Electronic Frontier Foundation

  • January 21, 2011
    Verizon, apparently bent on challenging any amount of government regulation of the Internet, is aiming its resources at the Federal Communications Commission's recent regulations intended to keep service providers from blocking content in cyberspace.

    In a lawsuit lodged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Verizon is arguing that the FCC regulations, widely considered a compromise, between groups who advocate for the greatest possible access to Internet content and business interests, such as Verizon, are onerous.

    Michael Glover, a Verizon senior vice president, issued a statement saying, "We are deeply concerned by the F.C.C.'s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself. We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers."

    Free Press a public interest group that promotes "universal access to communications," blasted Verizon's lawsuit.

    Aparna Sridhar, the group's policy counsel, said in a statement:

    Verizon's decision demonstrates that even the most weak and watered-down rules aren't enough to appease giant phone companies. It's ironic that Verizon is unhappy with rules that were written to placate it, and it's now clear that it will settle for nothing less than total deregulation and a toothless FCC in the relentless pursuit of profit.

    In a guest post for ACSblog, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Abigail Phillips examined the FCC's regulatory proposal on net neutrality, writing that according to FCC statements, the new rules "appear to be riddled with loopholes and exemptions, to the point where the FCC's declaration that the order represents bright-line rules and a framework for predictability is hard to reconcile."

  • September 30, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Kevin Bankston, Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation

    The surveillance powers authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act endanger civil liberties, but their impact pales in comparison to that of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) passed by Congress last summer. That law eviscerated Americans’ protections against domestic spying by intelligence agencies and granted immunity to telecommunications companies that illegally assisted in the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping. The PATRIOT renewal debate offers the first, best, and perhaps last meaningful opportunity to reform that law, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urges members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to support any amendments to the FAA offered by Senator Feingold when it considers PATRIOT renewal tomorrow morning.

    Last week, Greg Nojeim of the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) ably introduced ACSblog readers to the current state of the USA PATRIOT debate: how three provisions related to PATRIOT are set to expire at the end of the year; how Senators Leahy and Feingold have introduced bills that would renew most or all of the expiring provisions but that also contain critical new privacy protections; how the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to consider those bills tomorrow; and how, in CDT’s opinion, “reform of NSL authority should be at the top of the congressional agenda for the Patriot Act.” EFF wholeheartedly agrees with CDT’s conclusion that the FBI's authority to issue National Security Letters is the PATRIOT power that poses the most clear and present danger to civil liberties. However, the PATRIOT debate is also a critical opportunity—perhaps the only opportunity—to significantly reform the much more worrisome surveillance powers granted by the FAA.

    From a civil liberties perspective, focusing on reforming the PATRIOT Act without also considering FAA reform is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Although objectionable in the extreme, PATRIOT did not fundamentally change the structure of federal surveillance law; rather, it was a collection of nips and tucks to current law that favored Executive authority over personal privacy, which when taken together constituted a significant new threat to civil liberties. On the other hand, the FAA was a radical facelift to the law, which broadly expanded the government’s warrantless wiretapping authority and reduced Americans’ protections against interception of the content of their phone conversations and emails. Admittedly, NSLs authorized by PATRIOT have been used to obtain the sensitive phone, internet and credit records of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The FAA, however, is being used to intercept and store millions upon millions of private telephone calls and internet communications, including purely domestic communications.

    This assertion is borne out by the investigative reporting of the New York Times, a leader when it comes to covering surveillance issues. The Gray Lady first reported back in April that in its attempts to implement the FAA, the National Security Agency (NSA) had engaged in “significant and systemic” “overcollection”—i.e., illegal interception—of large volumes of domestic email traffic. The Times’ follow-up reporting indicated that the “overcollected” emails likely numbered in the millions, and that those millions of illegally intercepted emails were being kept by the NSA in a database code-named “Pinwale”.

  • July 24, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Nate Cardozo, Open Government Legal Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation

    This week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit to compel the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and other members of the intelligence community to turn over documents detailing their concerns about their own misdeeds. We sued under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a law that allows anyone to request information about the federal government's activities. President Obama has called the FOIA "the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government."

    The documents we're seeking involve reports to the little-known Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), which was created within the Executive Office of the President in the aftermath of Watergate. Until last year, the board was the primary body within the executive branch providing accountability for the intelligence community. Every intelligence agency was required by executive order to send the IOB quarterly reports of "any intelligence activities of their organizations that they have reason to believe may be unlawful or contrary to Executive order or Presidential directive." The IOB reviewed and summarized this information for the President, and forwarded reports of misconduct that it believed violated the law to the Attorney General for prosecution. With few exceptions, reports to the IOB have not been made public.

    In February, 2008, President Bush issued a controversial executive order undercutting the IOB's oversight role, shifting much of the board's responsibility to the newly created Director of National Intelligence (DNI). While the IOB still receives reports of the intelligence community's questionable activity, it no longer has the authority to refer those reports to the Attorney General for prosecution. That job that now falls to the DNI. Intelligence agencies do not have to file reports with the IOB or the DNI quarterly, but rather when "appropriate."