around the country discussed how to define hate speech and respond to it both digitally and on college campuses. Read more about the conference at www.cpc.udel.edu/news/Pages/the-speech-divide.aspx.

SLIDES HERE: http://bit.ly/2LoSjAN Ethan Zuckerman, of the Center for Civic Media at MIT, gave a keynote address entitled "We Make the Media," at the #FOSO18 #futureofspeech annual event. He is introduced by CDT's Emma Llansó, our Director of the Free Expression Project. On December 7, 2018, the Center for Democracy & Technology, in partnership with the Freedom Forum Institute, Charles Koch Institute and WAMU's 1A, convened a one-day symposium on the future of speech online, the (second annual) "Freedom of Speech Online 2018." Video of the event: http://bit.ly/2EDG1Ed More on Ethan: https://twitter.com/EthanZ More notes from Ethan's speech: http://bit.ly/2rFGi0C More info on the FOSO 2018 symposium: cdt.org/FOSO18 More on our host, Brian: bit.ly/cdtbrian Attribution: sounds used from Psykophobia, Taira Komori, BenKoning, Zabuhailo, bloomypetal, guitarguy1985, bmusic92, and offthesky of freesound.org.

Sanford Ungar discusses the Free Speech rights of internet users and the moderation of online content with Emma Llansó, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology. This interview was recorded on April 23, 2018.

  Bio Emma Llansó (@ellanso) is the Director of CDT's Free Expression Project, which works to promote law and policy that support users' free expression rights in the United States and around the world. Emma leads CDT's work in advancing speech-protective policies, which include legislative advocacy and amicus activity in the U.S. aimed at ensuring that online expression receives the highest level of protection under the First Amendment. Recognizing the crucial role played by Internet intermediaries in facilitating individuals' expression, she works to preserve strong intermediary liability protections in the U.S. and to advance these key policies abroad. Emma also leads the Free Expression Project's work in developing content policy best practices with Internet content platforms and advocating for user-empowerment tools and other alternatives to government regulation of online speech. The Project's work spans many subjects, including online child safety and children's privacy, human trafficking, privacy and online reputation issues, counter-terrorism and “radicalizing” content, and online harassment. Emma is also a member of the Freedom Online Coalition's Working Group on Privacy and Transparency Online, which is developing best practices for transparency reporting by governments and companies regarding government demands to Internet companies for content removal and access to user data. Emma works with CDT's Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project on advancing policies that promote free expression in global fora; she also works with the Global project in advocating for decentralized, multistakeholder approaches to Internet governance. Emma earned a B.A. in anthropology from the University of Delaware and a J.D. from Yale Law School. Emma joined CDT in 2009 as the Bruce J. Ennis First Amendment Fellow; her fellowship project focused on legal and policy advocacy in support of minors' First Amendment rights in the US. She is a member of the New York State Bar. Resources Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) SESTA Would Undermine Free Speech Online by Emma Llansó Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software by Charles Petzold (Microsoft Press, 2000) News Roundup FCC Chairman Ajit Pai releases draft orde rot overturn net neutrality Ajit Pai released a draft order to repeal the net neutrality rules last week, which the Commission will vote on at their December meeting. The order would overturn the 2015 net neutrality order by reclassifying internet service providers as "information service" providers rather than Title II "common carriers". Telecom companies applauded the new order while others, on the right and left, decried the draft order which will give telecom carriers broad discretion to throttle, block or require payment for services it doesn't favor. The order would also preempt the states from enacting their own net neutrality legislation. Cecilia Kang reports in the New York Times. NY AG Schneiderman callout FCC on net neutrality In an open letter published on his Medium page, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman wrote an open letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. In it, he called on Pai to respond to repeated requests Schneider's office made to the FCC to release information on the individuals who were responsive for corrupting the FCC's notice and comment system. Schneiderman wrote that thousands of Americans' identities may have been used to submit fraudulent comments. Schneiderman wrote that his office has made 9 requests to the FCC since June, even offering to keep the information confidential, but to no avail. Justice Department sues to block AT&T/Time Warner The Justice Department has sued to block the $85 billion AT&T/Time Warner merger. Mekan Delrahim--Chief of the DOJ's antitrust devision, says the vertical merger would harm Americans with higher prices and fewer content options. Brent Kendall and Drew FitzGerald report in the Wall Street Journal. Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in cellphone tracking case The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments this week in Carpenter v. U.S. In Carpenter, the FBI surveilled a defendant whom they suspected of acting as a getaway driver for several armed robberies in Detroit. The FBI tracked Carpenter without a warrant, using his cellphone location data. In the lower court, the FBI argued that it had broad authority to track anyone's location at anytime. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the FBI. Now the Supreme Court will consider the applicability of the so-called "third party doctrine" which holds that once you communicate your private information to a third party--you lose your privacy interest in that information. The third party doctrine already applies to things like your banking records. So the question before the court--for the first time--is whether that doctrine applies when you communicate your location to a cell tower. Matthew Tokson summarizes this case in New York Mag. FCC not done relaxing media ownership rules Two weeks ago, the FCC relaxed its Newspaper-Broadcast Cross-ownership rule. Soon, the agency may also relax the ownership limit that prevents a single corporation from reaching more than 39% of the national audience.FCC Chairman Ajit Pai circulated a proposal to his colleagues last week. If it is adopted at the December 14th Open meeting, the FCC will then commence to review the rule, which could take several months. The move is seen as being helpful to Sinclair Broadcasting, which is seeking to acquire Tribune Media. The combined company would reach 70% of U.S. households. Keach Hagey reports in the Wall Street Journal. Microsoft experiments with 'white spaces' to provide internet access in Puerto Rico Microsoft announced that it is attempting to provide internet access to Puerto Rico and other U.S. Virgin Islands that were devastated by Hurricane Maria. The plan is to provide the service via TV  "white spaces", which are the unused frequencies between tv stations.   Quartz: Android collects location data at all times Keith Collins at Quartz reported that Android devices collect location data and send it back to Google even when the location data option is switched off. Privacy advocates are concerned that if Google can access the information, hackers can too. Russia telecom czar plans retaliation against Google for de-ranking RT and Sputnik David Filipov and Hamza Filiban report for the Washington Post that  Russia is preparing to retaliate against Google if Google de-ranks the Russia-based propaganda outlets RT and Sputnik. At the Halifax International Security Forum over the weekend, Alphabet CEO Eric Schmidt said that Google is working to restrict websites, like RT and Sputnik, that have been "weaponized".   Russian telecom czar Alexander Zharov responded to the remarks saying that it would be investigating how Google ranks sites like RT and Sputnik and considering retaliatory measures. ProPublica: Facebook still allows race discrimination from advertisers A new ProPublica investigation found that Facebook still allows advertisers to target consumers based on race. ProPublica bought dozens of fake real estate ads on Facebook that allowed it to exclude audiences based on race. Julia Angwin reports in ProPublica. Multiple states are investigating a 2016 Uber data breach Uber is under fire yet again. This time it's because the company apparently suffered a massive data breach last year and didn't report it to anyone: drivers, customers, regulators--no one. Uber said the breach affected some 57 million customers. In addition to inflaming the Federal Trade Commission investigation which was already in progress, the company has already been sued by one user for deceptive business practices, for not disclosing the breach.  

GPD's executive director Charles Bradley talks to Emma Llansó, Director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) about the role of intermediaries like Facebook and Twitter, and how growing pressure on them to remove user content might affect our freedom of expression.

Host Brian Wesolowski sits down inside D.C.'s Woolly Mammoth Theater with Director Shana Cooper and Dramaturg Kirsten Bowen to discuss their production of THE NETHER. Described as "a haunting and highly original modern crime drama that hacks into urgent questions about desire, technology, and morality," Brian & Emma Llansó –– CDT's Director of our Free Expression Project –– delve into all aspects of the show (and it's creation), exploring the overlapping areas of tech law, policy and norms. FOR DISCOUNTED TICKETS: Reach out to press@cdt.org or message us on Twitter at @CenDemTech and we'd be happy to share a special discount code for tickets. MORE INFO: http://www.woollymammoth.net/nether/ Attribution: sounds used from Psykophobia, Taira Komori, BenKoning, Zabuhailo, bloomypetal, guitarguy1985, bmusic92, and offthesky of freesound.org.

Panel — Surveillance on the Silver Screen- Fact or Fiction? Nicole Ozer Technology and Civil Liberties Policy Director, ACLU of California Kevin Bankston Policy Director, New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute Timothy Edgar Fellow, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University Join ACLU and others for a fun-filled surveillance tour of the movies - from Brazil to Bourne - to talk about what is still fiction and what is now fact. What is technologically possible? What is legal? And what is happening in the courts, Congress, and in companies and communities to reset the balance between government surveillance and individual liberties. Kevin Bankston is the Policy Director of the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, where he works in the public interest to promote policy and regulatory reforms to strengthen communities by supporting open communications networks, platforms, and technologies, with a focus on issues of Internet surveillance and censorship. Prior to leading OTI's policy team, Kevin was a Senior Counsel and the Director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology. From that position, he spent two years advocating on a wide range of Internet and technology policy issues both international and domestic, most recently organizing a broad coalition of companies and civil society organizations to demand greater transparency around the US government's surveillance practices. Prior to joining CDT, he worked for nearly a decade at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, specializing in free speech and privacy law with a focus on government surveillance, Internet privacy, and location privacy. As a Senior Staff Attorney at EFF, he regularly litigated issues surrounding free expression and electronic surveillance, and was a lead counsel in EFF's lawsuits against the National Security Agency and AT&T, challenging the legality of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program first revealed in 2005. He received his JD at the University of Southern California Law School after receiving his BA at the University of Texas at Austin. Timothy H. Edgar is a visiting fellow at the Institute and adjunct professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center. His work focuses on the unique policy challenges posed by growing global cyber conflict, particularly in reconciling security interests with fundamental values, including privacy and Internet freedom. Mr. Edgar served under President Obama as the first director of privacy and civil liberties for the White House National Security Staff, focusing on cybersecurity, open government, and data privacy initiatives. From 2006 to 2009, he was the first deputy for civil liberties for the director of national intelligence, reviewing new surveillance authorities, the terrorist watchlist, and other sensitive programs. He has also been counsel for the information sharing environment, which facilitates the secure sharing of terrorism-related information. He has a JD from Harvard Law School, where he served on the Harvard Law Review, and an AB from Dartmouth College. Nicole Ozer developed and has led the technology and civil liberties work for the ACLU in California since 2004. Nicole is a nationally recognized expert on issues at the intersection of consumer privacy and government surveillance and free speech and the Internet. Nicole developed Demand Your dotRights, ACLU's national online privacy campaign and spearheaded the passage of both the first RFID and digital book privacy laws in the nation. Nicole is the author of numerous legal and policy publications, including Losing the Spotlight: A Study of California's Shine the Light Law, Privacy & Free Speech: It's Good for Business, a primer of dozens of case studies and tips for baking safeguards into the business development process. Her most recent law review article, Putting Online Privacy Above the Fold: Building a Social Movement and Creating Corporate Change, was published by the NYU Review Law & Social Change in 2012. Nicole graduated magna cum laude from Amherst College, studied comparative civil rights history at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and earned her J.D. with a Certificate in Law and Technology from Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California Berkeley. Nicole blogs at www.aclunc.org/tech and tweets @nicoleozer.