feedly_api 0.4.2 → 0.5.0

checksums.yaml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 SHA1:
-  metadata.gz: b256f3004ba09c9e2c1ebb9f318c0d9949f84dc9
-  data.tar.gz: 7f967db1d95c1677b2481895b40128e74ff36fc4
+  metadata.gz: 405308a3fdd8fa2af2f1e876fe90818920269ffb
+  data.tar.gz: a573029f11f75f6384b09603e5904f3912bec219
 SHA512:
-  metadata.gz: a6951a41da60c3b3320db2bea73a394044bf597c435510284566efa7b6a777a34f064f2f2590b460927c86135d8a3e143364518030e0cce9c5ec68d7c6302560
-  data.tar.gz: 3073985f6bf1de503267e87cf08c2cd3da770e8cec189c54c52c56e68dcb07fc9c17077c243144e24d8c818284c0298a4332a1fef808792902f830477dd41c2e
+  metadata.gz: d3d47994b7708357079bb72eaac8106a83f4b41f2bdc4f7c431ed35e89bfc6c68d301ca862a964d77afa9984866b4b441a92fae97374fd1c9eba1f1afd68eaba
+  data.tar.gz: 1776e3b5b6e5f9e94f2a5ae7f7e506470084e7522ead049f50c7fdaf9584ffe31a5f5ddb5f8b295a1a3dbf934d8e93aebcdd7f0c117221f81824dfd4670a85d9

data/README.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Early unofficial Feedly API with no external dependencies
 
 ## Limitations
 * no auth for now
-* only feed stats and feed items
+* get methods only
 * continuation not implemented
 
 ## Usage

data/lib/feedly_api.rb

@@ -2,28 +2,37 @@
 
 require 'feedly_api/version'
 require 'feedly_api/errors'
-require 'feedly_api/api'
 require 'feedly_api/client'
+require 'feedly_api/feed'
 
 module FeedlyApi
-  class Feed
-    attr_reader :url, :subscribers, :title, :velocity, :id
+  API_ENDPOINT = 'http://cloud.feedly.com/v3/'.freeze
 
-    def initialize(url)
-      @url = url
-      @id  = "feed%2F#{CGI.escape(@url)}"
-      get_info
-    end
+  class << self
+    def get(url, token)
+      uri = URI(url)
+      req = Net::HTTP::Get.new(uri)
 
-    def get_info
-      json = Api.fetch(:feeds, @id)
-      @subscribers = json.fetch(:subscribers) { nil }
-      @title       = json.fetch(:title) { nil }
-      @velocity    = json.fetch(:velocity) { nil }
-    end
+      unless token.nil?
+        req['$Authorization.feedly'] = '$FeedlyAuth'
+        req['Authorization'] = "OAuth #{token}"
+      end
+
+      response = Net::HTTP.start(uri.hostname, uri.port) do |http|
+        http.request(req)
+      end
+
+      raise BadRequest if 'null' == response.body
 
-    def items(params = {})
-      Api.fetch(:streams, @id, params).fetch(:items)
+      case response.code.to_i
+      when 200 then response.body
+      when 401 then raise AuthError
+      when 403 then raise AuthError
+      when 404 then raise NotFound
+      when 500 then raise Error
+      else 
+        raise Error
+      end
     end
   end
 

data/lib/feedly_api/api.rb

@@ -1,30 +1,36 @@
 module FeedlyApi
-  module Api
-    API_ENDPOINT = 'http://cloud.feedly.com/v3/'
+  module API
 
-    class << self
-      def fetch(resource, id, params = {})
-        params = params.map { |k,v| "#{k.to_s}=#{v.to_s}&" }.join
-        
-        url  = API_ENDPOINT
-        url += resource.to_s
-        url += '/'
-        url += id
-        url += '/contents' if :streams == resource
-        url += "?ck=#{Time.now.to_i}000&"
-        url += params
+    def get_user_profile
+      make_request('profile')
+    end
 
-        JSON.parse(get(url), symbolize_names: true)
-      end
+    def get_feed_info(feed_id)
+      feed_id = CGI.escape(feed_id)
+      make_request("feeds/#{feed_id}")
+    end
 
-      private
+    def get_subscriptions
+      make_request('subscriptions/')
+    end
+
+    def get_feed_contents(feed_id, args = {})
+      feed_id = CGI.escape(feed_id)
+      make_request("streams/#{feed_id}/contents", args)
+    end
+
+    def get_tag_contents(tag_id, args = {})
+      tag = CGI.escape("user/#{user_id}/tag/#{tag_id}")
+      make_request("streams/#{tag}/contents", args)
+    end
+
+    def get_category_contents(category_id, args = {})
+      category = CGI.escape("user/#{user_id}/category/#{category_id}")
+      make_request("/streams/#{category}/contents", args)
+    end
 
-      def get(url)
-        response = Net::HTTP.get_response(URI(url))
-        raise Error unless 200 == response.code.to_i
-        raise BadRequest if 'null' == response.body
-        response.body
-      end
+    def get_markers
+      make_request('markers/counts')
     end
   end
 end

data/lib/feedly_api/client.rb

@@ -1,11 +1,28 @@
+require 'feedly_api/api'
+
 module FeedlyApi
   class Client
+    include API
+
+    attr_reader :auth_token
+
     def initialize(auth_token = nil)
       @auth_token = auth_token
     end
 
-    def feed(feed_url)
-      FeedlyApi::Feed.new feed_url
+    def user_id
+      get_user_profile[:id]
+    end
+
+    private
+
+    def make_request(path, argv = {})
+      url = FeedlyApi::API_ENDPOINT + path + '?'
+      argv.each do |k,v|
+        url << "#{k}=#{v}&"
+      end
+      # p url
+      JSON.parse(FeedlyApi.get(url, @auth_token), symbolize_names: true)
     end
   end
 end

data/lib/feedly_api/errors.rb

@@ -1,4 +1,6 @@
 module FeedlyApi
-  class Error < StandardError; end
+  class Error      < StandardError; end
   class BadRequest < StandardError; end
+  class AuthError  < StandardError; end
+  class NotFound   < StandardError; end
 end

data/lib/feedly_api/feed.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+module FeedlyApi
+  class Feed
+    attr_reader :url, :subscribers, :title, :velocity, :id
+
+    def initialize(url)
+      @url = url
+      @id  = "feed%2F#{CGI.escape(@url)}"
+      get_info
+    end
+
+    def get_info
+      json = Api.fetch(:feeds, @id)
+      @subscribers = json.fetch(:subscribers) { nil }
+      @title       = json.fetch(:title) { nil }
+      @velocity    = json.fetch(:velocity) { nil }
+    end
+
+    def items(params = {})
+      Api.fetch(:streams, @id, params).fetch(:items)
+    end
+  end
+end

data/lib/feedly_api/version.rb

@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 module FeedlyApi
-  VERSION = '0.4.2'
+  VERSION = '0.5.0'
 end

data/spec/fixtures/feed_contents_10.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"id":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks","direction":"ltr","updated":1373935361457,"continuation":"13fcab0b34e:7a49e:9d82f563","alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","type":"text/html"}],"items":[{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe4eddd97:12f6b34:e95a5f49","originId":"75003 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"a630a89f","title":"The Times Profiles a Patent Troll","published":1373931257000,"crawled":1373935361431,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/times-profiles-patent-troll","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Daniel Nazer and Daniel Nazer","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>This weekend, the <em>New York Times</em> published a <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/has-patent-will-sue-an-alert-to-corporate-america.html\">fascinating portrait</a> of Erich Spangenberg of IPNav, who has been called one of \"one of the most notorious patent trolls in America.\" In the past five years, IPNav has sued 1,638 companies.\n<p>While the <em>Times</em>' profile includes many colorful details (such as the time Spangenberg purchased so much wine at a Christie's auction that it had to be delivered by an 18 wheel truck), this is not the important part of the story. What is far more important is the evidence that IPNav's business, and patent trolling more generally, is a huge tax on innovation.\n<p>Thanks to trolls like IPNav, the <em>Times</em> explains, U.S. companies are forced to spend upwards of $30 billion every year on patent litigation. Most of that money goes to troll profits and legal expenses, with less than 25 percent flowing to inventors. Even Spangenberg concedes that his business uses “the courts as a marketplace, and the courts are horribly inefficient and horribly expensive as a market.” Patent trolls like IPNav are a symptom of a fundamentally broken system.\n<p>In a <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/how-a-typical-patent-battle-took-an-unexpected-turn.html\">follow up article</a>, the <em>Times</em> tells the story of Peter Braxton and his app <a href=\"http://jumpropetheapp.com/\">Jump Rope</a>. In an <a href=\"http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2013/01/17/are-patent-trolls-now-zeroed-in-on-start-ups/\">all too common tale</a>, Braxton's promising start-up was devastated by a troll lawsuit (brought by a company not associated with IPNav). Even though Braxton won a clear victory at the district court, litigation costs were destroying his business. In exchange for a substantial equity stake in Braxton's company, IPNav agreed to handle the litigation. As the <em>Times</em> explained, this story suggests that “there is really only one way to deal with a patent bully: team up with a bigger bully.”\n<p>This is a terrible climate for innovation. We hope that media attention like this helps spur <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/legislative-solutions-patent-reform\">legislative reform</a>. We should create a patent system that doesn't squelch start-ups solely to enrich patent trolls. Erich Spangenberg doesn't need a seventh Lamborghini.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/innovation\">Innovation</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/patent\">Patents</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims\">Patent Trolls</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=The+Times+Profiles+a+Patent+Troll+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll&t=The+Times+Profiles+a+Patent+Troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=The+Times+Profiles+a+Patent+Troll+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=The Times Profiles a Patent Troll&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe4b6e72f:1243ffd:e95a5f49","originId":"74988 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"c04da56","title":"The EFF Guide to San Diego Comic-Con","published":1373927909000,"crawled":1373931759407,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/eff-guide-san-diego-comic-con","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Maass","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p><b><img height=\"350\" alt=\"\" align=\"right\" width=\"182\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images_insert/poi-keycard-toldja.jpg?itok=sbc7Vsv3\"></b>With the arrival of summer at EFF, you can hear the excitement in the stuffing of luggage and locking of office doors as our team prepares for some of the most important conventions in the world. <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/event/black-hat-briefings\">Black Hat</a> starts on July 27, with <a href=\"https://www.defcon.org/\">DEF CON</a> immediately after. But before those two kick off, there's <a href=\"https://secure.comic-con.org/cci\">San Diego Comic-Con</a>, the largest celebration of the popular arts. For the first time, an EFF staffer will be pounding the plush conference carpet (and maneuvering around cosplayers) to take the pulse of the entertainment industry and catch up with some of our friends and fans.\n<p>After all, the geeks and nerds and fan-kids at Comic-Con are our peeps. In preparation, we threw together this quick guide to the panels that are bound to engage anyone following our issues, whether that's surveillance, free speech, or intellectual property.\n<p>If you're a creator with a booth at Comic-Con, drop me an email at <a href=\"mailto:dm@eff.org\">dm@eff.org</a>, and I'll swing by with some swag (as long as it lasts). If you're doing something EFF-friendly, maybe we'll even feature your work on our Deeplinks blog.\n<p>A quick note in advance on information safety: It's easy to lapse into the comfort of trust that comes with mingling with 100,000 like-minded folks. Still, you should take some basic precautions. If you're logging onto public Wi-Fi, make sure you use <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere\">HTTPS Everywhere</a>. Remember also that paying for goods in cash is always safer than swiping your credit card through a mobile device. Finally, when you’re signing up on mailing lists, or trading personal information for goodies, make sure to read the fine print about how that information will be shared.\n<p>Now for the fun stuff.\n<h3><b><u>For the Surveillance-Heads</u></b></h3>\n<p>As the U.S. chases Edward Snowden and his trail of NSA documents around the world, it’s worth contemplating whether truth has finally proved itself stranger than fiction. How can sci-fi even keep up with real world? Two TV shows and a video game have panels that, at least in some way, will touch on the issue.\n<p><b>Intelligence: </b>Let's imagine all the spying power of the NSA and more: direct access to the global information grid, WiFi, cell phones, satellites, all channeled through the brain of Sawyer from <i>Lost</i>, or at least Josh Holloway, the actor who played the sly con-man. That’s the premise of <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://www.cbs.com/shows/intelligence/\"><i>Intelligence</i></a>, a show set to start airing in February 2014 on CBS. Holloway and other members of the cast, and its executive producers, will sit on a panel moderated by the president and editor-in-chief of <i>TV Guide</i>.  The booth on the convention floor will also feature a special “experience” with Google Glass.\n<p><a href=\"http://sched.co/1246Iat\">Thursday, July 18, 10am to 11am - Ballroom 20</a>\n<p><b>Person of Interest: </b>With the third season starting this call, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://www.cbs.com/shows/person_of_interest/\"><i>Person of Interest</i></a> is about what happens when you combine predictive technology with big-data collected through video surveillance—and the secret operatives who act on the information. There will be a Q&amp;A with the cast on Saturday, but supervising producer Amy Berg will also talk about the realities of the show as part of panel on “science” in “science fiction.”  The CBS show this year has also sponsored hotel key cards (see above) that capture the sentiment at EFF these days in the wake of the NSA leaks.\n<p><em>The Science of Science Fiction  - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/14UGZzt\">Thursday July 18,  6:30pm - 7:30pm - Room 24ABC</a>\n<p><em>Person of Interest Special Video Presentation and Q&amp;A - </em><a href=\"http://sched.co/14UGZzt\">Saturday July 20, 4:00pm - 4:45pm - Room 6BCF</a>\n<p><b>Watch_Dogs: Does Privacy Exist? </b>In this new, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://watchdogs.ubi.com/watchdogs/en-us/home/index.aspx\">cross-platform video game</a>, the user plays a hacker in Chicago with the power to manipulate the city’s digital infrastructure, including traffic signals and surveillance cameras. So-far unnamed security consultants are joining the lead story designer in a discussion about the technological truths (and stretches of truth) in the video game.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/18DO8K8\">Saturday July 20, 6:00pm - 7:00pm - Room 9 </a>\n<h3></h3>\n<h3><b><u>For the Legal Nerds</u></b></h3>\n<p>At EFF, we love the law like Browncoats love <i>Firefly</i>. So, of course we’re keeping an eyes on the robust legal programming at Comic-Con.\n<p><b>Comic Book Law School:  </b>Michael Lovitz, author of <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://prismcomics.org/profile.php?id=685\"><i>The Trademark and Copyright Book</i> </a>comic book, is leading a three-part series of panels on the intersection of intellectual property and pop culture. It’s designed for both creators and lawyers, with progressing levels of advancement—101, 202 and 303. (Bonus for attorneys: You’ll earn California MCLE credits.)  \n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246IqT\">Thursday</a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/10Eg63u\">Friday</a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/14UkZFj\">Saturday</a>, 10:30am - 12:00pm - Room 30CDE\n<p><b>Comic Book Legal Defense Fund</b>: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://cbldf.org/\">CBLDF</a> is a legal-nonprofit that joins us on the front lines of free-speech, standing up for comic-book artists wherever in the world they face oppression. This year, the organization is featuring a panel on manga in Japan and an in-depth, three-part examination of the most important courtroom battles over comics. In another panel, they’ll go over the list of comics banned from public libraries and gear up support for Banned Book Week (Sept. 22-28).\n<p><em>Banned Comics - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246Kz6\">Thursday, July 18, 12:00pm - 1:00pm - Room 30CDE</a>\n<p><em>Comics on Trial, Part 1, 2, 3 - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246IY5\">Thursday</a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/10EfP0F\">Friday</a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/18DNDjg\">Saturday</a> 1:00pm - 2:00pm - Room 30CDE\n<p><em>Defending Manga - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/14Ul3F8\">Saturday, July 20, 2013 12:00pm - 1:00pm - Room 30CDE</a>\n<p><em>Banned Comics Jam - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/12OXhHg\">Sunday July 21, 12:15pm - 1:45pm - Room 5AB</a>\n<div>CBLDF will also have a welcome party on Thursday night. Details and RSVP <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.eventbrite.com/event/7429956199/?invite=&err=29&referrer=&discount=&affiliate=&eventpassword=\">here</a>.</div>\n<div></div>\n<p><b>Comics Arts Conference Session #12: Superman on Trial: The Secret History of the Siegel and Shuster Lawsuits: </b> The copyright dispute over Superman dates back more than 60 years, and only just in January received a major decision in the 9<sup>th</sup> U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A biographer and an intellectual-property professor will bring attendees up to speed on the case.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/12OXFWg\">Sunday July 21, 10:30am - 11:30am - Room 26AB</a>\n<h3></h3>\n<h3><b><u>For the Geektivists</u> </b></h3>\n<p>If you were to take a tour of EFF’s office, you’d immediately notice our love of activist art with the posters lining our halls and office walls. While the following panels don’t directly address digital issues, they do reflect how art can be a powerful tool in affecting change.\n<p><b>Comic-Con How-To: Social Practice: Guerilla Art Tactics for Sharing Your Vision with the World</b>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246LTG\">Thursday July 18, 3:00pm - 5:00pm - Room 2</a> <b> </b>\n<p><b>Black Mask: Bringing a Punk Rock Sensibility, Activism, and Wu-Tang to Comics</b>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246NLm\">Thursday July 18, 8:30pm - 9:30pm - Room 8 </a>\n<p><b>Comics Arts Conference Session #7: Heroes/Creators: The Comic Art Creations of Civil Rights Legends</b>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/10EfMSi\">Friday July 19, 2013 1:00pm - 2:00pm - Room 26AB</a>\n<h3><b><u> Friends of EFF</u></b></h3>\n<p><b>Ode to Nerds: </b>EFF fellow and Pioneer Award winner <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/about/staff/cory-doctorow\">Cory Doctorow</a> (whose young-adult novel <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://craphound.com/littlebrother/\"><i>Little Brother</i></a> is San Francisco's <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sfpl.org/index.php?pg=2000615601\">One City One Book</a> selection) joins io9.com writer and EFF buddy Charlie Jane Anders in a panel about nerd culture, featuring non-other than <i>Fight Club</i>’s Chuck Palahniuk. They'll be signing autographs at 3:15 p.m. as well in the Comic-Con Sails Pavillion.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246JeH\">Thursday, July 18, 1:45pm - 2:45pm - Room 6A</a>\n<p><b>Publishing SF/F in the Digital Age: </b> Doctorow, also a champion of DRM-free e-books, will join a panel of authors and booksellers discussing the evolution of fiction in an increasingly digital world.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/132tb7P\">Friday July 19, 7:00pm - 8:00pm - Room 25ABC</a>\n<p><b>Science Fiction That Will Change Your Life:  </b>Anders and io9 editor and former EFF staffer Annalee Newitz are leading a panel on the most inspiring science fiction of the past year.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/132tb7P\">Friday July 19, 6:45pm - 7:45pm - Room 5AB</a>\n<p><b>Adam and Jamie Look Toward the Future: </b>The <i>Mythbusters </i>team have long been supporters of EFF’s work and now’s the time to return the favor. We’ll be in line early to check out the show’s 10 year retrospective discussion and the duos plans moving forward.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/10Egi2G\">Friday July 19, 7:00pm - 8:00pm - Room 6BCF</a>\n</div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=The+EFF+Guide+to+San+Diego+Comic-Con++https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con&t=The+EFF+Guide+to+San+Diego+Comic-Con+\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=The+EFF+Guide+to+San+Diego+Comic-Con++https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=The EFF Guide to San Diego Comic-Con &url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe47fde69:11b1db1:e95a5f49","originId":"74964 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"529097cc","title":"EFF Addresses Protesters at San Francisco's \"Restore the Fourth\" Protest","published":1373914564000,"crawled":1373928152681,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/eff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Parker Higgins","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Hundreds of protesters gathered in San Francisco and thousands more in cities around the United States earlier this month in support of <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/restore-fourth-campaign-organizes-protests-against-unconstitutional-surveillance\">\"Restore the Fourth,\" a grassroots and non-partisan campaign dedicated to defending the Fourth Amendment</a>. The protests took aim in particular at the National Security Agency's unconstitutional dragnet surveillance programs, details of which have emerged in leaked documents over the past month.\n<p>\"Restore the Fourth\" isn't officially affiliated with any formal organizations, but given our shared goal of ending illegal spying on Americans, EFF had the opportunity to speak to the crowd. Below, you'll find a short video of some highlights from that speech, and the full text as prepared.\n<p><center><div><div><img height=\"250\" alt=\"mytubethumb\" width=\"400\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/mytube/yt_NNb0H3aKpt4.jpg\"><img alt=\"play\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/modules/mytube/play.png\"></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/02/embedded-video-and-your-privacy\">Privacy info.</a> This embed will serve content from <em><a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/NNb0H3aKpt4?rel=1&autoplay=1&wmode=opaque\">youtube.com</a></em><br></div></div></center>\n<blockquote><p>Hello everybody, and thank you for coming out here today to stand up for all of our Fourth Amendment rights. At EFF, we've been engaged in lawsuits about these secret and unconstitutional NSA programs for the better part of a decade, and we need the government to see that the American people are outraged.\n<p>Because nearly 250 years ago today, our founding fathers refused to live under tyranny and declared independence from their ruling government. The king, they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, had made it impossible to live under a rule of law.\n<p>A few years later they wrote the document that established the United States of America, our Constitution, and with it they published our Bill of Rights to protect the basic rights that every person in this country is entitled to.\n<p>The actions of the National Security Agency spying on Americans, revealed by a series of whistleblowers driven by conscience, represents a break from that tradition. And it's our duty not to allow that break. It's our duty as human beings, entitled to dignity and privacy, and it's our duty as Americans, protecting those rights not just for ourselves but for everybody who follows in our steps.\n<p>The Founders wrote the Fourth Amendment deliberately, with a specific purpose: to ensure that so-called \"general warrants\" were illegal. These general warrants were broad and unreasonable dragnets, requiring anyone targeted to forfeit their information to the government.\n<p>No, under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant needs to be specific. You need a particular target and probable cause.\n<p>Compare that with what we know the NSA is doing, and has been doing for years. Even now we can't know the full scope of what the government is doing when it claims to act in our names, but we know about these four programs:\n<ul><li>The NSA obtains the telephone records of every single customer of phone companies like Verizon. They try to brush that under the rug by saying it's \"just metadata,\" but the invasiveness of that metadata can be truly astonishing: every single call, who is on both ends, how long they spoke, and more.\n<li>The NSA in some cases obtains the actual content of phone calls, effectively listening in on private conversations.\n<li>The NSA taps the very basic infrastructure of our net, sucking up the raw data and storing it for who knows how long, doing who knows what kind of analysis to it.\n<li>The NSA obtains content from major tech companies, many of whom are based right here in this city, including videos, email messages and more, based on a 51% chance—a guess, basically—that the \"target\" of the investigation is a foreigner talking to somebody in the US.\n</ul><p>Make no mistake: these programs are illegal. These are illegal under the Fourth Amendment, which we celebrate here today, and they are propped up only by outrageous and dishonest readings of laws that violate Congress' intentions.\n<p>And when the Director of National Intelligence was asked about these illegal programs on the floor of Congress, he flat-out lied about them, to Congress and to the American people. Once again, this government is acting in our name, but it refuses even basic accountability for its actions.\n<p>You don't lie to Congress to hide programs if you believe that they're legal. That's why we're demanding a few steps to once and for all shine some light on the activities of the NSA.\n<p>We want a full, independent, public Congressional investigation into what the NSA is doing, and what it claims it's allowed to do.\n<p>We want the public to see the secret legal decisions, made in a secret court, about what kind of surveillance the government's doing.\n<p>We want the public to see the Inspector General Reports about these programs.\n<p>We want to see how the government justifies these programs—that means any other reports about how necessary and effective they are.\n<p>And most importantly, we want public courts to determine the legality of these programs.\n<p>We think public courts will see through the NSA's torturing of the English language, and see that it's searching all of us, and seizing our data, in ways that are absolutely unreasonable.\n<p>Once the courts have reviewed these programs, we want the dragnet surveillance to stop. No more bulk collection of Americans' communication records, and no more open access to the backbone of the Internet.\n<p>In 1975, after widespread illegal activity by the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee to examine that bad behavior and reign it in with new laws. It wasn't an easy road, but the Church Committee was able to establish some of the first real safeguards against these sorts of illegal activities. Frank Church was clear about why these were necessary:\n<p>If these agencies were to turn on the American people, Church said, \"no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.\"\n<p>Those are powerful words. But it's up to us to ensure that those words are a battle cry in the fight for our privacy, and not the epitaph on its grave.\n<p>The Fourth Amendment is there to protect us, but there comes a time when we have to step in and protect it. The NSA has treated the Fourth Amendment and the rest of the US Constitution like a suggestion they're free to ignore. Today, we stand up, and we let them know: that is unacceptable. We, the American people, will not let ourselves fall under tyranny, and we will not let government agencies establish the infrastructure for turnkey totalitarianism.\n<p>We will push back, we will fight, and we will do whatever it takes to restore the Fourth Amendment and the rest of the U.S. Constitution. Thank you all for coming out today to send that message.</blockquote>\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy\">Privacy</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=EFF+Addresses+Protesters+at+San+Francisco%27s+%22Restore+the+Fourth%22+Protest+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth&t=EFF+Addresses+Protesters+at+San+Francisco%27s+%22Restore+the+Fourth%22+Protest\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=EFF+Addresses+Protesters+at+San+Francisco%27s+%22Restore+the+Fourth%22+Protest+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=EFF Addresses Protesters at San Francisco%27s %22Restore the Fourth%22 Protest&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe35125e9:d7f955:c159ab3d","originId":"74875 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"61df9f7b","title":"Yahoo's Fight for its Users in Secret Court Earns the Company Special Recognition in Who Has Your Back Survey","published":1373905493000,"crawled":1373908313577,"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Each year, EFF’s <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013\">Who Has Your Back </a>campaign assesses the policies and practices of major Internet companies as a way to encourage and incentivize those companies <span>to take a stand for their users in the face of government demands for data. </span><span><span>Normally, when a compan</span></span><span><span>y demonstrates it has a policy or practice that advances user privacy, like fighting for its users in courts, we award the company a gold star. </span>Sometimes, even when companies stand up for their users, they're forbidden from telling us about it because of unduly restrictive secrecy laws or court orders prohibiting them from doing so. </span><p><span><img height=\"79\" width=\"85\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/images_insert/sparklystarnew.gif\"></span><span>Which, for the past six years, is <a href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0\">exactly what happened to Yahoo</a>. In honor and appreciation of the company’s silent and</span><span> thankle</span><span>s</span><span>s </span><span>battle for us</span><span>er privacy in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), EFF is proud to award Yahoo with a</span><span> star of sp</span><span>ecial d</span><span>istinction in our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013\">Who Has Your Back</a> survey for fighting for its users in (secret) courts.</span><p><span>In 2007, Yahoo received an order to produce user data under the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007\">Protect America Act</a> (the predecessor statute to the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008\">FISA Amendments Act</a>, the law on which the NSA’s</span><span> recently disclosed Prism program relies). Instead of blindly accepting the government’s constitutionally qu</span><span>estionable order, Yahoo fought back. The company challenged the legality of the order in the FISC, the secret surveillance court that grants government applications for surveillance</span><span>. And when the order was u</span><span>pheld by the FISC, Yahoo didn’t stop fighting: it appealed the decision to the Foreign Intelligenc</span><span>e </span><span>Surveillance Court of Review, a three-judge appellate court established to review decisions of the FISC.</span><p><span>Ultimately, the Court of Review <a href=\"https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr082208.pdf\">ruled against Yahoo</a>, upholding the constitutionality of the Protect America Act and ordering Yahoo to turn over the user data the government requested. The details of the data turned over, and even the full opinion of the Court of Review, remain secret (a redacted version of the court’s opinion was released in 2008). Indeed, the fact that Yahoo was involved in the case was a secret until the <em>New York Times </em><a href=\"http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/secret-court-declassifies-yahoos-role-in-disclosure-fight/\">revealed it</a> earlier this month. Following the <em>Times </em>article and <a href=\"http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/105b-g-07-01-motion-130614.pdf\">a new motion</a> for disclosure by Yahoo, the government <a href=\"http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/105b-g-07-01-motion-130625.pdf\">acknowledged</a> that more information could be made available about the case, including the fact that Yahoo was involved. </span><p><span>After six years of silence, Yahoo is finally able to speak publicly about its fight.</span><p><span>Yahoo went to bat for its users – not because it had to, and not because of a possible PR benefit – but because it was the right move for its users and the company. It’s precisely this type of fight – a secret fight for user privacy – that should serve as the gold standard for companies, and such a fight must be commended. While Yahoo still has a way to go in the other Who Has Your Back <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013\">categories</a> (and they remain the last major email carrier not using HTTPS encryption by default), Yahoo leads the pack in fighting for its users under seal and in secret.</span><p>Of course, it's possible more companies have challeneged this secret surveillance, but we just don't know about it yet. We encourage every company that has opposed a FISA order or directive to move to unseal their oppositions so the public will have a better understanding of how they've fought for their users.<p>Until then, we hope Yahoo's star will serve as a beacon for all companies: fighting for your users' privacy is the right thing to do, even if you can't let them know.<p> \n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Yahoo%27s+Fight+for+its+Users+in+Secret+Court+Earns+the+Company+Special+Recognition+in+Who+Has+Your+Back+Survey++https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition&t=Yahoo%27s+Fight+for+its+Users+in+Secret+Court+Earns+the+Company+Special+Recognition+in+Who+Has+Your+Back+Survey+\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Yahoo%27s+Fight+for+its+Users+in+Secret+Court+Earns+the+Company+Special+Recognition+in+Who+Has+Your+Back+Survey++https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Yahoo%27s Fight for its Users in Secret Court Earns the Company Special Recognition in Who Has Your Back Survey &url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"author":"Mark Rumold","alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/yahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition","type":"text/html"}],"origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe161ce88:78394e:c159ab3d","originId":"74972 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"6f04dad6","title":"Bills Introduced by Congress Fail to Fix Unconstitutional NSA Spying","published":1373872618000,"crawled":1373875850888,"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>In the past two weeks Congress has introduced a slew of bills responding to the <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order\"><em>Guardian</em></a>'s publication of a <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/confirmed-nsa-spying-millions-americans\">top secret court order</a> using <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/foia/section-215-usa-patriot-act\">Section 215</a> of the PATRIOT Act to demand that Verizon Business Network Services give the National Security Agency (NSA)<i> </i>a record of <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/confirmed-nsa-spying-millions-americans\"><i>every</i> customer's call history</a><i> </i>for three months. The order was confirmed by officials like President Obama and Senator Feinstein, who said it was a \"routine\" 90 day reauthorization of a program started in 2007.\n<p>Currently, four bills have been introduced to fix the problem: one by <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/leahy-nsa-spying-fix\">Senator Leahy</a>, <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/sanders-nsa-spying\">Senator Sanders</a>, <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/udall-wyden-nsa-spying\">Senators Udall and Wyden</a>, and <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/conyers-nsa-spying-bill\">Rep. Conyers</a>. The well-intentioned bills try to address the Justice Department's (DOJ) abusive interpretations of Section 215 (more formally, <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861\">50 USC § 1861</a>) apparently approved by the reclusive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) in <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/foia/fisc-orders-illegal-government-sureveillance\">secret legal opinions</a>.\n<p>Sadly, all of them fail to fix the problem of unconstitutional domestic spying—not only because they ignore the <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/what-we-need-to-know-about-prism\">PRISM</a> program, which uses Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and collects Americans' emails and phone calls—but because the legislators simply don't have key information about how the government interprets and uses the statute. <em>Congress must find out more about the programs before it can propose fixes.</em> That's why a <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/campaign-end-nsa-warrantless-surveillance-surges-past-500000-signers\">coalition of over 100 civil liberties groups</a> and <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/stopwatching.us/?r=eff\">over half a million people</a> are pushing for a special congressional investigatory committee, more transparency, and more accountability.\n<h3>More Information Needed</h3>\n<p>The American public has not seen the secret law and legal opinions supposedly justifying the unconstitutional NSA spying. Just this week the <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0\"><i>New York Times </i></a>and <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344.html\"><i>Wall Street Journal</i></a> (paywall) reported that the secret law includes dozens of opinions—some of which are hundreds of pages long—gutting the Fourth Amendment. The special investigative committee must find out necessary information about the programs and about the opinions. Or, at the very least, extant committees like the Judiciary or Oversight Committees must conduct more open hearings and release more information to the public. Either way, the process must start with the publication of the secret legal opinions of the FISA Court, and the opinions drafted by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).\n<h3>Why the Legislation Fails to Fix Section 215</h3>\n<p>Some of the bills try to narrow Section 215 by heightening the legal standard for the government to access information. Currently, the FBI can obtain \"any tangible thing\"—including, surprisingly, intangible business records about Americans—that is \"relevant\"\n<blockquote><p>to an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a US person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities</blockquote>\n<p>with a statement of facts showing that there are \"reasonable grounds to believe\" that the tangible things are \"relevant\" to such an investigation. Bills by Rep. Conyers and Sen. Sanders attempt to heighten the standard by using pre-9/11 language mandating \"specific and articulable facts\" about why the FBI needs the records. Rep. Conyers goes one step further than Sen. Sanders by forcing the FBI to include why the records are \"material,\" or significantly relevant, to an investigation.\n<p>By heightening the legal standard, the legislators intend for the FBI to show exactly why a mass database of calling records is relevant to an investigation. But it's impossible to know if these fixes will stop the unconstitutional spying without knowing how the government defines key terms in the bills. The bills by Sen. Leahy and Sens. Udall and Wyden do not touch this part of the law.\n<h3>Failure to Stop the Unconstitutional Collection of \"Bulk Records\"</h3>\n<p>Sens. Udall, Wyden, and Leahy use a different approach; their bills mandate every order include why the records \"pertain to\" an individual or are \"relevant to\" an investigation. Collectively this aims—but most likely fails—to stop the government from issuing \"bulk records orders\" like the Verizon order. Senator Sanders travels a different path by requiring the government specify why \"each of\" the business records is related to an investigation; however, it's also unclear if this stops the spying. Yet again, Rep. Conyers bill provides the strongest language as it deletes ambiguous clauses and forces all requests \"pertain only to\" an individual; however even the strongest language found in these bills will probably not stop the unconstitutional spying.\n<h3>Legislators Are Drafting in the Dark</h3>\n<p>Unfortunately, legislators are trying to edit the statutory text before a thorough understanding of how the government is using key definitions in the bill or how the FISA Court is interpreting the statute. For instance, take the word \"relevant.\" The \"tangible thing\" produced under a Section 215 order must be \"relevant\" to the specific type of investigation mentioned above. But the Verizon order requires <i>every</i> Verizon customer's call history.\n<p>The <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0\"><em>New York Times</em></a> confirmed the secret FISA court was persuaded by the government that this information is somehow relevant to such an investigation. The <i><a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344.html\"><i>Wall Street Journal</i></a> </i>(paywall)<i>, </i>quoting \"people familiar with the [FISA Court] rulings\" wrote: \"According to the [FISA Court], the special nature of national-security and terrorism-prevention cases means 'relevant' can have a broader meaning for those investigations.\" Obviously, only severely strained legalese—similar to the Department of Justice's re-definition of \"<a href=\"http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite\">imminent</a>\"—could justify such an argument. And the Fourth Amendment was created to protect against this exact thing—vague, overbroad \"<a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/generalwarrantsmemo.pdf\">general warrants</a>\" (.pdf).\n<p>If \"relevant\" has been defined to permit bulk data collection, requiring more or better facts about <em>why</em> is unlikely to matter. Even Sen. Sanders's approach—which would require \"each\" record be related to an investigation—could fall short if \"relevance\" is evaluated in terms of the database as a whole, rather than its individual records. This is just one example of why the secret FISA Court decisions and OLC opinions must be released. Without them, legislators cannot perform one of their jobs: writing legislation.\n<h3>Congress Must Obtain and Release the Secret Law</h3>\n<p>The actions revealed by the government strike at the very core of our Constitution. Further, the majority of Congress is unaware about the specific language and legal interpretations used to justify the spying. Without this information, Congress can only legislate in the dark. It's time for Congress to investigate these matters to the fullest extent possible. American privacy should not be held hostage by secrecy. <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://eff.org/fight-nsa\">Tell Congress now</a> to push for an special investigative committee, more transparency, and more accountability.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Bills+Introduced+by+Congress+Fail+to+Fix+Unconstitutional+NSA+Spying+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying&t=Bills+Introduced+by+Congress+Fail+to+Fix+Unconstitutional+NSA+Spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Bills+Introduced+by+Congress+Fail+to+Fix+Unconstitutional+NSA+Spying+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Bills Introduced by Congress Fail to Fix Unconstitutional NSA Spying&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"author":"Mark M.  Jaycox","alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/bills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying","type":"text/html"}],"origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fd51f2b1e:18693:bb18093a","originId":"74976 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"722914c9","title":"Independent Game Developers: The Latest Targets of a Bad Patent Troll","published":1373667438000,"crawled":1373670157086,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/independent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Adi Kamdar and Adi Kamdar","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>A growing number of independent game developers have <a href=\"http://gamepolitics.com/2013/07/10/three-more-mmo-developers-receive-letters-treehouse-attorneys\">received demand letters</a> from Treehouse Avatar Technologies for allegedly violating patent <a href=\"https://www.google.com/patents/US8180858\">8,180,858</a>, a \"Method and system for presenting data over a network based on network user choices and collecting real-time data related to said choices.\" Essentially, this patent covers creating a character online, and having the game log how many times a particular character trait was chosen.\n<p>In other words, an unbelievably basic data analytics method was somehow approved to become a patent.\n<p>The patent troll, Treehouse, has surfaced before. Back in October 2012, <a href=\"http://www.joystiq.com/2012/10/12/treehouse-avatar-technologies-sues-turbine-over-a-patent-granted/\">the company sued Turbine</a>, developer of <em>Dungeons and Dragons Online</em> and Lord of the Rings Online.\n<p>This is a textbook patent troll case. Treehouse owns a very broad software patent but doesn't, it seems, make or manufacture anything itself. They simply send demands around or, in some cases, sue alleged infringers. And developers—most recently, independent game developers—lose out by being subject to lawyer fees, licensing fees, litigation costs, or the fear of implementing what seems to be a very basic, obvious feature to their product.\n<p>When trolls attack, innovation is stifled. For more on everything EFF is doing to change this reality, visit our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/patent\">patent issue page</a>.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/patent\">Patents</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims\">Patent Trolls</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Independent+Game+Developers%3A+The+Latest+Targets+of+a+Bad+Patent+Troll+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll&t=Independent+Game+Developers%3A+The+Latest+Targets+of+a+Bad+Patent+Troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Independent+Game+Developers%3A+The+Latest+Targets+of+a+Bad+Patent+Troll+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Independent Game Developers%3A The Latest Targets of a Bad Patent Troll&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fd011344c:e67890:9d82f563","originId":"74969 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"590afc53","title":"July 12: Call on Congress to Restore the Fourth Amendment","published":1373583117000,"crawled":1373585355852,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/july-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Rainey Reitman","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Over July 4<sup>th</sup>, thousands of people in cities across the United States <a href=\"http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/04/19287215-independence-day-nsa-leaks-inspire-fourth-amendment-rallies?lite\">rallied in defense of the Fourth Amendment</a>.\n<p>Tomorrow, Restore the Fourth – the grassroots, nonpartisan movement supporting the Fourth Amendment and opposing NSA spying – is taking the battle to the phones.  A number of Restore the Fourth chapters will be hosting a “Restore the Phone” event. They will be encouraging concerned citizens to call their members of Congress and demand transparency and reform of America’s domestic spying practices.\n<p>According to their <a href=\"http://www.restorethefourth.net/blog/restore-the-phones-tell-congress-this-isnt-over-and-a-look-at-future-activities/\">blog post</a>, Restore the Fourth intends to use Friday to draw the attention of Congress. They provide a suggested <a href=\"https://docs.google.com/document/d/190S5tUzQLl1kuu7ErBqgC57FUnZBjpX6TuDK_ypeXiE/edit\">script</a>  (Google doc) for callers which includes strong language against the NSA spying program:\n<blockquote><p>This type of blanket data collection by the government erodes essential and constitutionally protected American values. Furthermore, the body of secret surveillance law that has developed in an attempt to justify this type of domestic surveillance is antithetical to democracy. The NSA’s domestic spying program is not the American way. </blockquote>\n<p>We think that phone calls are among the most effective ways to make Washington hear the concerns of constituents. We’re proud to support this initiative, and urge our friends and members to join the call in day.\n<p>Here are two ways you can speak out (note, if you are outside of the United States you should <a href=\"https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9297\">go here to take our international alert</a>).\n<ol start=\"1\"><li>Dial <strong>1-STOP-323-NSA</strong> (1-786-732-3672). The automated system will connect you to your legislators. Urge them to provide public <strong>transparency</strong> about NSA spying and <strong>stop</strong> warrantless wiretapping on the communications of millions of ordinary Americans. Visit <a href=\"http://callday.org\">CallDay.org</a> for more info.\n<li>Visit <a href=\"https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9311\">the EFF action center</a>. We will look up the phone number of your elected officials. Call them and tell them you oppose NSA’s spying programs.\n</ol><p>And when you’ve finished calling Congress, remember to spread the word on social media and add your name to the <a href=\"https://optin.stopwatching.us/?r=eff\">Stop Watching Us campaign</a>.\n<p><i>Important notes about your privacy</i>: we’ve required that the automated tools above promise to protect your privacy by insisting that your phone number be used for this campaign and nothing else unless you request additional contact. If you don’t want your information processed by the automatic calling tools, use <a href=\"https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9311\">the EFF page</a> to get a phone number and call directly. Learn more by visiting the privacy policies of <a href=\"http://www.fightforthefuture.org/privacy\">Fight for the Future</a> and <a href=\"http://www.twilio.com/legal/privacy\">Twilio</a>.\n<p> \n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=July+12%3A+Call+on+Congress+to+Restore+the+Fourth+Amendment+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment&t=July+12%3A+Call+on+Congress+to+Restore+the+Fourth+Amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=July+12%3A+Call+on+Congress+to+Restore+the+Fourth+Amendment+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=July 12%3A Call on Congress to Restore the Fourth Amendment&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fce8fa561:a89090:60f5fbac","originId":"74954 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"ee3e5b9b","title":"Reform the FISA Court: Privacy Law Should Never Be Radically Reinterpreted in Secret","published":1373492532000,"crawled":1373560087905,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/fisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Trevor Timm","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Since the <i>Guardian</i> and <i>Washington Post</i> started published secret NSA documents a month ago, the press has finally started digging into the operations of ultra-secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, which is partly responsible for the veneer of legality painted onto the NSA’s domestic surveillance programs. The new reports are quite disturbing to anyone who cares about the Fourth Amendment, and they only underscore the need for major reform.\n<p>As the <i>New York Times</i> <a href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all\">reported on its front page</a> on Sunday, “In more than a dozen classified rulings, the nation’s surveillance court has created a secret body of law giving the <a title=\"More articles about National Security Agency, U.S.\" href=\"http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_security_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org\">National Security Agency</a> the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans.” The court, which was originally set up to just approve or deny wiretap requests now “has taken on a much more expansive role by regularly assessing broad constitutional questions and establishing important judicial precedents,” with no opposing counsel to offer counter arguments to the government, and rulings that cannot be appealed outside its secret structure. “It has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court,” reported the <i>Times</i>.\n<p><i>The Wall Street Journal</i> <a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html\">reported on one of the court’s</a> most controversial decisions (or at least one of the controversial decisions we know of), in which it radically re-interpreted the word “relevant” in Section 215 of the Patriot Act to allow for the dragnet collection of every phone call record in the United States.\n<p>The <i>Journal</i> explained:\n<blockquote><p>The history of the word \"relevant\" is key to understanding that passage. The Supreme Court in 1991 said things are \"relevant\" if there is a \"reasonable possibility\" that they will produce information related to the subject of the investigation. In criminal cases, courts previously have found that very large sets of information didn't meet the relevance standard because significant portions—innocent people's information—wouldn't be pertinent.\n<p>But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, has developed separate precedents, centered on the idea that investigations to prevent national-security threats are different from ordinary criminal cases. The court's rulings on such matters are classified and almost impossible to challenge because of the secret nature of the proceedings.</blockquote>\n<p>Essentially, the court re-defined the word “relevant” to mean “anything and everything.” Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall explained two years ago on the Senate floor that Americans would be shocked if they knew how the government was interpreting the Patriot Act. This is exactly what they were talking about.\n<p>It’s likely the precedent laid down in the last few years will stay law for years to come if the courts are not reformed. FISA judges <a href=\"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/chief-justice-roberts-is-awesome-power-behind-fisa-court.html\">are appointed by one unelected official</a> who holds lifetime office: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under current law, for the coming decades, Chief Justice John Roberts will solely decide who will write the sweeping surveillance opinions few will be allowed to read, but which everyone will be subject to.\n<p>Judge James Robertson was once one of those judges. He was appointed to the court in the mid-2000s. He confirmed yesterday for the first time that he resigned in 2005 in protest of the Bush administration illegally bypassing the court altogether. Since Robertson retired, however, the court has transitioned from being ignored to wielding enormous, undemocratic power.\n<p>“What FISA does is not adjudication, but approval,” <a href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jul/09/fisa-courts-judge-nsa-surveillance\">Judge Robertson said</a>. “This works just fine when it deals with individual applications for warrants, but the [FISA Amendments Act of 2008] has turned the FISA court into administrative agency making rules for others to follow.”\n<p>Under the FISA Amendments Act, \"the court is now approving programmatic surveillance. I don't think that is a judicial function.” He continued, \"Anyone who has been a judge will tell you a judge needs to hear both sides of a case…This process needs an adversary.\"\n<p>No opposing counsel, rulings handed down in complete secrecy by judges appointed by an unelected official, and no way for those affected to appeal. As <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/07/secret-government?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/america_against_democracy\"><i>The Economist </i>stated</a>,  “Sounds a lot like the sort of thing authoritarian governments set up when they make a half-hearted attempt to create the appearance of the rule of law.”\n<p>This scandal should precipitate many reforms, but one thing is certain: FISA rulings need to be made public so the American people understand how courts are interpreting their constitutional rights. The very idea of democratic law depends on it.\n<p> \n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><div>Related Cases: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel\">Jewel v. NSA</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Reform+the+FISA+Court%3A+Privacy+Law+Should+Never+Be+Radically+Reinterpreted+in+Secret+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret&t=Reform+the+FISA+Court%3A+Privacy+Law+Should+Never+Be+Radically+Reinterpreted+in+Secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Reform+the+FISA+Court%3A+Privacy+Law+Should+Never+Be+Radically+Reinterpreted+in+Secret+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Reform the FISA Court%3A Privacy Law Should Never Be Radically Reinterpreted in Secret&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fcba8781f:293db4:60f5fbac","originId":"74961 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"d99fead3","title":"Online and Off, Information Control Persists in Turkey","published":1373507068000,"crawled":1373511383071,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/online-and-information-control-persists-turkey","type":"text/html"}],"author":"EFF Intern","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>By Greg Epstein, EFF and <a href=\"http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/\">Global Voices Advocacy</a> Intern\n<p>Demonstrators in Turkey have occupied Istanbul’s Taksim Square since last May, in a movement that began as an effort to protect a city park, but has evolved into a larger mobilization against the ruling party’s increasingly autocratic stance.\n<p>Prime Minister Erdogan and the ruling AKP party have used many tools to silence voices of the opposition. On June 15, police began using <a href=\"http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/06/30/Police-use-tear-gas-water-cannons-in-Turkey-protests/UPI-13041372608490/\">tear gas and water cannons</a> to clear out the large encampment in the park. But this effort also has stretched beyond episodes of physical violence and police brutality into the digital world, where information control and media intimidation are on the rise.\n<p>Since the protests began, dozens of Turkish social media users <a href=\"http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/06/07/as-protests-continue-turkey-cracks-down-on-twitter-users/\">have been detained</a> on charges ranging from <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/turkey-cracks-down-on-twitter-users/article4784440.ece\">inciting demonstrations, to spreading propaganda</a> and <a href=\"http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/world/europe/turkey-protests/\">false information</a>, to <a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/turkey-investigates-social-media_n_3509365.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology\">insulting government officials</a>. Dozens more Twitter users were reportedly arrested for posting images of <a href=\"http://www.businessinsider.com/turkish-police-arrest-twitter-users-2013-6\">police brutality</a>, though the legal pretense for these arrests is unclear. A recent ruling in an Ankara court ordered 22 demonstrators detained on <a href=\"http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/06/201362216245060913.html\">terrorism-related charges</a>.\n<p>Prime Minister Erdogan made his view of social media known when he described social media as “<a href=\"http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/03/turkey_protests_prime_minister_erdogan_blames_twitter_calls_social_media.html\">the worst menace to society</a>” at a June press conference. It is worth noting that <a href=\"http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/turkey/130629/turkey-twitter-facebook-social-media-erdogan-taksim-bbc-turkce#1\">Erdogan himself is said to maintain a Twitter account with over 3 million followers and 2,000 tweets</a> (some Turks question whether the unverified account is really him, or an unofficial supporter.) While the Turkish government has had <a href=\"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/18/turkey-vows-to-strengthen-police-powers/2433709/\">limited</a>, <a href=\"http://blogs.wsj.com/middleeast/2013/06/03/amid-turkey-unrest-social-media-becomes-a-battleground/\">if any</a>, involvement in tampering with social media access thus far, government officials appear eager to take further action.\n<p><strong>Roots in traditional media</strong>\n<p>Although current circumstances appear to be testing the limits of Turkey’s information policy framework, the country has a long history of restrictive media policy and practice. In 2013, Turkey ranked <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1054\">154 out of 166</a> on the Reporters Without Borders’ Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index, due in part to the fact that since 1992 <a href=\"http://cpj.org/killed/europe/turkey/\">18 journalists have been murdered</a> there, 14 with impunity. In responding to protest coverage, authorities have <a href=\"http://www.cpj.org/2013/06/turkey-fines-tv-stations-in-connection-with-protes.php\">fined</a>, <a href=\"http://www.cpj.org/2013/06/in-crackdown-on-dissent-turkey-detains-press-raids.php\">detained</a> and even <a href=\"http://www.cpj.org/2013/06/journalists-detained-beaten-obstructed-in-istanbul.php\">beaten</a> members of the press. Institutional censorship has also been prevalent: When clashes between protesters and police escalated, activists noted that <a href=\"http://news.yahoo.com/pinned-under-governments-thumb-turkish-media-covers-penguins-124645832.html\">CNN Turk</a> aired a documentary on penguins <a href=\"http://www.dailydot.com/news/cnn-turk-istanbul-riots-penguin-doc-social-media/\">while CNN International</a> ran live coverage of the events in Taksim Square.\n<p><span>Dubbed the “</span><span><a href=\"https://en.rsf.org/turkey-turkey-world-s-biggest-prison-for-19-12-2012,43816.html\">the world’s biggest prison for journalists</a></span><span>” by Reporters Without Borders, Turkey has been particularly aggressive in </span><span><a href=\"http://www.opendemocracy.net/anna-bragga/turkey-media-crisis-how-anti-terrorism-laws-equip-war-on-dissent\">arresting Kurdish journalists under Turkey’s anti-terrorism law</a></span><span> known as Terörle Mücadele Yasası.</span>\n<p><strong>Controlling digital expression</strong>\n<p>As of 2012, <a href=\"http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/icteye/DisplayCountry.aspx?code=TUR\">45% of Turkey’s population</a> had regular access to the Internet. The country’s leading ISP, <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_Telekom\">Türk Telekom (TT)</a>, formerly a government-controlled monopoly, was privatized in 2005 but retained a <a href=\"https://opennet.net/research/profiles/turkey#footnote6_oj6yz7g\">95% percent market share in 2007</a>. Türk Telekom also controls the country’s only commercial backbone.\n<p><a href=\"http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.5651&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=\">Internet Law No. 5651</a>, passed in 2007, <a href=\"http://sites.psu.edu/comm410censorshipinturkey/literature-review/\">prohibits online content</a> in eight categories including <a href=\"https://opennet.net/research/profiles/turkey\">prostituion, sexual abuse of children, facilitation of the abuse of drugs, and crimes against (or insults to) Atatürk</a>. The law authorizes the Turkish Supreme Council for Telecommunications and IT (TIB) to block a website when it has “adequate suspicion” that the site hosts illegal content. In 2011, the Council of Europe’s <a href=\"https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1814085\">Commissioner for Human Rights</a> reported that 80% of online content blocked in Turkey was <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turkey-turkey-11-03-2011,39758.html\">due to decisions made by the TIB</a>, with the remaining 20% being blocked as the result of orders by Turkey’s traditional court system. In 2009 alone, nearly <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/surveillance-turkey,39758.html\">200 court decisions</a> found TIB decisions to block websites unjustifiable because they fell outside the scope of Law 5651. The law also has been criticized for authorizing takedowns of entire sites when only a small portion of their content stands in violation of the law.\n<p>Between 2008 and 2010, YouTube was blocked in its entirety under Law 5651 because of specific videos that fell into the category of “crimes against Atatürk”. During this period, YouTube continued to be the <a href=\"http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2008/11/27/tdn-banned-youtube-still-in-top-10-in-turkey/\">10th most visited site</a> in Turkey, with users accessing the site through proxies. The ban was eventually lifted when YouTube removed the videos in question and came under compliance with Turkish law. Sites likes Blogspot, Metacafe, Wix and others have gone through similar ordeals in Turkey in recent years. An estimated <a href=\"http://engelliweb.com/\">31,000 websites are blocked</a> in the country.\n<p>In December 2012, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/european-human-rights-court-finds-turkey-violation-freedom-expression\">found</a> that Turkey had violated their citizen’s right to free expression by blocking <a href=\"http://sites.google.com\">Google Sites</a>. While Turkey justified the ban based on Sites’ hosting of websites that violated Law 5651, the ECHR found that Turkish law did not allow for “wholesale blocking of access” to a hosting provider like Google Sites. Furthermore, Google Sites had not been informed that it was hosting “illegal” content.\n<p>In 2011, Turkey <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/week-internet-censorship-opaque-censorship-turkey-russia-and-britain\">proposed a mandatory online filtering system</a> described as an effort to protect minors and families. This new system, dubbed Güvenli İnternet, or Secure Internet, would block any website that contained keywords from a list of <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turkey-online-censorship-now-bordering-on-29-04-2011,40194.html\">138 terms</a> deemed inappropriate by telecom authority BTK. The plan was met with public backlash and <a href=\"http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9216750/Protests_in_Turkey_against_Internet_controls\">protests</a> causing the government to re-evaluate the system and eventually offer it as an opt-in service. While only <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turkey-turkey-12-03-2012,42065.html\">22,000 of Turkey’s 11 million Internet users</a> have so far opted for the system, opponents of Güvenli İnternet decry it as a <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turquie-new-internet-filtering-system-02-12-2011,41498.html\">form of censorship, </a><a href=\"http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.rsf.org%2Fturquie-new-internet-filtering-system-02-12-2011%2C41498.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGpw5o8xnE47-LjuK_fvBbtgt5Row\">disguised </a><a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turquie-new-internet-filtering-system-02-12-2011,41498.html\">as an effort to protect children</a> and families from “objectionable content”.\n<p><strong>New policies could further restrict social networks</strong>\n<p>As the protests continue, the Turkish government is working to use legal tools already at its disposal to increase control over social network activity. Transportation and Communications Minister Binali Yildirim has called on Twitter to establish a <a href=\"http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/net-us-turkey-protests-twitter-idUSBRE95P0XC20130626\">representative office within the country</a>. Legally, this could give the Turkish government greater ability to obtain user data from the company. But these requests have not received a warm response from Twitter, which has developed a <a href=\"https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fwho-has-your-back-2013&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEv4KpiTWJHxBwMpjfO3nW7kaiNHw\">reputation for protecting user data</a> in the face of government requests. While Twitter has “<a href=\"http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/minister-says-twitter-turned-down-cooperation-offer-over-turkey-protests.aspx?pageID=238&nID=49496&NewsCatID=374\">turned down</a>” requests from the Turkish government for user data and general cooperation, Minister Yildirim stated that Facebook had <a href=\"http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/facebook-and-twitter-refuse-to-cooperate-with-turkish-govt-crackdown-on-protesters/\">responded “positively</a>”. Shortly thereafter, Facebook published a <a href=\"https://newsroom.fb.com/fact-check\">“Fact Check”</a> post that denied cooperation with Turkish officials.\n<p>Turkey’s Interior Minister Muammer Güler told journalists that “<a href=\"http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/governement-working-on-draft-to-restrict-social-media-in-turkey.aspx?pageID=238&nID=48982&NewsCatID=338#.UcCVIc-KyUs.twitter\">the issue [of social media] needs a separate regulation</a>” and Deputy <a href=\"http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=111568\">Prime Minister Bozdag stated that the government had no intention of placing an outright ban</a> on social media, but indicated a desire to <a href=\"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-20/turkey-announces-plan-to-restrict-fake-social-media-accounts.html\">outlaw “fake” social media accounts</a>. Sources have confirmed that the <a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/turkey-investigates-social-media_n_3509365.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology\">Justice Ministry is conducting research and drafting legislation on the issue</a>.\n<p>New media expert Ozgur Uckan of Istanbul’s Bilgi University <a href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/06/26/195889178/thanks-but-no-social-media-refuses-to-share-with-turkey\">noted that</a> “censoring social media sites presents a technical challenge, and that may be why officials are talking about criminalizing certain content, in an effort to intimidate users and encourage self-censorship.”\n<p>While the details of <a href=\"http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action;jsessionid=F3B400500B268D2945E03E7F4BF27331?newsId=318800&columnistId=0\">these new laws </a>remain to be seen, it is likely that they will have some impact on journalistic and activist activities in the country, especially in times of rising public protest and dissent.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/free-speech\">Free Speech</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers-under-fire\">Bloggers Under Fire</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/international\">International</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Online+and+Off%2C+Information+Control+Persists+in+Turkey+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey&t=Online+and+Off%2C+Information+Control+Persists+in+Turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Online+and+Off%2C+Information+Control+Persists+in+Turkey+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Online and Off%2C Information Control Persists in Turkey&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fcab0b34e:7a49e:9d82f563","originId":"74936 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"73850e04","title":"NSA Leaks Prompt Surveillance Dialogue in India","published":1373493485000,"crawled":1373495145294,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/nsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Jillian C. York","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p dir=\"ltr\"><em>This is the 8th article in our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spy-without-borders\">Spies Without Borders</a></em> <em>series. The series looks at how the information disclosed in the NSA leaks affect internet users around the world.</em>\n<p dir=\"ltr\">As we have discussed throughout our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spy-without-borders\">Spies Without Borders</a> series, the backlash against the NSA’s global surveillance programs has been strong. From <a href=\"http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/us-government-surveillance-bad-for-silicon-valley-bad-for-democracy-around-the-world/277335/\">Germany</a>, where activists demonstrated against the mass spying, to <a href=\"http://madamasr.com/content/america%E2%80%99s-prism-our-fears-digital-age-come-true\">Egypt</a>—allegedly one of the NSA’s <a href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining\">top targets</a>—where the reaction is largely the same: “<a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/world-us-congress-im-not-american-i-have-privacy-rights\">I’m not American, but I have rights too</a>.”\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Indian commentators are no exception. A piece in the <em>Financial Times</em> stated that the revelations highlighted the “<a href=\"http://www.ft.com/cms/s/04b972d8-e59b-11e2-ad1a-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F04b972d8-e59b-11e2-ad1a-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fnews%2F2013-07-08%2Findians-see-a-gift-in-nsa-leaks.html#axzz2YRT5XQVr\">moral decline of America</a>,” while another in the <em>Hindu</em> <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/indias-cowardly-display-of-servility/article4874219.ece\">berated India</a> for its “servility” toward the U.S.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">But the revelations about the NSA’s spying activities have also created an opportunity for Indian activists to speak out about their own country’s practices. As Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director for the Centre for Internet &amp; Society <a href=\"http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-13/news/39952596_1_nsa-india-us-homeland-security-dialogue-national-security-letters\">argues in a piece for the <em>Economic Times</em></a>, Indian surveillance laws and practices have been “far worse” than those in the U.S. Writing for <em>Quartz</em>, Nandagopal J. Nair <a href=\"http://qz.com/99019/no-call-email-or-text-will-be-safe-from-indias-surveillance-network/\">agrees</a>, saying that “India’s new surveillance network will make the NSA green with envy.”\n<p dir=\"ltr\">The U.S. has in fact refused Indian requests for real-time access to internet activity routed through U.S.-based Internet sites, and U.S. companies have also <a href=\"http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280094658/Google-refuses-access-to-Gmail-encryption-for-Indian-government\">stood up to privacy-violating demands</a>. Other companies, such as RIM—the company that owns BlackBerry—have <a href=\"http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-10-29/news/34798663_1_interception-solution-blackberry-interception-blackberry-services\">cooperated with the Indian government</a>.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Regulatory privacy protections in India are weak: Telecom companies are required by license to provide data to the government, and the use of encryption is <a href=\"https://www.dot.gov.in/isp/internet-licence-dated%2016-10-2007.pdf\">extremely limited</a>. As we <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/disproportionate-state-surveillance-violation-privacy\">have previously explained</a>, India service providers are required to ensure that bulk encryption is not deployed. Additionally, no individual or entity can employ encryption with a key longer than 40 bits. If the encryption surpasses this limit, the individual or entity will need prior written permission from the Department of Telecommunications and must deposit the decryption keys with the <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/License%20Agreement%20for%20Provision%20of%20Internet%20Services%20Section%202.2%20(vii)\">Department</a>. The limitation on encryption in India means that technically any encrypted material over 40 bits would be accessible by the State. Ironically, the Reserve Bank of India issues security recommendations that banks should use strong encryption as higher as 128-bit for securing browser. In addition to such limitations on the use of encryption, commentators have also <a href=\"http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Concerns-over-central-snoop/Article1-1083658.aspx\">raised concerns</a> about the process for lawful intercept.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">The <a href=\"http://qz.com/99019/no-call-email-or-text-will-be-safe-from-indias-surveillance-network/\">latest attempt</a> at surveillance by the Indian government has been <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indias-surveillance-project-may-be-as-lethal-as-prism/article4834619.ece\">roundly criticized</a> as “more intrusive” than the NSA’s programs. In the <em>New York Times</em>, Prakash <a href=\"http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/how-surveillance-works-in-india/\">explained</a> the new program, the Centralized Monitoring System or C.M.S.:\n<blockquote><p dir=\"ltr\">With the C.M.S., the government will get <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indias-surveillance-project-may-be-as-lethal-as-prism/article4834619.ece\">centralized access to all communications metadata and content</a> traversing through all telecom networks in India. This means that the government can listen to all your calls, track a mobile phone and its user’s location, read all your text messages, personal e-mails and chat conversations. It can also see all your Google searches, Web site visits, usernames and passwords if your communications aren’t encrypted.\n</blockquote>\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Notably, India does not have laws allowing for mass surveillance; rather, lawful intercept is covered under the archaic Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 [<a href=\"http://www.ijlt.in/pdffiles/Indian-Telegraph-Act-1885.pdf\">PDF</a>] and the <a href=\"http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=185999\">Information Technology Act of 2000</a> (IT Act). Under both laws, interception must be time-limited and targeted.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">In the <em>Times</em> piece, Prakash also lambasts the IT Act, which he says “very substantially lowers the bar for wiretapping.”  \n<p dir=\"ltr\">All of this points to the fact that our fight for privacy is a shared global challenge; or as a columnist for India’s Sunday Guardian <a href=\"http://www.sunday-guardian.com/technologic/your-freedom-has-just-left-the-building\">recently put it</a>: “We're all now citizens of the surveillance state.”\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/international\">International</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/surveillance-human-rights\">State Surveillance &amp; Human Rights</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=NSA+Leaks+Prompt+Surveillance+Dialogue+in+India+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india&t=NSA+Leaks+Prompt+Surveillance+Dialogue+in+India\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=NSA+Leaks+Prompt+Surveillance+Dialogue+in+India+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=NSA Leaks Prompt Surveillance Dialogue in India&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true}]}

data/spec/fixtures/feed_contents_20.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"id":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks","direction":"ltr","updated":1373935361457,"continuation":"13fa6b1134b:1a10f:eacbe387","alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","type":"text/html"}],"items":[{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe4eddd97:12f6b34:e95a5f49","originId":"75003 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"a630a89f","title":"The Times Profiles a Patent Troll","published":1373931257000,"crawled":1373935361431,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/times-profiles-patent-troll","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Daniel Nazer and Daniel Nazer","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>This weekend, the <em>New York Times</em> published a <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/has-patent-will-sue-an-alert-to-corporate-america.html\">fascinating portrait</a> of Erich Spangenberg of IPNav, who has been called one of \"one of the most notorious patent trolls in America.\" In the past five years, IPNav has sued 1,638 companies.\n<p>While the <em>Times</em>' profile includes many colorful details (such as the time Spangenberg purchased so much wine at a Christie's auction that it had to be delivered by an 18 wheel truck), this is not the important part of the story. What is far more important is the evidence that IPNav's business, and patent trolling more generally, is a huge tax on innovation.\n<p>Thanks to trolls like IPNav, the <em>Times</em> explains, U.S. companies are forced to spend upwards of $30 billion every year on patent litigation. Most of that money goes to troll profits and legal expenses, with less than 25 percent flowing to inventors. Even Spangenberg concedes that his business uses “the courts as a marketplace, and the courts are horribly inefficient and horribly expensive as a market.” Patent trolls like IPNav are a symptom of a fundamentally broken system.\n<p>In a <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/how-a-typical-patent-battle-took-an-unexpected-turn.html\">follow up article</a>, the <em>Times</em> tells the story of Peter Braxton and his app <a href=\"http://jumpropetheapp.com/\">Jump Rope</a>. In an <a href=\"http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2013/01/17/are-patent-trolls-now-zeroed-in-on-start-ups/\">all too common tale</a>, Braxton's promising start-up was devastated by a troll lawsuit (brought by a company not associated with IPNav). Even though Braxton won a clear victory at the district court, litigation costs were destroying his business. In exchange for a substantial equity stake in Braxton's company, IPNav agreed to handle the litigation. As the <em>Times</em> explained, this story suggests that “there is really only one way to deal with a patent bully: team up with a bigger bully.”\n<p>This is a terrible climate for innovation. We hope that media attention like this helps spur <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/legislative-solutions-patent-reform\">legislative reform</a>. We should create a patent system that doesn't squelch start-ups solely to enrich patent trolls. Erich Spangenberg doesn't need a seventh Lamborghini.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/innovation\">Innovation</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/patent\">Patents</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims\">Patent Trolls</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=The+Times+Profiles+a+Patent+Troll+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll&t=The+Times+Profiles+a+Patent+Troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=The+Times+Profiles+a+Patent+Troll+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=The Times Profiles a Patent Troll&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe4b6e72f:1243ffd:e95a5f49","originId":"74988 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"c04da56","title":"The EFF Guide to San Diego Comic-Con","published":1373927909000,"crawled":1373931759407,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/eff-guide-san-diego-comic-con","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Maass","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p><b><img height=\"350\" alt=\"\" align=\"right\" width=\"182\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images_insert/poi-keycard-toldja.jpg?itok=sbc7Vsv3\"></b>With the arrival of summer at EFF, you can hear the excitement in the stuffing of luggage and locking of office doors as our team prepares for some of the most important conventions in the world. <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/event/black-hat-briefings\">Black Hat</a> starts on July 27, with <a href=\"https://www.defcon.org/\">DEF CON</a> immediately after. But before those two kick off, there's <a href=\"https://secure.comic-con.org/cci\">San Diego Comic-Con</a>, the largest celebration of the popular arts. For the first time, an EFF staffer will be pounding the plush conference carpet (and maneuvering around cosplayers) to take the pulse of the entertainment industry and catch up with some of our friends and fans.\n<p>After all, the geeks and nerds and fan-kids at Comic-Con are our peeps. In preparation, we threw together this quick guide to the panels that are bound to engage anyone following our issues, whether that's surveillance, free speech, or intellectual property.\n<p>If you're a creator with a booth at Comic-Con, drop me an email at <a href=\"mailto:dm@eff.org\">dm@eff.org</a>, and I'll swing by with some swag (as long as it lasts). If you're doing something EFF-friendly, maybe we'll even feature your work on our Deeplinks blog.\n<p>A quick note in advance on information safety: It's easy to lapse into the comfort of trust that comes with mingling with 100,000 like-minded folks. Still, you should take some basic precautions. If you're logging onto public Wi-Fi, make sure you use <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere\">HTTPS Everywhere</a>. Remember also that paying for goods in cash is always safer than swiping your credit card through a mobile device. Finally, when you’re signing up on mailing lists, or trading personal information for goodies, make sure to read the fine print about how that information will be shared.\n<p>Now for the fun stuff.\n<h3><b><u>For the Surveillance-Heads</u></b></h3>\n<p>As the U.S. chases Edward Snowden and his trail of NSA documents around the world, it’s worth contemplating whether truth has finally proved itself stranger than fiction. How can sci-fi even keep up with real world? Two TV shows and a video game have panels that, at least in some way, will touch on the issue.\n<p><b>Intelligence: </b>Let's imagine all the spying power of the NSA and more: direct access to the global information grid, WiFi, cell phones, satellites, all channeled through the brain of Sawyer from <i>Lost</i>, or at least Josh Holloway, the actor who played the sly con-man. That’s the premise of <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://www.cbs.com/shows/intelligence/\"><i>Intelligence</i></a>, a show set to start airing in February 2014 on CBS. Holloway and other members of the cast, and its executive producers, will sit on a panel moderated by the president and editor-in-chief of <i>TV Guide</i>.  The booth on the convention floor will also feature a special “experience” with Google Glass.\n<p><a href=\"http://sched.co/1246Iat\">Thursday, July 18, 10am to 11am - Ballroom 20</a>\n<p><b>Person of Interest: </b>With the third season starting this call, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://www.cbs.com/shows/person_of_interest/\"><i>Person of Interest</i></a> is about what happens when you combine predictive technology with big-data collected through video surveillance—and the secret operatives who act on the information. There will be a Q&amp;A with the cast on Saturday, but supervising producer Amy Berg will also talk about the realities of the show as part of panel on “science” in “science fiction.”  The CBS show this year has also sponsored hotel key cards (see above) that capture the sentiment at EFF these days in the wake of the NSA leaks.\n<p><em>The Science of Science Fiction  - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/14UGZzt\">Thursday July 18,  6:30pm - 7:30pm - Room 24ABC</a>\n<p><em>Person of Interest Special Video Presentation and Q&amp;A - </em><a href=\"http://sched.co/14UGZzt\">Saturday July 20, 4:00pm - 4:45pm - Room 6BCF</a>\n<p><b>Watch_Dogs: Does Privacy Exist? </b>In this new, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://watchdogs.ubi.com/watchdogs/en-us/home/index.aspx\">cross-platform video game</a>, the user plays a hacker in Chicago with the power to manipulate the city’s digital infrastructure, including traffic signals and surveillance cameras. So-far unnamed security consultants are joining the lead story designer in a discussion about the technological truths (and stretches of truth) in the video game.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/18DO8K8\">Saturday July 20, 6:00pm - 7:00pm - Room 9 </a>\n<h3></h3>\n<h3><b><u>For the Legal Nerds</u></b></h3>\n<p>At EFF, we love the law like Browncoats love <i>Firefly</i>. So, of course we’re keeping an eyes on the robust legal programming at Comic-Con.\n<p><b>Comic Book Law School:  </b>Michael Lovitz, author of <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://prismcomics.org/profile.php?id=685\"><i>The Trademark and Copyright Book</i> </a>comic book, is leading a three-part series of panels on the intersection of intellectual property and pop culture. It’s designed for both creators and lawyers, with progressing levels of advancement—101, 202 and 303. (Bonus for attorneys: You’ll earn California MCLE credits.)  \n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246IqT\">Thursday</a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/10Eg63u\">Friday</a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/14UkZFj\">Saturday</a>, 10:30am - 12:00pm - Room 30CDE\n<p><b>Comic Book Legal Defense Fund</b>: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://cbldf.org/\">CBLDF</a> is a legal-nonprofit that joins us on the front lines of free-speech, standing up for comic-book artists wherever in the world they face oppression. This year, the organization is featuring a panel on manga in Japan and an in-depth, three-part examination of the most important courtroom battles over comics. In another panel, they’ll go over the list of comics banned from public libraries and gear up support for Banned Book Week (Sept. 22-28).\n<p><em>Banned Comics - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246Kz6\">Thursday, July 18, 12:00pm - 1:00pm - Room 30CDE</a>\n<p><em>Comics on Trial, Part 1, 2, 3 - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246IY5\">Thursday</a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/10EfP0F\">Friday</a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/18DNDjg\">Saturday</a> 1:00pm - 2:00pm - Room 30CDE\n<p><em>Defending Manga - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/14Ul3F8\">Saturday, July 20, 2013 12:00pm - 1:00pm - Room 30CDE</a>\n<p><em>Banned Comics Jam - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/12OXhHg\">Sunday July 21, 12:15pm - 1:45pm - Room 5AB</a>\n<div>CBLDF will also have a welcome party on Thursday night. Details and RSVP <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.eventbrite.com/event/7429956199/?invite=&err=29&referrer=&discount=&affiliate=&eventpassword=\">here</a>.</div>\n<div></div>\n<p><b>Comics Arts Conference Session #12: Superman on Trial: The Secret History of the Siegel and Shuster Lawsuits: </b> The copyright dispute over Superman dates back more than 60 years, and only just in January received a major decision in the 9<sup>th</sup> U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A biographer and an intellectual-property professor will bring attendees up to speed on the case.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/12OXFWg\">Sunday July 21, 10:30am - 11:30am - Room 26AB</a>\n<h3></h3>\n<h3><b><u>For the Geektivists</u> </b></h3>\n<p>If you were to take a tour of EFF’s office, you’d immediately notice our love of activist art with the posters lining our halls and office walls. While the following panels don’t directly address digital issues, they do reflect how art can be a powerful tool in affecting change.\n<p><b>Comic-Con How-To: Social Practice: Guerilla Art Tactics for Sharing Your Vision with the World</b>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246LTG\">Thursday July 18, 3:00pm - 5:00pm - Room 2</a> <b> </b>\n<p><b>Black Mask: Bringing a Punk Rock Sensibility, Activism, and Wu-Tang to Comics</b>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246NLm\">Thursday July 18, 8:30pm - 9:30pm - Room 8 </a>\n<p><b>Comics Arts Conference Session #7: Heroes/Creators: The Comic Art Creations of Civil Rights Legends</b>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/10EfMSi\">Friday July 19, 2013 1:00pm - 2:00pm - Room 26AB</a>\n<h3><b><u> Friends of EFF</u></b></h3>\n<p><b>Ode to Nerds: </b>EFF fellow and Pioneer Award winner <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/about/staff/cory-doctorow\">Cory Doctorow</a> (whose young-adult novel <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://craphound.com/littlebrother/\"><i>Little Brother</i></a> is San Francisco's <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sfpl.org/index.php?pg=2000615601\">One City One Book</a> selection) joins io9.com writer and EFF buddy Charlie Jane Anders in a panel about nerd culture, featuring non-other than <i>Fight Club</i>’s Chuck Palahniuk. They'll be signing autographs at 3:15 p.m. as well in the Comic-Con Sails Pavillion.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246JeH\">Thursday, July 18, 1:45pm - 2:45pm - Room 6A</a>\n<p><b>Publishing SF/F in the Digital Age: </b> Doctorow, also a champion of DRM-free e-books, will join a panel of authors and booksellers discussing the evolution of fiction in an increasingly digital world.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/132tb7P\">Friday July 19, 7:00pm - 8:00pm - Room 25ABC</a>\n<p><b>Science Fiction That Will Change Your Life:  </b>Anders and io9 editor and former EFF staffer Annalee Newitz are leading a panel on the most inspiring science fiction of the past year.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/132tb7P\">Friday July 19, 6:45pm - 7:45pm - Room 5AB</a>\n<p><b>Adam and Jamie Look Toward the Future: </b>The <i>Mythbusters </i>team have long been supporters of EFF’s work and now’s the time to return the favor. We’ll be in line early to check out the show’s 10 year retrospective discussion and the duos plans moving forward.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/10Egi2G\">Friday July 19, 7:00pm - 8:00pm - Room 6BCF</a>\n</div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=The+EFF+Guide+to+San+Diego+Comic-Con++https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con&t=The+EFF+Guide+to+San+Diego+Comic-Con+\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=The+EFF+Guide+to+San+Diego+Comic-Con++https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=The EFF Guide to San Diego Comic-Con &url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe47fde69:11b1db1:e95a5f49","originId":"74964 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"529097cc","title":"EFF Addresses Protesters at San Francisco's \"Restore the Fourth\" Protest","published":1373914564000,"crawled":1373928152681,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/eff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Parker Higgins","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Hundreds of protesters gathered in San Francisco and thousands more in cities around the United States earlier this month in support of <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/restore-fourth-campaign-organizes-protests-against-unconstitutional-surveillance\">\"Restore the Fourth,\" a grassroots and non-partisan campaign dedicated to defending the Fourth Amendment</a>. The protests took aim in particular at the National Security Agency's unconstitutional dragnet surveillance programs, details of which have emerged in leaked documents over the past month.\n<p>\"Restore the Fourth\" isn't officially affiliated with any formal organizations, but given our shared goal of ending illegal spying on Americans, EFF had the opportunity to speak to the crowd. Below, you'll find a short video of some highlights from that speech, and the full text as prepared.\n<p><center><div><div><img height=\"250\" alt=\"mytubethumb\" width=\"400\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/mytube/yt_NNb0H3aKpt4.jpg\"><img alt=\"play\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/modules/mytube/play.png\"></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/02/embedded-video-and-your-privacy\">Privacy info.</a> This embed will serve content from <em><a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/NNb0H3aKpt4?rel=1&autoplay=1&wmode=opaque\">youtube.com</a></em><br></div></div></center>\n<blockquote><p>Hello everybody, and thank you for coming out here today to stand up for all of our Fourth Amendment rights. At EFF, we've been engaged in lawsuits about these secret and unconstitutional NSA programs for the better part of a decade, and we need the government to see that the American people are outraged.\n<p>Because nearly 250 years ago today, our founding fathers refused to live under tyranny and declared independence from their ruling government. The king, they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, had made it impossible to live under a rule of law.\n<p>A few years later they wrote the document that established the United States of America, our Constitution, and with it they published our Bill of Rights to protect the basic rights that every person in this country is entitled to.\n<p>The actions of the National Security Agency spying on Americans, revealed by a series of whistleblowers driven by conscience, represents a break from that tradition. And it's our duty not to allow that break. It's our duty as human beings, entitled to dignity and privacy, and it's our duty as Americans, protecting those rights not just for ourselves but for everybody who follows in our steps.\n<p>The Founders wrote the Fourth Amendment deliberately, with a specific purpose: to ensure that so-called \"general warrants\" were illegal. These general warrants were broad and unreasonable dragnets, requiring anyone targeted to forfeit their information to the government.\n<p>No, under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant needs to be specific. You need a particular target and probable cause.\n<p>Compare that with what we know the NSA is doing, and has been doing for years. Even now we can't know the full scope of what the government is doing when it claims to act in our names, but we know about these four programs:\n<ul><li>The NSA obtains the telephone records of every single customer of phone companies like Verizon. They try to brush that under the rug by saying it's \"just metadata,\" but the invasiveness of that metadata can be truly astonishing: every single call, who is on both ends, how long they spoke, and more.\n<li>The NSA in some cases obtains the actual content of phone calls, effectively listening in on private conversations.\n<li>The NSA taps the very basic infrastructure of our net, sucking up the raw data and storing it for who knows how long, doing who knows what kind of analysis to it.\n<li>The NSA obtains content from major tech companies, many of whom are based right here in this city, including videos, email messages and more, based on a 51% chance—a guess, basically—that the \"target\" of the investigation is a foreigner talking to somebody in the US.\n</ul><p>Make no mistake: these programs are illegal. These are illegal under the Fourth Amendment, which we celebrate here today, and they are propped up only by outrageous and dishonest readings of laws that violate Congress' intentions.\n<p>And when the Director of National Intelligence was asked about these illegal programs on the floor of Congress, he flat-out lied about them, to Congress and to the American people. Once again, this government is acting in our name, but it refuses even basic accountability for its actions.\n<p>You don't lie to Congress to hide programs if you believe that they're legal. That's why we're demanding a few steps to once and for all shine some light on the activities of the NSA.\n<p>We want a full, independent, public Congressional investigation into what the NSA is doing, and what it claims it's allowed to do.\n<p>We want the public to see the secret legal decisions, made in a secret court, about what kind of surveillance the government's doing.\n<p>We want the public to see the Inspector General Reports about these programs.\n<p>We want to see how the government justifies these programs—that means any other reports about how necessary and effective they are.\n<p>And most importantly, we want public courts to determine the legality of these programs.\n<p>We think public courts will see through the NSA's torturing of the English language, and see that it's searching all of us, and seizing our data, in ways that are absolutely unreasonable.\n<p>Once the courts have reviewed these programs, we want the dragnet surveillance to stop. No more bulk collection of Americans' communication records, and no more open access to the backbone of the Internet.\n<p>In 1975, after widespread illegal activity by the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee to examine that bad behavior and reign it in with new laws. It wasn't an easy road, but the Church Committee was able to establish some of the first real safeguards against these sorts of illegal activities. Frank Church was clear about why these were necessary:\n<p>If these agencies were to turn on the American people, Church said, \"no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.\"\n<p>Those are powerful words. But it's up to us to ensure that those words are a battle cry in the fight for our privacy, and not the epitaph on its grave.\n<p>The Fourth Amendment is there to protect us, but there comes a time when we have to step in and protect it. The NSA has treated the Fourth Amendment and the rest of the US Constitution like a suggestion they're free to ignore. Today, we stand up, and we let them know: that is unacceptable. We, the American people, will not let ourselves fall under tyranny, and we will not let government agencies establish the infrastructure for turnkey totalitarianism.\n<p>We will push back, we will fight, and we will do whatever it takes to restore the Fourth Amendment and the rest of the U.S. Constitution. Thank you all for coming out today to send that message.</blockquote>\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy\">Privacy</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=EFF+Addresses+Protesters+at+San+Francisco%27s+%22Restore+the+Fourth%22+Protest+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth&t=EFF+Addresses+Protesters+at+San+Francisco%27s+%22Restore+the+Fourth%22+Protest\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=EFF+Addresses+Protesters+at+San+Francisco%27s+%22Restore+the+Fourth%22+Protest+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=EFF Addresses Protesters at San Francisco%27s %22Restore the Fourth%22 Protest&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe35125e9:d7f955:c159ab3d","originId":"74875 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"61df9f7b","title":"Yahoo's Fight for its Users in Secret Court Earns the Company Special Recognition in Who Has Your Back Survey","published":1373905493000,"crawled":1373908313577,"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Each year, EFF’s <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013\">Who Has Your Back </a>campaign assesses the policies and practices of major Internet companies as a way to encourage and incentivize those companies <span>to take a stand for their users in the face of government demands for data. </span><span><span>Normally, when a compan</span></span><span><span>y demonstrates it has a policy or practice that advances user privacy, like fighting for its users in courts, we award the company a gold star. </span>Sometimes, even when companies stand up for their users, they're forbidden from telling us about it because of unduly restrictive secrecy laws or court orders prohibiting them from doing so. </span><p><span><img height=\"79\" width=\"85\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/images_insert/sparklystarnew.gif\"></span><span>Which, for the past six years, is <a href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0\">exactly what happened to Yahoo</a>. In honor and appreciation of the company’s silent and</span><span> thankle</span><span>s</span><span>s </span><span>battle for us</span><span>er privacy in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), EFF is proud to award Yahoo with a</span><span> star of sp</span><span>ecial d</span><span>istinction in our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013\">Who Has Your Back</a> survey for fighting for its users in (secret) courts.</span><p><span>In 2007, Yahoo received an order to produce user data under the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007\">Protect America Act</a> (the predecessor statute to the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008\">FISA Amendments Act</a>, the law on which the NSA’s</span><span> recently disclosed Prism program relies). Instead of blindly accepting the government’s constitutionally qu</span><span>estionable order, Yahoo fought back. The company challenged the legality of the order in the FISC, the secret surveillance court that grants government applications for surveillance</span><span>. And when the order was u</span><span>pheld by the FISC, Yahoo didn’t stop fighting: it appealed the decision to the Foreign Intelligenc</span><span>e </span><span>Surveillance Court of Review, a three-judge appellate court established to review decisions of the FISC.</span><p><span>Ultimately, the Court of Review <a href=\"https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr082208.pdf\">ruled against Yahoo</a>, upholding the constitutionality of the Protect America Act and ordering Yahoo to turn over the user data the government requested. The details of the data turned over, and even the full opinion of the Court of Review, remain secret (a redacted version of the court’s opinion was released in 2008). Indeed, the fact that Yahoo was involved in the case was a secret until the <em>New York Times </em><a href=\"http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/secret-court-declassifies-yahoos-role-in-disclosure-fight/\">revealed it</a> earlier this month. Following the <em>Times </em>article and <a href=\"http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/105b-g-07-01-motion-130614.pdf\">a new motion</a> for disclosure by Yahoo, the government <a href=\"http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/105b-g-07-01-motion-130625.pdf\">acknowledged</a> that more information could be made available about the case, including the fact that Yahoo was involved. </span><p><span>After six years of silence, Yahoo is finally able to speak publicly about its fight.</span><p><span>Yahoo went to bat for its users – not because it had to, and not because of a possible PR benefit – but because it was the right move for its users and the company. It’s precisely this type of fight – a secret fight for user privacy – that should serve as the gold standard for companies, and such a fight must be commended. While Yahoo still has a way to go in the other Who Has Your Back <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013\">categories</a> (and they remain the last major email carrier not using HTTPS encryption by default), Yahoo leads the pack in fighting for its users under seal and in secret.</span><p>Of course, it's possible more companies have challeneged this secret surveillance, but we just don't know about it yet. We encourage every company that has opposed a FISA order or directive to move to unseal their oppositions so the public will have a better understanding of how they've fought for their users.<p>Until then, we hope Yahoo's star will serve as a beacon for all companies: fighting for your users' privacy is the right thing to do, even if you can't let them know.<p> \n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Yahoo%27s+Fight+for+its+Users+in+Secret+Court+Earns+the+Company+Special+Recognition+in+Who+Has+Your+Back+Survey++https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition&t=Yahoo%27s+Fight+for+its+Users+in+Secret+Court+Earns+the+Company+Special+Recognition+in+Who+Has+Your+Back+Survey+\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Yahoo%27s+Fight+for+its+Users+in+Secret+Court+Earns+the+Company+Special+Recognition+in+Who+Has+Your+Back+Survey++https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Yahoo%27s Fight for its Users in Secret Court Earns the Company Special Recognition in Who Has Your Back Survey &url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"author":"Mark Rumold","alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/yahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition","type":"text/html"}],"origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe161ce88:78394e:c159ab3d","originId":"74972 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"6f04dad6","title":"Bills Introduced by Congress Fail to Fix Unconstitutional NSA Spying","published":1373872618000,"crawled":1373875850888,"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>In the past two weeks Congress has introduced a slew of bills responding to the <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order\"><em>Guardian</em></a>'s publication of a <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/confirmed-nsa-spying-millions-americans\">top secret court order</a> using <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/foia/section-215-usa-patriot-act\">Section 215</a> of the PATRIOT Act to demand that Verizon Business Network Services give the National Security Agency (NSA)<i> </i>a record of <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/confirmed-nsa-spying-millions-americans\"><i>every</i> customer's call history</a><i> </i>for three months. The order was confirmed by officials like President Obama and Senator Feinstein, who said it was a \"routine\" 90 day reauthorization of a program started in 2007.\n<p>Currently, four bills have been introduced to fix the problem: one by <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/leahy-nsa-spying-fix\">Senator Leahy</a>, <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/sanders-nsa-spying\">Senator Sanders</a>, <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/udall-wyden-nsa-spying\">Senators Udall and Wyden</a>, and <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/conyers-nsa-spying-bill\">Rep. Conyers</a>. The well-intentioned bills try to address the Justice Department's (DOJ) abusive interpretations of Section 215 (more formally, <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861\">50 USC § 1861</a>) apparently approved by the reclusive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) in <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/foia/fisc-orders-illegal-government-sureveillance\">secret legal opinions</a>.\n<p>Sadly, all of them fail to fix the problem of unconstitutional domestic spying—not only because they ignore the <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/what-we-need-to-know-about-prism\">PRISM</a> program, which uses Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and collects Americans' emails and phone calls—but because the legislators simply don't have key information about how the government interprets and uses the statute. <em>Congress must find out more about the programs before it can propose fixes.</em> That's why a <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/campaign-end-nsa-warrantless-surveillance-surges-past-500000-signers\">coalition of over 100 civil liberties groups</a> and <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/stopwatching.us/?r=eff\">over half a million people</a> are pushing for a special congressional investigatory committee, more transparency, and more accountability.\n<h3>More Information Needed</h3>\n<p>The American public has not seen the secret law and legal opinions supposedly justifying the unconstitutional NSA spying. Just this week the <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0\"><i>New York Times </i></a>and <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344.html\"><i>Wall Street Journal</i></a> (paywall) reported that the secret law includes dozens of opinions—some of which are hundreds of pages long—gutting the Fourth Amendment. The special investigative committee must find out necessary information about the programs and about the opinions. Or, at the very least, extant committees like the Judiciary or Oversight Committees must conduct more open hearings and release more information to the public. Either way, the process must start with the publication of the secret legal opinions of the FISA Court, and the opinions drafted by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).\n<h3>Why the Legislation Fails to Fix Section 215</h3>\n<p>Some of the bills try to narrow Section 215 by heightening the legal standard for the government to access information. Currently, the FBI can obtain \"any tangible thing\"—including, surprisingly, intangible business records about Americans—that is \"relevant\"\n<blockquote><p>to an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a US person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities</blockquote>\n<p>with a statement of facts showing that there are \"reasonable grounds to believe\" that the tangible things are \"relevant\" to such an investigation. Bills by Rep. Conyers and Sen. Sanders attempt to heighten the standard by using pre-9/11 language mandating \"specific and articulable facts\" about why the FBI needs the records. Rep. Conyers goes one step further than Sen. Sanders by forcing the FBI to include why the records are \"material,\" or significantly relevant, to an investigation.\n<p>By heightening the legal standard, the legislators intend for the FBI to show exactly why a mass database of calling records is relevant to an investigation. But it's impossible to know if these fixes will stop the unconstitutional spying without knowing how the government defines key terms in the bills. The bills by Sen. Leahy and Sens. Udall and Wyden do not touch this part of the law.\n<h3>Failure to Stop the Unconstitutional Collection of \"Bulk Records\"</h3>\n<p>Sens. Udall, Wyden, and Leahy use a different approach; their bills mandate every order include why the records \"pertain to\" an individual or are \"relevant to\" an investigation. Collectively this aims—but most likely fails—to stop the government from issuing \"bulk records orders\" like the Verizon order. Senator Sanders travels a different path by requiring the government specify why \"each of\" the business records is related to an investigation; however, it's also unclear if this stops the spying. Yet again, Rep. Conyers bill provides the strongest language as it deletes ambiguous clauses and forces all requests \"pertain only to\" an individual; however even the strongest language found in these bills will probably not stop the unconstitutional spying.\n<h3>Legislators Are Drafting in the Dark</h3>\n<p>Unfortunately, legislators are trying to edit the statutory text before a thorough understanding of how the government is using key definitions in the bill or how the FISA Court is interpreting the statute. For instance, take the word \"relevant.\" The \"tangible thing\" produced under a Section 215 order must be \"relevant\" to the specific type of investigation mentioned above. But the Verizon order requires <i>every</i> Verizon customer's call history.\n<p>The <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0\"><em>New York Times</em></a> confirmed the secret FISA court was persuaded by the government that this information is somehow relevant to such an investigation. The <i><a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344.html\"><i>Wall Street Journal</i></a> </i>(paywall)<i>, </i>quoting \"people familiar with the [FISA Court] rulings\" wrote: \"According to the [FISA Court], the special nature of national-security and terrorism-prevention cases means 'relevant' can have a broader meaning for those investigations.\" Obviously, only severely strained legalese—similar to the Department of Justice's re-definition of \"<a href=\"http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite\">imminent</a>\"—could justify such an argument. And the Fourth Amendment was created to protect against this exact thing—vague, overbroad \"<a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/generalwarrantsmemo.pdf\">general warrants</a>\" (.pdf).\n<p>If \"relevant\" has been defined to permit bulk data collection, requiring more or better facts about <em>why</em> is unlikely to matter. Even Sen. Sanders's approach—which would require \"each\" record be related to an investigation—could fall short if \"relevance\" is evaluated in terms of the database as a whole, rather than its individual records. This is just one example of why the secret FISA Court decisions and OLC opinions must be released. Without them, legislators cannot perform one of their jobs: writing legislation.\n<h3>Congress Must Obtain and Release the Secret Law</h3>\n<p>The actions revealed by the government strike at the very core of our Constitution. Further, the majority of Congress is unaware about the specific language and legal interpretations used to justify the spying. Without this information, Congress can only legislate in the dark. It's time for Congress to investigate these matters to the fullest extent possible. American privacy should not be held hostage by secrecy. <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://eff.org/fight-nsa\">Tell Congress now</a> to push for an special investigative committee, more transparency, and more accountability.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Bills+Introduced+by+Congress+Fail+to+Fix+Unconstitutional+NSA+Spying+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying&t=Bills+Introduced+by+Congress+Fail+to+Fix+Unconstitutional+NSA+Spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Bills+Introduced+by+Congress+Fail+to+Fix+Unconstitutional+NSA+Spying+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Bills Introduced by Congress Fail to Fix Unconstitutional NSA Spying&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"author":"Mark M.  Jaycox","alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/bills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying","type":"text/html"}],"origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fd51f2b1e:18693:bb18093a","originId":"74976 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"722914c9","title":"Independent Game Developers: The Latest Targets of a Bad Patent Troll","published":1373667438000,"crawled":1373670157086,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/independent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Adi Kamdar and Adi Kamdar","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>A growing number of independent game developers have <a href=\"http://gamepolitics.com/2013/07/10/three-more-mmo-developers-receive-letters-treehouse-attorneys\">received demand letters</a> from Treehouse Avatar Technologies for allegedly violating patent <a href=\"https://www.google.com/patents/US8180858\">8,180,858</a>, a \"Method and system for presenting data over a network based on network user choices and collecting real-time data related to said choices.\" Essentially, this patent covers creating a character online, and having the game log how many times a particular character trait was chosen.\n<p>In other words, an unbelievably basic data analytics method was somehow approved to become a patent.\n<p>The patent troll, Treehouse, has surfaced before. Back in October 2012, <a href=\"http://www.joystiq.com/2012/10/12/treehouse-avatar-technologies-sues-turbine-over-a-patent-granted/\">the company sued Turbine</a>, developer of <em>Dungeons and Dragons Online</em> and Lord of the Rings Online.\n<p>This is a textbook patent troll case. Treehouse owns a very broad software patent but doesn't, it seems, make or manufacture anything itself. They simply send demands around or, in some cases, sue alleged infringers. And developers—most recently, independent game developers—lose out by being subject to lawyer fees, licensing fees, litigation costs, or the fear of implementing what seems to be a very basic, obvious feature to their product.\n<p>When trolls attack, innovation is stifled. For more on everything EFF is doing to change this reality, visit our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/patent\">patent issue page</a>.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/patent\">Patents</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims\">Patent Trolls</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Independent+Game+Developers%3A+The+Latest+Targets+of+a+Bad+Patent+Troll+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll&t=Independent+Game+Developers%3A+The+Latest+Targets+of+a+Bad+Patent+Troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Independent+Game+Developers%3A+The+Latest+Targets+of+a+Bad+Patent+Troll+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Independent Game Developers%3A The Latest Targets of a Bad Patent Troll&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fd011344c:e67890:9d82f563","originId":"74969 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"590afc53","title":"July 12: Call on Congress to Restore the Fourth Amendment","published":1373583117000,"crawled":1373585355852,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/july-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Rainey Reitman","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Over July 4<sup>th</sup>, thousands of people in cities across the United States <a href=\"http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/04/19287215-independence-day-nsa-leaks-inspire-fourth-amendment-rallies?lite\">rallied in defense of the Fourth Amendment</a>.\n<p>Tomorrow, Restore the Fourth – the grassroots, nonpartisan movement supporting the Fourth Amendment and opposing NSA spying – is taking the battle to the phones.  A number of Restore the Fourth chapters will be hosting a “Restore the Phone” event. They will be encouraging concerned citizens to call their members of Congress and demand transparency and reform of America’s domestic spying practices.\n<p>According to their <a href=\"http://www.restorethefourth.net/blog/restore-the-phones-tell-congress-this-isnt-over-and-a-look-at-future-activities/\">blog post</a>, Restore the Fourth intends to use Friday to draw the attention of Congress. They provide a suggested <a href=\"https://docs.google.com/document/d/190S5tUzQLl1kuu7ErBqgC57FUnZBjpX6TuDK_ypeXiE/edit\">script</a>  (Google doc) for callers which includes strong language against the NSA spying program:\n<blockquote><p>This type of blanket data collection by the government erodes essential and constitutionally protected American values. Furthermore, the body of secret surveillance law that has developed in an attempt to justify this type of domestic surveillance is antithetical to democracy. The NSA’s domestic spying program is not the American way. </blockquote>\n<p>We think that phone calls are among the most effective ways to make Washington hear the concerns of constituents. We’re proud to support this initiative, and urge our friends and members to join the call in day.\n<p>Here are two ways you can speak out (note, if you are outside of the United States you should <a href=\"https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9297\">go here to take our international alert</a>).\n<ol start=\"1\"><li>Dial <strong>1-STOP-323-NSA</strong> (1-786-732-3672). The automated system will connect you to your legislators. Urge them to provide public <strong>transparency</strong> about NSA spying and <strong>stop</strong> warrantless wiretapping on the communications of millions of ordinary Americans. Visit <a href=\"http://callday.org\">CallDay.org</a> for more info.\n<li>Visit <a href=\"https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9311\">the EFF action center</a>. We will look up the phone number of your elected officials. Call them and tell them you oppose NSA’s spying programs.\n</ol><p>And when you’ve finished calling Congress, remember to spread the word on social media and add your name to the <a href=\"https://optin.stopwatching.us/?r=eff\">Stop Watching Us campaign</a>.\n<p><i>Important notes about your privacy</i>: we’ve required that the automated tools above promise to protect your privacy by insisting that your phone number be used for this campaign and nothing else unless you request additional contact. If you don’t want your information processed by the automatic calling tools, use <a href=\"https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9311\">the EFF page</a> to get a phone number and call directly. Learn more by visiting the privacy policies of <a href=\"http://www.fightforthefuture.org/privacy\">Fight for the Future</a> and <a href=\"http://www.twilio.com/legal/privacy\">Twilio</a>.\n<p> \n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=July+12%3A+Call+on+Congress+to+Restore+the+Fourth+Amendment+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment&t=July+12%3A+Call+on+Congress+to+Restore+the+Fourth+Amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=July+12%3A+Call+on+Congress+to+Restore+the+Fourth+Amendment+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=July 12%3A Call on Congress to Restore the Fourth Amendment&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fce8fa561:a89090:60f5fbac","originId":"74954 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"ee3e5b9b","title":"Reform the FISA Court: Privacy Law Should Never Be Radically Reinterpreted in Secret","published":1373492532000,"crawled":1373560087905,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/fisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Trevor Timm","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Since the <i>Guardian</i> and <i>Washington Post</i> started published secret NSA documents a month ago, the press has finally started digging into the operations of ultra-secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, which is partly responsible for the veneer of legality painted onto the NSA’s domestic surveillance programs. The new reports are quite disturbing to anyone who cares about the Fourth Amendment, and they only underscore the need for major reform.\n<p>As the <i>New York Times</i> <a href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all\">reported on its front page</a> on Sunday, “In more than a dozen classified rulings, the nation’s surveillance court has created a secret body of law giving the <a title=\"More articles about National Security Agency, U.S.\" href=\"http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_security_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org\">National Security Agency</a> the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans.” The court, which was originally set up to just approve or deny wiretap requests now “has taken on a much more expansive role by regularly assessing broad constitutional questions and establishing important judicial precedents,” with no opposing counsel to offer counter arguments to the government, and rulings that cannot be appealed outside its secret structure. “It has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court,” reported the <i>Times</i>.\n<p><i>The Wall Street Journal</i> <a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html\">reported on one of the court’s</a> most controversial decisions (or at least one of the controversial decisions we know of), in which it radically re-interpreted the word “relevant” in Section 215 of the Patriot Act to allow for the dragnet collection of every phone call record in the United States.\n<p>The <i>Journal</i> explained:\n<blockquote><p>The history of the word \"relevant\" is key to understanding that passage. The Supreme Court in 1991 said things are \"relevant\" if there is a \"reasonable possibility\" that they will produce information related to the subject of the investigation. In criminal cases, courts previously have found that very large sets of information didn't meet the relevance standard because significant portions—innocent people's information—wouldn't be pertinent.\n<p>But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, has developed separate precedents, centered on the idea that investigations to prevent national-security threats are different from ordinary criminal cases. The court's rulings on such matters are classified and almost impossible to challenge because of the secret nature of the proceedings.</blockquote>\n<p>Essentially, the court re-defined the word “relevant” to mean “anything and everything.” Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall explained two years ago on the Senate floor that Americans would be shocked if they knew how the government was interpreting the Patriot Act. This is exactly what they were talking about.\n<p>It’s likely the precedent laid down in the last few years will stay law for years to come if the courts are not reformed. FISA judges <a href=\"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/chief-justice-roberts-is-awesome-power-behind-fisa-court.html\">are appointed by one unelected official</a> who holds lifetime office: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under current law, for the coming decades, Chief Justice John Roberts will solely decide who will write the sweeping surveillance opinions few will be allowed to read, but which everyone will be subject to.\n<p>Judge James Robertson was once one of those judges. He was appointed to the court in the mid-2000s. He confirmed yesterday for the first time that he resigned in 2005 in protest of the Bush administration illegally bypassing the court altogether. Since Robertson retired, however, the court has transitioned from being ignored to wielding enormous, undemocratic power.\n<p>“What FISA does is not adjudication, but approval,” <a href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jul/09/fisa-courts-judge-nsa-surveillance\">Judge Robertson said</a>. “This works just fine when it deals with individual applications for warrants, but the [FISA Amendments Act of 2008] has turned the FISA court into administrative agency making rules for others to follow.”\n<p>Under the FISA Amendments Act, \"the court is now approving programmatic surveillance. I don't think that is a judicial function.” He continued, \"Anyone who has been a judge will tell you a judge needs to hear both sides of a case…This process needs an adversary.\"\n<p>No opposing counsel, rulings handed down in complete secrecy by judges appointed by an unelected official, and no way for those affected to appeal. As <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/07/secret-government?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/america_against_democracy\"><i>The Economist </i>stated</a>,  “Sounds a lot like the sort of thing authoritarian governments set up when they make a half-hearted attempt to create the appearance of the rule of law.”\n<p>This scandal should precipitate many reforms, but one thing is certain: FISA rulings need to be made public so the American people understand how courts are interpreting their constitutional rights. The very idea of democratic law depends on it.\n<p> \n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><div>Related Cases: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel\">Jewel v. NSA</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Reform+the+FISA+Court%3A+Privacy+Law+Should+Never+Be+Radically+Reinterpreted+in+Secret+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret&t=Reform+the+FISA+Court%3A+Privacy+Law+Should+Never+Be+Radically+Reinterpreted+in+Secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Reform+the+FISA+Court%3A+Privacy+Law+Should+Never+Be+Radically+Reinterpreted+in+Secret+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Reform the FISA Court%3A Privacy Law Should Never Be Radically Reinterpreted in Secret&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fcba8781f:293db4:60f5fbac","originId":"74961 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"d99fead3","title":"Online and Off, Information Control Persists in Turkey","published":1373507068000,"crawled":1373511383071,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/online-and-information-control-persists-turkey","type":"text/html"}],"author":"EFF Intern","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>By Greg Epstein, EFF and <a href=\"http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/\">Global Voices Advocacy</a> Intern\n<p>Demonstrators in Turkey have occupied Istanbul’s Taksim Square since last May, in a movement that began as an effort to protect a city park, but has evolved into a larger mobilization against the ruling party’s increasingly autocratic stance.\n<p>Prime Minister Erdogan and the ruling AKP party have used many tools to silence voices of the opposition. On June 15, police began using <a href=\"http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/06/30/Police-use-tear-gas-water-cannons-in-Turkey-protests/UPI-13041372608490/\">tear gas and water cannons</a> to clear out the large encampment in the park. But this effort also has stretched beyond episodes of physical violence and police brutality into the digital world, where information control and media intimidation are on the rise.\n<p>Since the protests began, dozens of Turkish social media users <a href=\"http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/06/07/as-protests-continue-turkey-cracks-down-on-twitter-users/\">have been detained</a> on charges ranging from <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/turkey-cracks-down-on-twitter-users/article4784440.ece\">inciting demonstrations, to spreading propaganda</a> and <a href=\"http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/world/europe/turkey-protests/\">false information</a>, to <a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/turkey-investigates-social-media_n_3509365.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology\">insulting government officials</a>. Dozens more Twitter users were reportedly arrested for posting images of <a href=\"http://www.businessinsider.com/turkish-police-arrest-twitter-users-2013-6\">police brutality</a>, though the legal pretense for these arrests is unclear. A recent ruling in an Ankara court ordered 22 demonstrators detained on <a href=\"http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/06/201362216245060913.html\">terrorism-related charges</a>.\n<p>Prime Minister Erdogan made his view of social media known when he described social media as “<a href=\"http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/03/turkey_protests_prime_minister_erdogan_blames_twitter_calls_social_media.html\">the worst menace to society</a>” at a June press conference. It is worth noting that <a href=\"http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/turkey/130629/turkey-twitter-facebook-social-media-erdogan-taksim-bbc-turkce#1\">Erdogan himself is said to maintain a Twitter account with over 3 million followers and 2,000 tweets</a> (some Turks question whether the unverified account is really him, or an unofficial supporter.) While the Turkish government has had <a href=\"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/18/turkey-vows-to-strengthen-police-powers/2433709/\">limited</a>, <a href=\"http://blogs.wsj.com/middleeast/2013/06/03/amid-turkey-unrest-social-media-becomes-a-battleground/\">if any</a>, involvement in tampering with social media access thus far, government officials appear eager to take further action.\n<p><strong>Roots in traditional media</strong>\n<p>Although current circumstances appear to be testing the limits of Turkey’s information policy framework, the country has a long history of restrictive media policy and practice. In 2013, Turkey ranked <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1054\">154 out of 166</a> on the Reporters Without Borders’ Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index, due in part to the fact that since 1992 <a href=\"http://cpj.org/killed/europe/turkey/\">18 journalists have been murdered</a> there, 14 with impunity. In responding to protest coverage, authorities have <a href=\"http://www.cpj.org/2013/06/turkey-fines-tv-stations-in-connection-with-protes.php\">fined</a>, <a href=\"http://www.cpj.org/2013/06/in-crackdown-on-dissent-turkey-detains-press-raids.php\">detained</a> and even <a href=\"http://www.cpj.org/2013/06/journalists-detained-beaten-obstructed-in-istanbul.php\">beaten</a> members of the press. Institutional censorship has also been prevalent: When clashes between protesters and police escalated, activists noted that <a href=\"http://news.yahoo.com/pinned-under-governments-thumb-turkish-media-covers-penguins-124645832.html\">CNN Turk</a> aired a documentary on penguins <a href=\"http://www.dailydot.com/news/cnn-turk-istanbul-riots-penguin-doc-social-media/\">while CNN International</a> ran live coverage of the events in Taksim Square.\n<p><span>Dubbed the “</span><span><a href=\"https://en.rsf.org/turkey-turkey-world-s-biggest-prison-for-19-12-2012,43816.html\">the world’s biggest prison for journalists</a></span><span>” by Reporters Without Borders, Turkey has been particularly aggressive in </span><span><a href=\"http://www.opendemocracy.net/anna-bragga/turkey-media-crisis-how-anti-terrorism-laws-equip-war-on-dissent\">arresting Kurdish journalists under Turkey’s anti-terrorism law</a></span><span> known as Terörle Mücadele Yasası.</span>\n<p><strong>Controlling digital expression</strong>\n<p>As of 2012, <a href=\"http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/icteye/DisplayCountry.aspx?code=TUR\">45% of Turkey’s population</a> had regular access to the Internet. The country’s leading ISP, <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_Telekom\">Türk Telekom (TT)</a>, formerly a government-controlled monopoly, was privatized in 2005 but retained a <a href=\"https://opennet.net/research/profiles/turkey#footnote6_oj6yz7g\">95% percent market share in 2007</a>. Türk Telekom also controls the country’s only commercial backbone.\n<p><a href=\"http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.5651&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=\">Internet Law No. 5651</a>, passed in 2007, <a href=\"http://sites.psu.edu/comm410censorshipinturkey/literature-review/\">prohibits online content</a> in eight categories including <a href=\"https://opennet.net/research/profiles/turkey\">prostituion, sexual abuse of children, facilitation of the abuse of drugs, and crimes against (or insults to) Atatürk</a>. The law authorizes the Turkish Supreme Council for Telecommunications and IT (TIB) to block a website when it has “adequate suspicion” that the site hosts illegal content. In 2011, the Council of Europe’s <a href=\"https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1814085\">Commissioner for Human Rights</a> reported that 80% of online content blocked in Turkey was <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turkey-turkey-11-03-2011,39758.html\">due to decisions made by the TIB</a>, with the remaining 20% being blocked as the result of orders by Turkey’s traditional court system. In 2009 alone, nearly <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/surveillance-turkey,39758.html\">200 court decisions</a> found TIB decisions to block websites unjustifiable because they fell outside the scope of Law 5651. The law also has been criticized for authorizing takedowns of entire sites when only a small portion of their content stands in violation of the law.\n<p>Between 2008 and 2010, YouTube was blocked in its entirety under Law 5651 because of specific videos that fell into the category of “crimes against Atatürk”. During this period, YouTube continued to be the <a href=\"http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2008/11/27/tdn-banned-youtube-still-in-top-10-in-turkey/\">10th most visited site</a> in Turkey, with users accessing the site through proxies. The ban was eventually lifted when YouTube removed the videos in question and came under compliance with Turkish law. Sites likes Blogspot, Metacafe, Wix and others have gone through similar ordeals in Turkey in recent years. An estimated <a href=\"http://engelliweb.com/\">31,000 websites are blocked</a> in the country.\n<p>In December 2012, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/european-human-rights-court-finds-turkey-violation-freedom-expression\">found</a> that Turkey had violated their citizen’s right to free expression by blocking <a href=\"http://sites.google.com\">Google Sites</a>. While Turkey justified the ban based on Sites’ hosting of websites that violated Law 5651, the ECHR found that Turkish law did not allow for “wholesale blocking of access” to a hosting provider like Google Sites. Furthermore, Google Sites had not been informed that it was hosting “illegal” content.\n<p>In 2011, Turkey <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/week-internet-censorship-opaque-censorship-turkey-russia-and-britain\">proposed a mandatory online filtering system</a> described as an effort to protect minors and families. This new system, dubbed Güvenli İnternet, or Secure Internet, would block any website that contained keywords from a list of <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turkey-online-censorship-now-bordering-on-29-04-2011,40194.html\">138 terms</a> deemed inappropriate by telecom authority BTK. The plan was met with public backlash and <a href=\"http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9216750/Protests_in_Turkey_against_Internet_controls\">protests</a> causing the government to re-evaluate the system and eventually offer it as an opt-in service. While only <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turkey-turkey-12-03-2012,42065.html\">22,000 of Turkey’s 11 million Internet users</a> have so far opted for the system, opponents of Güvenli İnternet decry it as a <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turquie-new-internet-filtering-system-02-12-2011,41498.html\">form of censorship, </a><a href=\"http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.rsf.org%2Fturquie-new-internet-filtering-system-02-12-2011%2C41498.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGpw5o8xnE47-LjuK_fvBbtgt5Row\">disguised </a><a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turquie-new-internet-filtering-system-02-12-2011,41498.html\">as an effort to protect children</a> and families from “objectionable content”.\n<p><strong>New policies could further restrict social networks</strong>\n<p>As the protests continue, the Turkish government is working to use legal tools already at its disposal to increase control over social network activity. Transportation and Communications Minister Binali Yildirim has called on Twitter to establish a <a href=\"http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/net-us-turkey-protests-twitter-idUSBRE95P0XC20130626\">representative office within the country</a>. Legally, this could give the Turkish government greater ability to obtain user data from the company. But these requests have not received a warm response from Twitter, which has developed a <a href=\"https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fwho-has-your-back-2013&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEv4KpiTWJHxBwMpjfO3nW7kaiNHw\">reputation for protecting user data</a> in the face of government requests. While Twitter has “<a href=\"http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/minister-says-twitter-turned-down-cooperation-offer-over-turkey-protests.aspx?pageID=238&nID=49496&NewsCatID=374\">turned down</a>” requests from the Turkish government for user data and general cooperation, Minister Yildirim stated that Facebook had <a href=\"http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/facebook-and-twitter-refuse-to-cooperate-with-turkish-govt-crackdown-on-protesters/\">responded “positively</a>”. Shortly thereafter, Facebook published a <a href=\"https://newsroom.fb.com/fact-check\">“Fact Check”</a> post that denied cooperation with Turkish officials.\n<p>Turkey’s Interior Minister Muammer Güler told journalists that “<a href=\"http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/governement-working-on-draft-to-restrict-social-media-in-turkey.aspx?pageID=238&nID=48982&NewsCatID=338#.UcCVIc-KyUs.twitter\">the issue [of social media] needs a separate regulation</a>” and Deputy <a href=\"http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=111568\">Prime Minister Bozdag stated that the government had no intention of placing an outright ban</a> on social media, but indicated a desire to <a href=\"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-20/turkey-announces-plan-to-restrict-fake-social-media-accounts.html\">outlaw “fake” social media accounts</a>. Sources have confirmed that the <a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/turkey-investigates-social-media_n_3509365.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology\">Justice Ministry is conducting research and drafting legislation on the issue</a>.\n<p>New media expert Ozgur Uckan of Istanbul’s Bilgi University <a href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/06/26/195889178/thanks-but-no-social-media-refuses-to-share-with-turkey\">noted that</a> “censoring social media sites presents a technical challenge, and that may be why officials are talking about criminalizing certain content, in an effort to intimidate users and encourage self-censorship.”\n<p>While the details of <a href=\"http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action;jsessionid=F3B400500B268D2945E03E7F4BF27331?newsId=318800&columnistId=0\">these new laws </a>remain to be seen, it is likely that they will have some impact on journalistic and activist activities in the country, especially in times of rising public protest and dissent.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/free-speech\">Free Speech</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers-under-fire\">Bloggers Under Fire</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/international\">International</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Online+and+Off%2C+Information+Control+Persists+in+Turkey+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey&t=Online+and+Off%2C+Information+Control+Persists+in+Turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Online+and+Off%2C+Information+Control+Persists+in+Turkey+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Online and Off%2C Information Control Persists in Turkey&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fcab0b34e:7a49e:9d82f563","originId":"74936 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"73850e04","title":"NSA Leaks Prompt Surveillance Dialogue in India","published":1373493485000,"crawled":1373495145294,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/nsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Jillian C. York","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p dir=\"ltr\"><em>This is the 8th article in our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spy-without-borders\">Spies Without Borders</a></em> <em>series. The series looks at how the information disclosed in the NSA leaks affect internet users around the world.</em>\n<p dir=\"ltr\">As we have discussed throughout our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spy-without-borders\">Spies Without Borders</a> series, the backlash against the NSA’s global surveillance programs has been strong. From <a href=\"http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/us-government-surveillance-bad-for-silicon-valley-bad-for-democracy-around-the-world/277335/\">Germany</a>, where activists demonstrated against the mass spying, to <a href=\"http://madamasr.com/content/america%E2%80%99s-prism-our-fears-digital-age-come-true\">Egypt</a>—allegedly one of the NSA’s <a href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining\">top targets</a>—where the reaction is largely the same: “<a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/world-us-congress-im-not-american-i-have-privacy-rights\">I’m not American, but I have rights too</a>.”\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Indian commentators are no exception. A piece in the <em>Financial Times</em> stated that the revelations highlighted the “<a href=\"http://www.ft.com/cms/s/04b972d8-e59b-11e2-ad1a-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F04b972d8-e59b-11e2-ad1a-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fnews%2F2013-07-08%2Findians-see-a-gift-in-nsa-leaks.html#axzz2YRT5XQVr\">moral decline of America</a>,” while another in the <em>Hindu</em> <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/indias-cowardly-display-of-servility/article4874219.ece\">berated India</a> for its “servility” toward the U.S.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">But the revelations about the NSA’s spying activities have also created an opportunity for Indian activists to speak out about their own country’s practices. As Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director for the Centre for Internet &amp; Society <a href=\"http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-13/news/39952596_1_nsa-india-us-homeland-security-dialogue-national-security-letters\">argues in a piece for the <em>Economic Times</em></a>, Indian surveillance laws and practices have been “far worse” than those in the U.S. Writing for <em>Quartz</em>, Nandagopal J. Nair <a href=\"http://qz.com/99019/no-call-email-or-text-will-be-safe-from-indias-surveillance-network/\">agrees</a>, saying that “India’s new surveillance network will make the NSA green with envy.”\n<p dir=\"ltr\">The U.S. has in fact refused Indian requests for real-time access to internet activity routed through U.S.-based Internet sites, and U.S. companies have also <a href=\"http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280094658/Google-refuses-access-to-Gmail-encryption-for-Indian-government\">stood up to privacy-violating demands</a>. Other companies, such as RIM—the company that owns BlackBerry—have <a href=\"http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-10-29/news/34798663_1_interception-solution-blackberry-interception-blackberry-services\">cooperated with the Indian government</a>.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Regulatory privacy protections in India are weak: Telecom companies are required by license to provide data to the government, and the use of encryption is <a href=\"https://www.dot.gov.in/isp/internet-licence-dated%2016-10-2007.pdf\">extremely limited</a>. As we <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/disproportionate-state-surveillance-violation-privacy\">have previously explained</a>, India service providers are required to ensure that bulk encryption is not deployed. Additionally, no individual or entity can employ encryption with a key longer than 40 bits. If the encryption surpasses this limit, the individual or entity will need prior written permission from the Department of Telecommunications and must deposit the decryption keys with the <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/License%20Agreement%20for%20Provision%20of%20Internet%20Services%20Section%202.2%20(vii)\">Department</a>. The limitation on encryption in India means that technically any encrypted material over 40 bits would be accessible by the State. Ironically, the Reserve Bank of India issues security recommendations that banks should use strong encryption as higher as 128-bit for securing browser. In addition to such limitations on the use of encryption, commentators have also <a href=\"http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Concerns-over-central-snoop/Article1-1083658.aspx\">raised concerns</a> about the process for lawful intercept.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">The <a href=\"http://qz.com/99019/no-call-email-or-text-will-be-safe-from-indias-surveillance-network/\">latest attempt</a> at surveillance by the Indian government has been <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indias-surveillance-project-may-be-as-lethal-as-prism/article4834619.ece\">roundly criticized</a> as “more intrusive” than the NSA’s programs. In the <em>New York Times</em>, Prakash <a href=\"http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/how-surveillance-works-in-india/\">explained</a> the new program, the Centralized Monitoring System or C.M.S.:\n<blockquote><p dir=\"ltr\">With the C.M.S., the government will get <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indias-surveillance-project-may-be-as-lethal-as-prism/article4834619.ece\">centralized access to all communications metadata and content</a> traversing through all telecom networks in India. This means that the government can listen to all your calls, track a mobile phone and its user’s location, read all your text messages, personal e-mails and chat conversations. It can also see all your Google searches, Web site visits, usernames and passwords if your communications aren’t encrypted.\n</blockquote>\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Notably, India does not have laws allowing for mass surveillance; rather, lawful intercept is covered under the archaic Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 [<a href=\"http://www.ijlt.in/pdffiles/Indian-Telegraph-Act-1885.pdf\">PDF</a>] and the <a href=\"http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=185999\">Information Technology Act of 2000</a> (IT Act). Under both laws, interception must be time-limited and targeted.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">In the <em>Times</em> piece, Prakash also lambasts the IT Act, which he says “very substantially lowers the bar for wiretapping.”  \n<p dir=\"ltr\">All of this points to the fact that our fight for privacy is a shared global challenge; or as a columnist for India’s Sunday Guardian <a href=\"http://www.sunday-guardian.com/technologic/your-freedom-has-just-left-the-building\">recently put it</a>: “We're all now citizens of the surveillance state.”\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/international\">International</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/surveillance-human-rights\">State Surveillance &amp; Human Rights</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=NSA+Leaks+Prompt+Surveillance+Dialogue+in+India+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india&t=NSA+Leaks+Prompt+Surveillance+Dialogue+in+India\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=NSA+Leaks+Prompt+Surveillance+Dialogue+in+India+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=NSA Leaks Prompt Surveillance Dialogue in India&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fc5842a19:e3700:1a8ab682","originId":"74927 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"71ec0c6d","alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/whether-high-school-or-college-students-speech-rights-are-being-threatened-onlin-0","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Nico Perrino and Will Creeley","crawled":1373408340505,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"published":1373406072000,"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p><i>The following is a guest post by Will Creeley and Nico Perrino of the <a href=\"http://thefire.org/\">Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)</a>. Creeley is FIRE's Director of Legal and Public Advocacy and Perrino is the Communications &amp; Media Relations Coordinator.</i>\n<p>Attention, high school and college students: Your online speech is not nearly as private as you think. And no, we're not talking about the National Security Agency. The threat to student speech comes from a far more local and immediate source: the prying eyes of school administrators apparently unaware of their students' rights. All too often, students face unwarranted punishment for online communications.\n<p>Examples abound.\n<p>Just this past May at Cicero-North Syracuse High School in upstate New York, senior Pat Brown was<a href=\"http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/24/us/new-york-twitter-suspension\"> suspended</a> for three days for creating a Twitter hashtag about a school budget controversy. Brown created the \"#shitCNSshouldcut\" hashtag to suggest ways his school could save money after voters rejected a $144.7 million budget plan, joking that laying off the school's principal or getting rid of the \"anime club\" might help alleviate budget strains. Unfortunately, the principal wasn't amused;<a href=\"http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/24/us/new-york-twitter-suspension\"> CNN</a> and<a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-harris-lipschultz/school-rules-and-a-twitte_b_3354507.html\"> <i>The Huffington Post</i></a> reported that Brown was accused of \"harassing the principal\" and \"inciting a social media riot that disrupted the learning environment.\"\n<p>Also this past May, Heights High School (Wichita, Kansas) senior class president Wesley Teague was<a href=\"http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/07/2793492/heights-high-suspends-senior-class.html\"> suspended</a> and barred from attending graduation after posting a tweet that the school deemed offensive to HSS's student athletes. Teague wrote that \"‘Heights U' is equivalent to WSU's football team,\" referring to the school's athletic program and nearby Wichita State University, which eliminated its football program in 1986. Teague was scheduled to give the commencement speech at graduation, but the school sent Teague and his parents a letter stating that Teague's initial tweet and a few subsequent tweets \"acted to incite a disturbance\" within school and \"aggressively [disrespected] many athletes.\"\n<p>Depressingly, colleges aren't much better at respecting student speech rights online.\n<p>Last December, a student at Central Lakes College in Brainerd, Minnesota was <a href=\"http://www.twincities.com/ci_22610944/student-expelled-from-brainerd-nursing-school-facebook-comments\">expelled</a> a semester before his graduation for comments he posted on his private Facebook page. Craig Keefe, who was studying to become a registered nurse, said he wasn't told what was wrong with his Facebook posts or how they violated the college's policies. In a meeting with school officials, Keefe was asked about one of his \"disturbing\" Facebook posts that used the phrase \"stupid bitch\" and another that complained about there \"not being enough whiskey for anger management.\" A few days later he received a letter informing him of his expulsion for \"behavior unbecoming of the profession and transgression of professional boundaries.\" Keefe has since filed a lawsuit alleging violations of his due process and free speech rights.\n<p>And last October, Montclair State University in New Jersey<a href=\"http://thefire.org/article/15328.html\"> issued</a> a no-contact order to graduate student Joseph Aziz in response to unflattering comments about another student he posted to a YouTube video that September. The no-contact order included a gag prohibiting him from posting \"any social media regarding\" the other student. After Aziz later posted comments about the matter to a private Facebook group, he was charged with harassment and disruptive conduct and suspended for the spring semester. Happily, the sanctions were rescinded after our organization, the nonpartisan, nonprofit <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/thefire.org\">Foundation for Individual Rights in Education</a> (FIRE), wrote to the university pointing out that the gag order and punishment violated Aziz's First Amendment rights.\n<p>These examples make all too clear that administrators think that student expression loses First Amendment protections once it's available online. Thankfully, that's not the case; speech doesn't lose protection just because it's posted on the Internet.\n<p>Of course, the First Amendment only applies to government actors—in this context, public high schools and universities. (Private institutions aren't covered by the First Amendment, but some courts have found them to be contractually bound by the promises made to students in handbooks, codes of conduct, and other materials. Often, those promises include free speech.)\n<p>There's a difference between the speech rights afforded to public high school and public college students, too. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that public college students enjoy <a href=\"http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3830023126010937654&hl=en&as_sdt=2,39&as_vis=1\">full First Amendment rights</a>. In contrast, the Court has held that public high school administrators may regulate student speech that <a href=\"http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15235797139493194004&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr\">substantially disrupts school activities</a>; that is <a href=\"http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=225428161324034725&hl=en&as_sdt=2,39&as_vis=1\">\"offensively lewd and indecent\"</a>; that the public would think <a href=\"http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2391207692241045857&hl=en&as_sdt=2,39&as_vis=1\">bears the school's imprimatur</a>; and that arguably <a href=\"http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10117776825257150184&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr\">promotes illegal drug use</a>.\n<p>So the bottom line is that public college students are just as free as the rest of us to exercise their First Amendment right to express themselves, whether online or off. And even given the more limited speech rights possessed by public high school students, high school administrators can't punish student speech simply because it's posted on Twitter or Facebook. Indeed, <a href=\"http://thefire.org/article/13298.html\">recent federal court decisions</a> have suggested sharp limits on administrators' ability to punish high school and grade school students for online speech posted by students outside of school grounds\n<p>It's important for students, administrators, and courts alike to recognize that technological advances need not come at the expense of expressive rights. Just because student speech is newly visible and accessible when posted online doesn't mean that administrators have increased power to police and punish it.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/free-speech\">Free Speech</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Whether+High+School+or+College%2C+Students%E2%80%99+Speech+Rights+Are+Being+Threatened+Online+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fwhether-high-school-or-college-students-speech-rights-are-being-threatened-onlin-0\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fwhether-high-school-or-college-students-speech-rights-are-being-threatened-onlin-0&t=Whether+High+School+or+College%2C+Students%E2%80%99+Speech+Rights+Are+Being+Threatened+Online\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fwhether-high-school-or-college-students-speech-rights-are-being-threatened-onlin-0\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Whether+High+School+or+College%2C+Students%E2%80%99+Speech+Rights+Are+Being+Threatened+Online+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fwhether-high-school-or-college-students-speech-rights-are-being-threatened-onlin-0\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Whether High School or College%2C Students%E2%80%99 Speech Rights Are Being Threatened Online&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fwhether-high-school-or-college-students-speech-rights-are-being-threatened-onlin-0\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"title":"Whether High School or College, Students’ Speech Rights Are Being Threatened Online","unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fc568a5a4:7e5ea:1a8ab682","originId":"74906 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"683b2caf","alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/press/releases/publicresourceorg-prevails-free-speech-case-over-publishing-safety-standards","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Maass","crawled":1373406537124,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"published":1373403990000,"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div>Air-Conditioning Group Agrees Not to Claim Copyright Ownership of a Public Law</div></div></div><div><div><div><p>In a victory for free speech and open government, the <span>Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors Association (SMACNA) has conceded that it will no longer use trumped up copyright claims to try to stop Public.Resource.Org (Public Resource) from publishing safety standards that have been incorporated into law. <span> </span>Thanks to <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/cases/publicresourceorg-v-smacna\">a lawsuit</a> filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), <a href=\"https://public.resource.org\">Public.Resource.Org</a><span> is now free to continue its mission of improving public access to the laws that govern our daily lives.<span>  </span></span></span>\n<p><span>Public.Resource.Org is a non-profit organization that acquires and makes available online a wide variety of public documents such as fire safety codes, food safety standards, and other regulations that have been incorporated into U.S. and international laws. <span> </span>Such documents are often difficult to access otherwise, meaning the public cannot read them, much less comment on them.</span>\n<p><span>In January, SMACNA demanded that Public.Resource.Org take offline a federally mandated air-duct standard, claiming the posting violated SMACNA’s copyright in the standard. <span> </span>Represented by EFF, Fenwick &amp; West LLP, and David Halperin, Public Resource fought back and asked a federal court to declare that the standards became part of the public domain once they were incorporated into law.</span>\n<p><span>After initially attempting to avoid responding to the lawsuit at all, SMACNA has now surrendered and agreed to publicly affirm that it will no longer claim copyright in the standards. </span>\n<p><span>“Whether it’s the Constitution or a building code, the law is part of the public domain,” said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry.<span>  </span>“We’re glad SMACNA is abandoning its effort to undermine that essential principle.” </span>\n<p><span>In today’s technical world, public-safety codes are some of the country’s most important laws. <span> </span></span><span>Public access to such codes can be crucial when, for example, there is an industrial accident, a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina, or when a homebuyer simply wishes to independently consider whether her house was built to code standards. <span> </span>Publishing the codes online, in a readily-accessible format, also makes it possible for reporters and other interested citizens to search, excerpt, compare, and copy them.</span><span></span>\n<p><span>“It’s about time Standards Development Organizations recognized that if a technical standard has been incorporated into federal law, the public has a right to read it, speak it and copy it freely,” said Public.Resource.Org founder Carl Malamud.<span>  </span>“We hope SMACNA has finally learned that lesson.”</span>\n<p><span> For the stipulation:<br><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/smacna-stipulation-and-judgment\">https://www.eff.org/document/smacna-stipulation-and-judgment</a></span>\n<p>For more on Public.Resource.Org vs. SMACNA:<br><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/cases/publicresourceorg-v-smacna\">https://www.eff.org/cases/publicresourceorg-v-smacna</a>\n<p>Corynne McSherry<br>\n   Intellectual Property Director<br>\n   Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>\n   <a href=\"mailto:corynne@eff.org\">corynne@eff.org</a>\n</div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Public.Resource.org+Prevails+in+Free+Speech+Case+Over+Publishing+Safety+Standards+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpress%2Freleases%2Fpublicresourceorg-prevails-free-speech-case-over-publishing-safety-standards\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpress%2Freleases%2Fpublicresourceorg-prevails-free-speech-case-over-publishing-safety-standards&t=Public.Resource.org+Prevails+in+Free+Speech+Case+Over+Publishing+Safety+Standards\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpress%2Freleases%2Fpublicresourceorg-prevails-free-speech-case-over-publishing-safety-standards\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Public.Resource.org+Prevails+in+Free+Speech+Case+Over+Publishing+Safety+Standards+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpress%2Freleases%2Fpublicresourceorg-prevails-free-speech-case-over-publishing-safety-standards\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Public.Resource.org Prevails in Free Speech Case Over Publishing Safety Standards&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpress%2Freleases%2Fpublicresourceorg-prevails-free-speech-case-over-publishing-safety-standards\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"title":"Public.Resource.org Prevails in Free Speech Case Over Publishing Safety Standards","unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fc4c361e1:395d9ad:b4edca20","originId":"74905 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"2908c649","title":"Civil Liberties Groups to the FISA Court: Ungag Google and Microsoft","published":1373392091000,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/civil-liberties-groups-fisa-court-ungag-google-and-microsoft","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Maass","crawled":1373395706337,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Two of the world's largest Internet companies are currently engaged in a legal battle to reveal the scope of their involvement in the controversial <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA spying</a> programs exposed by a former intrlligence contractor through a series of high-profile leaks. EFF has now joined a coalition to file a <a href=\"https://www.aclu.org/national-security/amicus-brief-supporting-google-and-microsoft-motions-fisa-court-release-data\">brief</a> in support of Google and Microsoft as the companies seek permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court to reveal aggregate data about the federal government's access to user information.\n<p>\"A national conversation about the lawfulness of government surveillance programs cannot take place in the dark,\" EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman said. \"At minimum, companies like Google and Microsoft should be able to publicly disclose aggregate information such as how many secret surveillance orders for their customers were received and the type of information sought. Other companies, similarly entrusted with sensitive customer information, should be permitted to do the same.\"\n<p>Here is the text of the joint press release from EFF and our friends at The First Amendment Coalition, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy &amp; Technology, and TechFreedom:\n<blockquote><p>WASHINGTON – Civil liberties groups filed a brief late yesterday in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court arguing that Google and Microsoft must be ungagged so they can describe their role in the government's surveillance of the internet. The brief supports motions filed previously by Google and Microsoft requesting orders freeing them to publish information, in aggregate form, about the extent of the government's court-authorized access to their data. \n<p>The First Amendment Coalition, a free speech group, organized the filing of the amicus brief, which was written by first amendment lawyers Floyd Abrams and Dean Ringel. The brief was also filed on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy &amp; Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and TechFreedom.\n<p>While acknowledging the need for secrecy surrounding many aspects of the court’s work, the civil liberties groups contend that free speech safeguards nonetheless apply with special force to judicial actions that purport to bar private parties like Google and Microsoft from describing their own interaction with government agencies wielding court-sanctioned demands for data access.\n<p>The brief says: \"In seeking to provide the public with information about the number of government requests received and the number of affected subscriber accounts, Google and Microsoft each seeks to engage in speech that addresses governmental affairs in the most profound way that any citizen can.\"\n<p>\"Such speech, relating to the 'structures and forms of government' and 'the manner in which government is operated or should be operated,' is at the very core of the First Amendment,\" the brief argues.\n<p>The brief is available <a href=\"https://www.aclu.org/national-security/amicus-brief-supporting-google-and-microsoft-motions-fisa-court-release-data\"><u>here</u></a>.</blockquote>\n</div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Civil+Liberties+Groups+to+the+FISA+Court%3A+Ungag+Google+and+Microsoft+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fcivil-liberties-groups-fisa-court-ungag-google-and-microsoft\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fcivil-liberties-groups-fisa-court-ungag-google-and-microsoft&t=Civil+Liberties+Groups+to+the+FISA+Court%3A+Ungag+Google+and+Microsoft\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fcivil-liberties-groups-fisa-court-ungag-google-and-microsoft\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Civil+Liberties+Groups+to+the+FISA+Court%3A+Ungag+Google+and+Microsoft+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fcivil-liberties-groups-fisa-court-ungag-google-and-microsoft\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Civil Liberties Groups to the FISA Court%3A Ungag Google and Microsoft&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fcivil-liberties-groups-fisa-court-ungag-google-and-microsoft\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fc439aa43:37d2e7b:b4edca20","originId":"74902 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"c87ce141","title":"TAFTA, the US-EU's Trojan Trade Agreement: Talks (and Leaks) Begin","published":1373348264000,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/tafta-us-eus-trojan-trade-agreement-talks-and-leaks-begin","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Maira Sutton and Maira Sutton","crawled":1373386680899,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>The first round of talks in what the U.S. and EU trade representatives intend to be the largest bilateral trade agreement ever <a href=\"http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/08/us-usa-eu-trade-idUSBRE96704F20130708\">have begun</a>. The governments call it TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Everyone else calls it TAFTA, the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. Whatever the name, it will regulate all U.S. and EU trade, or around 30 percent of world trade in goods. And according to the first leaks of negotiation documents, it threatens to be yet another trojan horse for copyright and internet issues.\n<p>We have been following developments since Pres. Barack Obama announced his intention to create a U.S.-EU agreement at his State of the Union address earlier this year. Now, it seems that our concerns were warranted: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/TAFTA_leaked_doc_08-07-2013\">a newly leaked document from La Quadrature du Net</a> shows how EU delegates intend to set rules around liability for Internet Service Providers and regulations over the transfer and processing of users’ personal online data, as well as rules to set a “uniform approach” to cyber security across the region. While the document makes no mention of copyright enforcement, <a href=\"http://keionline.org/node/1726\">other</a> <a href=\"http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2013/june/wh-ttip\">statements</a> lead us to believe that it will also be included.\n<p>U.S. and European delegates will negotiate TAFTA secretly, mirroring the same undemocratic processes that led to the <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/acta\">Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)</a>. Like the <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp\">Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)</a> agreement, TAFTA’s objective is to address a wide range of cross-border regulatory issues under one overarching agreement. In March, EFF joined <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/transatlantic-declaration-leave-copyright-patent-issues-out-tafta\">44 other U.S. and EU organizations</a> in calling for transparency in the process and to ask our trade representatives to leave copyright, patent, and trademark issues off of the drafting table.\n<p>In light of the recent revelations, La Quadrature du Net says TAFTA is <a href=\"https://www.laquadrature.net/en/trans-atlantic-trade-talks-bound-to-harm-freedoms-online\">bound to threaten freedoms online</a>:\n<blockquote><p>The precedent of ACTA shows that industries can have tremendous (if not total) influence on the content of such an agreement, and that EU negotiators from the Commission can hardly be trusted to defend general interest […]\n</blockquote>\n<p>The same goes for U.S. negotiators. Lobbyists paid by the concentrated wealth of special interests currently dominate the objectives of our national trade policies—such as Internet companies that would prefer lax privacy controls, or entertainment industry companies pushing for copyright crackdowns. The creators and users of new, decentralized technology, who exercise their right to free speech and association over the Internet, have no voice at the table. This results in agreements, like ACTA or TPP, that uphold the concerns of a few powerful private interests at the expense of the present and future public interest and the civil liberties of Internet users worldwide.\n<p>Given how trade delegates have reacted so far over this latest transatlantic agreement, there is no doubt that established corporate interests from both sides of the Atlantic will do the same to influence TAFTA. If the process were open and transparent, we would at least know if and when problematic language was being included in this agreement. Until there are more leaked documents, we can only guess what kinds of specific proposals trade negotiators are developing inside these closed-door meetings.\n<p>Last week, European leaders <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/new-revelations-nsa-surveillance-european-allies\">publicly complained</a> that TAFTA was impossible given the revelations that the U.S. spies on its Europe's negotiators. That now looks to have been political bluff. It seems that surveillance by trade partners will continue to be acceptable, as long as the negotiations themselves are concealed from the general public.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property\">Intellectual Property</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/international\">International</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/eff-europe\">EFF Europe</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=TAFTA%2C+the+US-EU%27s+Trojan+Trade+Agreement%3A+Talks+%28and+Leaks%29+Begin+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftafta-us-eus-trojan-trade-agreement-talks-and-leaks-begin\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftafta-us-eus-trojan-trade-agreement-talks-and-leaks-begin&t=TAFTA%2C+the+US-EU%27s+Trojan+Trade+Agreement%3A+Talks+%28and+Leaks%29+Begin\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftafta-us-eus-trojan-trade-agreement-talks-and-leaks-begin\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=TAFTA%2C+the+US-EU%27s+Trojan+Trade+Agreement%3A+Talks+%28and+Leaks%29+Begin+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftafta-us-eus-trojan-trade-agreement-talks-and-leaks-begin\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=TAFTA%2C the US-EU%27s Trojan Trade Agreement%3A Talks %28and Leaks%29 Begin&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftafta-us-eus-trojan-trade-agreement-talks-and-leaks-begin\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fc4029c0a:36dedb0:b4edca20","originId":"74897 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"b1993721","title":"A Brief Analysis of the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom","published":1373328236000,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/brief-analysis-magna-carta-philippine-internet-freedom","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Jillian C. York","crawled":1373383072778,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p dir=\"ltr\">The past couple of years have seen a growing interest in Internet regulation developed in a multistakeholder environment.  From <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Civil_da_Internet\">Brazil</a> to <a href=\"http://netfreedomjo.org/\">Jordan</a>, such participatory processes have yielded mixed results, but around the world, many activists, policymakers, and other stakeholders remain optimistic that multistakeholder-developed regulation is possible.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Cut to the Philippines, where the <a href=\"http://democracy.net.ph/statement-on-the-filing-of-the-magna-carta-for-philippine-internet-freedom-house-bill-no-1086/\">Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom</a> (MCPIF)—a crowdsourced document—was recently filed as House Bill No. 1086 by Rep. Kimi Cojuangco and as <a href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/151536266/The-Magna-Carta-for-Philippine-Internet-Freedom-v-2-0-Filed-as-SBN-53\">Senate Bill No. 53</a> by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago.\n<p>If passed, the MCPIF would repeal Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), which <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/dark-day-philippines-government-passes-cybercrime-act\">we joined several local organizations in opposing</a> last year.  The MCPIF would also guarantee a host of other freedoms; here is our guide to some of the key elements of the bill:\n<h3>Free Expression</h3>\n<p>Section 4 of the bill pertains to freedom of expression, “[protecting] and [promoting] freedom of speech and expression on the Internet” and protecting the right of the people to petition the government via the Internet for “redress of grievances.”  The right of citizens to publish to the Internet without the requirement of a license is also specifically addressed.\n<p>Section 4(c) limits State use of prior restraint or subsequent punishment in relation to Internet-related rights only upon a judicial order conforming with provisions laid out in Section 5, and only under certain circumstances.  Section 4(d) protects persons from being forced to remove content beyond their means or control, specifically addressing mirrored and archived content.\n<p>Although free expression is protected, Section 52 places limits on certain types of speech “inimical to the public interest”:\n<ul><li dir=\"ltr\">\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Internet libel: defined as “public and malicious expression tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead, made on the Internet or on public networks”;\n\n</ul><ul><li dir=\"ltr\">\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Hate speech: defined as “public and malicious expression calling for the commission of illegal acts on an entire class of persons, a reasonably broad section thereof, or a person belonging to such a class, based on gender, sexual orientation, religious belief or affiliation, political belief or affiliation, ethnic or regional affiliation, citizenship, or nationality, made on the Internet or on public networks” and;\n\n</ul><ul><li dir=\"ltr\">\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Child pornography.\n\n</ul><p dir=\"ltr\">Atypically, the definition of Internet hate speech is incredibly limited, with the Act stating that it shall not lie if the expression “does not call for the commission of illegal acts on the person or class of persons that, when they are done, shall cause actual criminal harm to the person or class of persons, under existing law” and if it “does not call for the commission of illegal acts posing an immediate lawless danger to the public or to the person who is the object of the expression.”\n<h3>Universal access</h3>\n<p dir=\"ltr\">While Section 5 explicitly promotes universal access to the Internet, Section 5(b) allows for the suspension of an individual’s Internet access as an accessory to other penalties upon conviction of certain crimes, with certain checks and balances.  \n<p dir=\"ltr\">Remarkably, Section 5(e) prevents persons or entities offering Internet access for free or for a fee (including hotels, schools, and religious groups) from restricting access to the Internet or limiting content that may be accessed by guests, employees or others “without a reasonable ground related to the protection of the person or entity from actual or legal threats, the privacy of others who may be accessing the network, or the privacy and security of the network as provided for in the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173) or this Act.”\n<h3>Innovation<br><h3>\n</h3></h3><p dir=\"ltr\">Section 7 addresses the right to innovation, allowing for State protection and promotion of innovation, and prohibiting persons from restricting or denying “the right to develop new information and communications technologies, without due process of law...”\n<p dir=\"ltr\">With certain exceptions provided for in the Intellectual Property Code, Section 7(b) states that “no person shall be denied access to new information and communications technologies, nor shall any new information and communications technologies be blocked, censored, suppressed, or otherwise restricted, without due process of law or authority vested by law.”  Innovators are also protected from liability for the actions of users.\n<h3>Right to Privacy</h3>\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Section 8 provides for State promotion of the protection of the privacy of data, with Section 8(b) providing the right of users to employ encryption or cryptography “protect the privacy of the data or networks which such person owns or otherwise possesses real rights over.”\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Section 8(d) guarantees a person’s right of privacy over his or her data or network rights, while 8(e) requires the State to maintain “appropriate level of privacy of the data and of the networks maintained by it.”\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Section 9 refers to the protection of the security of data and 9(b) guarantees the right of persons to employ means “whether physical, electronic or behavioral” to protect the security of his or her data or networks.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Sections 9(c) and (d) refer to the rights of third parties over private data, requiring a court order issued in accordance with Section 5 of the Act to grant access, and preventing third parties from being given property rights to the data accessed.\n<h3>Intellectual property</h3>\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Section 10 protects intellectual property online in accordance with the existing Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (RA 8293).  10(c) prevents Internet service providers and telecommunications entities from gaining intellectual property rights over derivative content that is the result of “creation, invention, innovation, or modification by a person using the service provided by the Internet service provider, telecommunications entity, or such person providing Internet or data services.”  \n<p dir=\"ltr\">Section 39 addresses fair use, declaring that “the viewing, use, editing, decompiling, or modification, of downloaded or otherwise offline content on any computer, device, or equipment shall be considered fair use” with certain provisions.  \n<p dir=\"ltr\">Section 48 deals with intellectual property infringement, with 48(a)(ii) notably defining the “non-attribution or plagiarism of copyleft content” as defined in section 38 as infringement.\n<h3>Other Areas</h3>\n<p dir=\"ltr\">In addition to the sections detailed above, the Act covers a range of other issue areas, including hacking, cyber crime, and human trafficking.  The Act also creates an Office of Cybercrime within the Department of Justice to be designated as the central authority in enforcement of the Act.  Notably, special courts in which judges are required to have specific expertise in computer science or IT are also designated to hear and resolve all cases brought under the Act.\n<p>Overall, the crowdsourced Act is a success story and we support our allies in the Phillippines as they work to push it forward in the Senate.\n<p><em><strong>Bonus</strong></em><strong>: </strong><a href=\"http://alpha.propinoy.net/2012/11/26/crowdsourcing-the-story-of-the-drafting-of-the-magna-carta-for-philippine-internet-freedom/\">Read the story</a> of how the Act was crowdsourced!\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/free-speech\">Free Speech</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/innovation\">Innovation</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property\">Intellectual Property</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/international\">International</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy\">Privacy</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=A+Brief+Analysis+of+the+Magna+Carta+for+Philippine+Internet+Freedom+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbrief-analysis-magna-carta-philippine-internet-freedom\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbrief-analysis-magna-carta-philippine-internet-freedom&t=A+Brief+Analysis+of+the+Magna+Carta+for+Philippine+Internet+Freedom\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbrief-analysis-magna-carta-philippine-internet-freedom\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=A+Brief+Analysis+of+the+Magna+Carta+for+Philippine+Internet+Freedom+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbrief-analysis-magna-carta-philippine-internet-freedom\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=A Brief Analysis of the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbrief-analysis-magna-carta-philippine-internet-freedom\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fc11bb28a:2f4659a:1fba5d06","originId":"74898 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"d7979f58","title":"Questions for Comey: Former Top DOJ Attorney Who Oversaw NSA Spying Under Bush is Nominated to Become Next FBI Director","published":1373329131000,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/questions-comey-former-acting-attorney-general-bush-administration-who-oversaw-nsa","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Mark M.  Jaycox","crawled":1373334385290,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Current Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert Mueller’s term is expiring (again), and the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a <a href=\"http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=e0e2c9056911827f327c217a698c1051\">hearing</a> to question the nominee to replace Mueller, <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/key-officials\">James Comey</a>. The FBI is deeply linked with the NSA's <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/confirmed-nsa-spying-millions-americans\">unconstitutional domestic spying</a>, and Comey was the Deputy Attorney General and Acting Attorney General under President Bush who approved almost all of the aspects of the <a href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order\">secretive</a> <a href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2013/jun/14/nsa-prism\">programs</a> that collect Americans' <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/depth-review-new-nsa-documents-expose-how-americans-can-be-spied-without-warrant\">information, emails, and phone calls</a>. One such program—uncovered in a leaked <a href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order\">top secret order</a> of the secret court overseeing the spying—uses Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to order Verizon Business Network Services to send <i>all of its customers’ call information </i>to the NSA<i>.</i>\n<p>Tomorrow's hearing is another chance for the Senate to further investigate these programs. A <a href=\"https://optin.stopwatching.us/?r=eff\">coalition</a> of over 100 civil liberties organizations and 500,000 people have come together to demand a special investigatory committee, more accountability, and legislative fixes to end the unconstitutional program of domestic spying. (<a href=\"https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9260\">Join them now</a>.) We've already <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/confirmed-nsa-spying-private-briefings-will-begin-public-discussions-and-public\">drafted questions</a> that Congress must ask about these programs. With the upcoming hearing, the Senators should get Comey's word that he will stop the unconstitutional programs facilitated by the FBI.\n<p>Here are a few questions to ask Comey:\n<p>1)   Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, has stated that the FBI's use of Section 215 is an <a href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/abuse-patriot-act-must-end\">\"abuse of the law.\"</a> Will you make a commitment today that, if confirmed, you will stop the FBI from using Section 215 to collect calling information, or any other information, about Americans in bulk?\n<p>2)   Articles by both the <i><a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344.html\">Wall Street Journal</a> </i>(paywall) and <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0\"><i>New York Times </i></a>revealed that the secret court overseeing the spying, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court), doesn’t believe that communications metadata is protected under the Fourth Amendment or First Amendment of the Constitution. Do you think the FISA Court is right?\n<p>3)   Officials have stated that the Supreme Court case <i><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/deep-dive-updating-electronic-communications-privacy-act\">Smith v. Maryland</a></i> supports the constitutionality of the 215 program. Of course, <i>Smith</i> only considered the Fourth Amendment implications of calling information for a single subscriber. Do you believe that the constitutional analysis, especially in regards to the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment, changes when calling information is collected by the government in bulk? Is the constitutional analysis different for any information collected in bulk?\n<p>4)   Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to obtain \"any tangible things\" that are relevant to an authorized national security investigation. Articles by both the <i>Wall Street Journal </i>and <i>New York Times </i>revealed that the secret court overseeing the spying, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court), has vastly expanded the ability of law enforcement to sidestep Fourth Amendment protections by redefining \"relevant.\"<i> </i>Can you explain how my call records are relevant to an authorized national security investigation? How are <i>all Americans' calling information </i>relevant?\n<p>5)   Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to obtain \"any tangible things\" that are relevant to an authorized national security investigation. Prior to this nomination, you were the Acting Attorney General of the Department of Justice and well versed in national security and constitutional law. Can you explain how \"any tangible things\" could include information that a communications company would not otherwise produce, record, or store in a tangible form?\n<p>6)   The top secret order compelling Verizon to give the NSA all Americans' calling information asks for calling information to be provided on an “ongoing, daily basis.” Yet, Section 215 only permits the production of “tangible things.” Can you explain how an order issued under Section 215 can compel the production of something that does not yet exist—indeed, the very definition of an <i>intangible </i>thing?\n<p>7)   In light of the revelations of widespread, dragnet, unconstitutional spying, are you personally satisfied that the government—Congress, the Bush and Obama Administrations, and the FISA court system—has disclosed enough about these domestic surveillance programs and the law that sustains them to meet the standards of the rule of law in a democratic society?\n<p> \n<p> \n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/mass-surveillance-technologies\">Mass Surveillance Technologies</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/patriot-act\">PATRIOT Act</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/transparency\">Transparency</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Questions+for+Comey%3A+Former+Top+DOJ+Attorney+Who+Oversaw+NSA+Spying+Under+Bush+is+Nominated+to+Become+Next+FBI+Director+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fquestions-comey-former-acting-attorney-general-bush-administration-who-oversaw-nsa\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fquestions-comey-former-acting-attorney-general-bush-administration-who-oversaw-nsa&t=Questions+for+Comey%3A+Former+Top+DOJ+Attorney+Who+Oversaw+NSA+Spying+Under+Bush+is+Nominated+to+Become+Next+FBI+Director\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fquestions-comey-former-acting-attorney-general-bush-administration-who-oversaw-nsa\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Questions+for+Comey%3A+Former+Top+DOJ+Attorney+Who+Oversaw+NSA+Spying+Under+Bush+is+Nominated+to+Become+Next+FBI+Director+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fquestions-comey-former-acting-attorney-general-bush-administration-who-oversaw-nsa\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Questions for Comey%3A Former Top DOJ Attorney Who Oversaw NSA Spying Under Bush is Nominated to Become Next FBI Director&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fquestions-comey-former-acting-attorney-general-bush-administration-who-oversaw-nsa\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fc0c91a69:2eb4cc6:b4edca20","originId":"74896 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"2abd8fa9","title":"Federal Judge Allows EFF's NSA Mass Spying Case to Proceed","published":1373326657000,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/press/releases/federal-judge-allows-effs-nsa-mass-spying-case-proceed","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Rebecca Jeschke","crawled":1373328972393,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div>Rejects Government's State Secret Privilege Claims in Jewel v. NSA and Shubert v. Obama</div></div></div><div><div><div><p>San Francisco - A federal judge today rejected the U.S. government's latest attempt to dismiss the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF's) long-running challenge to the government's illegal dragnet surveillance programs. Today's ruling means the allegations at the heart of the Jewel case move forward under the supervision of a public federal court.\n<p>\"The court rightly found that the traditional legal system can determine the legality of the mass, dragnet surveillance of innocent Americans and rejected the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege to have the case dismissed,\" said Cindy Cohn, EFF's Legal Director. \"Over the last month, we came face-to-face with new details of mass, untargeted collection of phone and Internet records, substantially confirmed by the Director of National Intelligence. Today's decision sets the stage for finally getting a ruling that can stop the dragnet surveillance and restore Americans' constitutional rights.\"\n<p>In the ruling, Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California federal court agreed with EFF that the very subject matter of the lawsuit is not a state secret, and any properly classified details can be litigated under the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As Judge White wrote in the decision, \"Congress intended for FISA to displace the common law rules such as the state secrets privilege with regard to matter within FISA's purview.\" While the court allowed the constitutional questions to go forward, it also dismissed some of the statutory claims. A status conference is set for August 23.\n<p>EFF's Jewel case is joined in the litigation with another case, Shubert v. Obama.\n<p>\"We are pleased that the court found that FISA overrides the state secrets privilege and look forward to addressing the substance of the illegal mass surveillance,\" said counsel for Shubert, Ilann Maazel of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &amp; Abady LLP. \"The American people deserve their day in court.\"\n<p>Filed in 2008, Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&amp;T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&amp;T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA. The case is supported by declarations from three NSA whistleblowers along with a mountain of other evidence. The recent blockbuster revelations about the extent of the NSA spying on telecommunications and Internet activities also bolster EFF's case.\n<p>For the full decision:<br><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/node/74895\">https://www.eff.org/node/74895</a>\n<p>For more on Jewel v. NSA:<br><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel\">https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel</a>\n<p>Contacts:\n<p>Cindy Cohn<br>\n   Legal Director<br>\n   Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>\n   cindy@eff.org\n<p>Kurt Opsahl<br>\n   Senior Staff Attorney<br>\n   Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>\n   kurt@eff.org\n<p>Lee Tien<br>\n   Senior Staff Attorney<br>\n   Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>\n   tien@eff.org\n</div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Federal+Judge+Allows+EFF%27s+NSA+Mass+Spying+Case+to+Proceed+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpress%2Freleases%2Ffederal-judge-allows-effs-nsa-mass-spying-case-proceed\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpress%2Freleases%2Ffederal-judge-allows-effs-nsa-mass-spying-case-proceed&t=Federal+Judge+Allows+EFF%27s+NSA+Mass+Spying+Case+to+Proceed\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpress%2Freleases%2Ffederal-judge-allows-effs-nsa-mass-spying-case-proceed\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Federal+Judge+Allows+EFF%27s+NSA+Mass+Spying+Case+to+Proceed+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpress%2Freleases%2Ffederal-judge-allows-effs-nsa-mass-spying-case-proceed\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Federal Judge Allows EFF%27s NSA Mass Spying Case to Proceed&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fpress%2Freleases%2Ffederal-judge-allows-effs-nsa-mass-spying-case-proceed\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fbfece021:2c890fd:b4edca20","originId":"74893 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"f4168b86","title":"Massachusetts' Legislature Considering a Step Forward, and Backward, for Privacy","published":1373311622000,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/massachusetts-legislature-considering-step-forward-and-backward-privacy","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Adi Kamdar and Adi Kamdar","crawled":1373314539553,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>When it comes to making progress around privacy, it's sometimes best to look at what individual states are doing. Unfortunately, faster legislative changes on the state level can be a double-edged sword. Massachusetts is the latest example: while they are considering a bill implementing strong warrant requirements around electronic communications, they are also looking to unnecessarily expand wiretap laws.\n<p>Following in the footsteps of Texas' <a href=\"http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB2268\">HB2268</a>, Massachusetts' Joint Committee on the Judiciary is about to vote on <a href=\"https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S796\">S.796</a>/<a href=\"https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H1684\">H.1684</a>. This bill, \"An Act updating privacy protections for personal electronic information,\" sets out strong warrant requirements when law enforcement wants access to your personal electronic information. This includes details around your emails and telephone calls, as well as your location information. The bill also features important reporting requirements, bringing transparency to such requests, and has carve-outs for specific situations such as emergencies. EFF supports this bill, and we <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/s796_eff_support_letter.pdf\">submitted written testimony (PDF)</a> urging Massachusetts legislators to vote in its favor.\n<p>Why are states taking action? Because federal laws are behind the times. The <a href=\"https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Privacy:_Statutory_Protections#Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act_of_1986\">Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)</a> was enacted in 1986 and has not kept up with technological changes. For example, it allows law enforcement to bypass warrant requirements for communications older than 180 days (a provision that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/cases/warshak-v-united-sta\">ruled in the <em>Warshak</em> case</a> violates the Fourth Amendment). While ECPA reform is urgently needed on the national level (and seems to be <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/ecpa-reform-continues-move-forward-today-hearing-house-and-movement-senate\">slowly moving forward</a>), it is heartening to see states getting on the fast track to protecting electronic privacy.\n<p>Unfortunately, Massachusetts is dragging, too. The legislature and attorney general are looking to <a href=\"https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S654\">expand the state's wiretapping powers (S.654)</a>. The bill allows law enforcement to wiretap individuals, roping in countless callers who are not suspected of being complicit in any sort of coordinated crimes. The bill also expands the type of crimes subject to wiretapping, no longer limiting the police from wiretapping only in the most serious and violent of criminal offenses.\n<p>As if that weren't enough, the bill strips the current law of its preamble, which includes language warning of the \"grave dangers to the privacy of all citizens of the commonwealth\" posed by law enforcement officials' use of electronic surveillance. The new bill's striking of such language transcends mere symbolism, leaving privacy protections on the cutting room floor. If it weren't obvious by now, <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/s654_eff_opposition_letter.pdf\">EFF strongly opposes this bill (PDF)</a>. And over 4,000 Massachusetts residents have spoken out against this bill in a coalition effort between EFF, <a href=\"http://aclum.org/\">ACLU of Massachusetts</a>, <a href=\"http://www.bordc.org/\">Bill of Rights Defense Committee</a>, <a href=\"http://www.demandprogress.org/\">Demand Progress</a>, <a href=\"http://www.warrantless.org/\">Digital Fourth</a>, and <a href=\"http://www.fightforthefuture.org/\">Fight for the Future</a>.\n<p>Massachusetts' warrant requirement bill is a very important step towards providing its residents with necessary privacy protections—especially when ECPA falls short. However, Masschusetts must not, at the same time, fall into the trap of greatly and unnecessarily expanding law enforcement's wiretap powers.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Files: </div><div><div><span><img title=\"application/pdf\" alt=\"\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png\"> <a type=\"application/pdf; length=489074\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/s796_eff_support_letter.pdf\">s796_eff_support_letter.pdf</a></span></div><div><span><img title=\"application/pdf\" alt=\"\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png\"> <a type=\"application/pdf; length=486658\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/s654_eff_opposition_letter.pdf\">s654_eff_opposition_letter.pdf</a></span></div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy\">Privacy</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/cell-tracking\">Cell Tracking</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/location-privacy\">Locational Privacy</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Massachusetts%27+Legislature+Considering+a+Step+Forward%2C+and+Backward%2C+for+Privacy+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fmassachusetts-legislature-considering-step-forward-and-backward-privacy\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fmassachusetts-legislature-considering-step-forward-and-backward-privacy&t=Massachusetts%27+Legislature+Considering+a+Step+Forward%2C+and+Backward%2C+for+Privacy\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fmassachusetts-legislature-considering-step-forward-and-backward-privacy\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Massachusetts%27+Legislature+Considering+a+Step+Forward%2C+and+Backward%2C+for+Privacy+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fmassachusetts-legislature-considering-step-forward-and-backward-privacy\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Massachusetts%27 Legislature Considering a Step Forward%2C and Backward%2C for Privacy&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fmassachusetts-legislature-considering-step-forward-and-backward-privacy\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fb01dbb13:bc8a34:1fba5d06","originId":"74857 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"d3dee8b3","title":"California's Open Access Bill Encounters A Hurdle, But Gathers Support","published":1373045562000,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/californias-open-access-bill-encounters-hurdle-gathers-support","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Adi Kamdar and Adi Kamdar","crawled":1373049305875,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>California's landmark open access bill, the California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act (AB 609), has stalled in the State Senate. But take heart—it is far from dead.\n<p>Due to some procedural glitches, the Senate Governmental Organization (G.O.) Committee hasn't been able to officially sign off on the bill. At last week's hearing, the bill <a href=\"http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml\">barely missed out on a quorum</a>, getting five yes votes and zero no votes. (The other members abstained.) However, the bill was granted reconsideration by the Chair of the G.O. That means the Committee will pick up the bill in January 2014, exactly where it left off.\n<p>That also means our work is far form over. This kind of delay can often be the vehicle for a slow, quiet death. But we, and the bill many other supporters, won't let that happen to open access.\n<p>In particular, we'll be fighting back against the <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/dont-believe-publishers-hype-support-open-access\">misinformation campaigns</a> being waged by certain large publishers. Over the next six months, we will be working to make it as clear as possible that public access to taxpayer funded research is more than just smart policy, financially feasible, and economically sound—it's an obvious step in the right direction.\n<p>The momentum is there. The bill <a href=\"http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml\">flew through</a> the State Assembly with a 71-7 bipartisan vote, and <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/ab-609-coalition-letter\">dozens of companies, publishers, and advocacy groups</a> have put their weight behind this important legislation. The diversity of support for this bill shows just how many folks would benefit from such legislation: Companies and startups could use and analyze research for downstream innovation; certain publishers have developed profitable business models on top of open access policies; advocacy groups and activists would receive not just the latest research, but also better understanding of how taxpayer money is being spent.\n<p>California is home to cutting edge research and ideas. We're not going to let the publishers <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt\">FUD</a> campaign keep that work locked up behind paywalls. Stay tuned for ways you can help.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/open-access\">Open Access</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=California%27s+Open+Access+Bill+Encounters+A+Hurdle%2C+But+Gathers+Support+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fcalifornias-open-access-bill-encounters-hurdle-gathers-support\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fcalifornias-open-access-bill-encounters-hurdle-gathers-support&t=California%27s+Open+Access+Bill+Encounters+A+Hurdle%2C+But+Gathers+Support\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fcalifornias-open-access-bill-encounters-hurdle-gathers-support\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=California%27s+Open+Access+Bill+Encounters+A+Hurdle%2C+But+Gathers+Support+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fcalifornias-open-access-bill-encounters-hurdle-gathers-support\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=California%27s Open Access Bill Encounters A Hurdle%2C But Gathers Support&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fcalifornias-open-access-bill-encounters-hurdle-gathers-support\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fa6b1134b:1a10f:eacbe387","originId":"74790 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"2a5c0169","title":"Weev's Case Flawed From Beginning to End","published":1372888846000,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/weevs-case-flawed-beginning-end","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Hanni Fakhoury","crawled":1372891190091,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>As Andrew \"Weev\" Auernheimer finishes his third month in a federal penitentiary, we <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/press/releases/appeal-filed-free-andrew-weev-auernheimer\">filed</a> our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/node/74804\">appeal</a> of the computer researcher's <a href=\"http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/att-hacker-found-guilty/\">conviction</a> and <a href=\"http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/att-hacker-gets-3-years/\">41-month prison sentence</a> for violating the <a href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030\">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</a> (CFAA) and <a href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028\">identity theft</a> statute on Monday.\n<p>Auernheimer's case is the latest chapter in the ongoing battle over the breadth of the CFAA, the sweeping federal anti-hacking law that has been stretched to cover all sorts of non-hacking behavior. Intended to go after <a href=\"http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57573985-38/from-wargames-to-aaron-swartz-how-u.s-anti-hacking-law-went-astray/\">malicious, criminal hacking</a>, the CFAA has been aggressively used to prosecute behavior like creating a <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-drew\">fake MySpace page</a>, <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/cases/u-s-v-nosal\">misusing employer data</a> and, in the case of <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/farewell-aaron-swartz\">Aaron Swartz</a>, downloading scholarly articles he was actually entitled to access.\n<p>Weev's conviction is a prime example of how the CFAA <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/cfaa-and-security-researchers\">threatens security researchers</a> with prison sentences for discovering security vulnerabilities.\n<p>Here's the back story. In 2010, Weev's co-defendant Daniel Spitler discovered AT&amp;T configured its website to automatically publish an iPad user's e-mail address when the server was queried with a URL containing the number that matched an iPad's SIM card ID. In other words, if anyone typed in the correct URL with a correct ID number, the e-mail address associated with that account would automatically appear in the login prompt. Spitler wrote a script that attempted to emulate the IDs by entering random numbers into the URL and, as a result, ultimately collected approximately 114,000 e-mail addresses. Auernheimer sent a list of the e-mail addresses to several journalists to prove the security problem, and <em>Gawker</em> published a <a href=\"http://gawker.com/5559346/apples-worst-security-breach-114000-ipad-owners-exposed\">story</a> about the vulnerability. \n<p>Although Auernheimer's actions helped motivate AT&amp;T to fix the hole, he was rewarded with a federal indictment instead of a <a href=\"http://www.itproportal.com/2013/06/20/microsoft-follows-google-and-facebook-with-100000-bug-bounty-programme/\">bounty.</a> Federal prosecutors in New Jersey claimed that Weev and Spitler accessed data—the e-mail addresses—without authorization under the CFAA despite the fact AT&amp;T made the information publicly available over the Internet. After Auernheimer was convicted and sentenced, we <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-joins-andrew-auernheimer-case-appeal\">joined his appeal team</a> and in our brief to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, we give five reasons why Auernheimer's conviction and sentence must be reversed. \n<p><strong>No Crime Occurred in New Jersey?</strong>\n<p>The place where a criminal case is brought<span>—</span>a concept known as \"venue\"<span>—</span>is typically where the crime occurred. At the time Spitler discovered the hole in AT&amp;T's website, he was in California. Auernheimer was in Arkansas. AT&amp;T's servers were in Georgia and Texas. Yet the government indicted Auernheimer in New Jersey. Its rationale? Of the 114,000 e-mail addresses, 4,500 of them, all of 4 percent, belonged to New Jersey residents. \n<p>Since neither Auernheimer or Spitler were in New Jersey, no computers were accessed in New Jersey and there was no evidence that any of the script's Internet traffic travelled through New Jersey, there was nothing connecting this crime to the Garden State. The government's theory about there being \"victims\" in New Jersey meant Weev could have been prosecuted in any state where a resident had an e-mail address taken.\n<p>This is a problem unique to the CFAA and other computer crime statutes. Given the Internet's ability to connect people and computers, this expansive theory of venue under the CFAA means criminal defendants could be dragged in to any court in any state. It allows prosecutors to \"forum shop,\" or bring the case before the court most likely to support the government's case.\n<p>That seems to be what happened here, as part of the government's motivation in charging Weev in New Jersey was to use the state's computer crime law to elevate his conduct from a misdemeanor into a felony.\n<p><strong>No Double-Counting</strong>\n<p>Accessing data without authorization under the CFAA is generally a misdemeanor but becomes a felony if done in furtherance of another crime. Here, the government charged Weev with a felony CFAA violation because they claimed he violated the federal computer access crime in furtherance of violating the state of <a href=\"http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the-new-jersey-code-of-criminal-justice/20-31.html\">New Jersey's computer access crime</a>.\n<p>But Congress never intended to allow prosecutors to essentially double-count one course of conduct. In 2011, we successfully argued to the 4th Circuit in <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-cioni\"><em>United States v. Cioni</em></a> that the government can't take one set of actions and stretch it into two different federal statutes to transform a CFAA misdemeanor into a felony. We've asked the 3rd Circuit to reach a similar decision when the feds use a state statute to increase punishment for a similar federal statute based on the same underlying conduct. Given the <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/3-months-or-35-years-understanding-cfaa-sentencing-part-1-why-maximums-matter\">tough CFAA penalty scheme</a>, it's important to reserve the toughest punishment for the most <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/rebooting-computer-crime-part-3-punishment-should-fit-crime\">serious crimes</a>.\n<p><strong>Accessing Data on a Public Website Isn't A Crime</strong>\n<p>The problems in Weev's case aren't just matters of procedure; there is a significant problem with the government's entire theory of liability under the CFAA. It makes visiting a public website a crime.\n<p>In essence, the government claims that Auernheimer and Spitler obtained the e-mail addresses \"without authorization\" under the CFAA because AT&amp;T didn't want them to have the addresses, despite putting absolutely no technical roadblock—such as requiring a login with a username and password—in their way. As we've <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/eff-access-public-website-not-crime\">warned before</a>, accessing data on a public website isn't criminal, even if the website owner doesn't like how their data is being used. The way to prevent people from accessing data is to restrict access to that data, not to claim some people who visit a website are \"authorized\" and others aren't without any clear mechanism for distinguishing between the two.\n<p><strong>An Identity Theft Charge Missing Unlawful Activity and Theft</strong>\n<p>The identity theft statute criminalizes anyone who unlawfully possesses, transfers or uses a means of identification in connection with another crime. But the government's theory is missing the unlawful activity needed in the statute. First, Auernheimer didn't unlawfully possess the e-mail addresses under the CFAA, meaning there was no underlying crime to hinge the identity theft statute on in the first place. Second, Auernheimer didn't possess or transfer the e-mail addresses in connection with a crime involving conduct separate from the act of obtaining the e-mail addresses. When he accessed the e-mail addresses under the CFAA, he necessarily possessed them under the identity theft statute too. And just like the government can't rely on one set of conduct to create a felony crime under the CFAA, it can't do the same under the identity theft statute either.\n<p><strong>Unreasonable Mailing Costs Isn't CFAA \"Loss\"</strong>\n<p>Finally, the 41-month sentence was based on an improper determination of what AT&amp;T's \"loss\" was as a result of the e-mail addresses being disclosed. After it learned its website was leaking e-mail addresses, AT&amp;T closed the hole and sent an e-mail to its customers, notifying them about what happened. That e-mail notice was very effective; it reached 98% of all affected customers. But AT&amp;T decided to also send the same notice through the postal mail. That cost AT&amp;T $73,000; it also cost Auernheimer a significant sentencing increase.\n<p>That $73,000 loss amount was used to more than double <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/41-months-weev-understanding-how-sentencing-guidelines-work-cfaa-cases-0\">Auernheimer's recommended sentence</a>. Yet \"loss\" under the CFAA must be tied to a computer and these mailing costs weren't. And even if the mailing costs did count as \"loss\" under the CFAA, the effectiveness of the e-mail notice meant duplicating that notice with a physical mailing made AT&amp;T's costs unreasonable.\n<p><strong>Its Not Just About Weev</strong>\n<p>We expect oral argument in the case to be sometime in the fall. We hope the appeals court will see the many problems in Auernheimer's case and realize these issues go beyond his specific case. Allowing AT&amp;T to pass the blame for its poor security onto Auernheimer only <a href=\"http://www.wired.com/business/2013/03/weev/\">discourages security researchers</a> from sharing their discoveries and arms prosecutors with aggressive legal theories to prosecute computer crimes anywhere they want based on information freely available to the public.\n<p>Meanwhile in DC, there's growing scrutiny of the CFAA. A recently introduced bipartisan fix of the CFAA called <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/aarons-law-introduced-now-time-reform-cfaa\">\"Aaron's Law\"</a> is a step in the right direction towards meaningful CFAA reform. The legislation makes clear that CFAA liability is only triggered with actual improper access and eliminates the government's ability to count one set of actions multiple times to increase punishment. You can let your voice be heard by sending an <a href=\"https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9005\">e-mail to your elected representative</a> asking them to support common sense changes to the CFAA.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/coders\">Coders' Rights Project</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa\">Computer Fraud And Abuse Act Reform</a></div></div></div><div><div>Related Cases: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-auernheimer\">U.S. v Auernheimer</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Weev%27s+Case+Flawed+From+Beginning+to+End+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fweevs-case-flawed-beginning-end\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fweevs-case-flawed-beginning-end&t=Weev%27s+Case+Flawed+From+Beginning+to+End\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fweevs-case-flawed-beginning-end\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Weev%27s+Case+Flawed+From+Beginning+to+End+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fweevs-case-flawed-beginning-end\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Weev%27s Case Flawed From Beginning to End&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fweevs-case-flawed-beginning-end\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true}]}

data/spec/fixtures/feed_info.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"website":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","id":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","subscribers":2441,"title":"Deeplinks","velocity":15.2}

data/spec/fixtures/markers.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"max":0,"unreadcounts":[{"id":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","count":9,"updated":1373935361457},{"id":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","count":6,"updated":1373326937104},{"id":"feed/http://emberjs.com/blog/feed.xml","count":1,"updated":1372889249574},{"id":"user/00000000-000-NOT-VALID-a29b6679bb3c/category/global.all","count":16,"updated":1373935361457},{"id":"user/00000000-000-NOT-VALID-a29b6679bb3c/category/global.uncategorized","count":16,"updated":1373935361457}]}

data/spec/fixtures/profile.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"client":"feedly","google":"100000052907423152000","familyName":"Super","gender":"male","reader":"10000000000000000000","email":"super@example.com","givenName":"Man","wave":"2013.11","id":"00000000-000-NOT-VALID-a29b6679bb3c","locale":"uk"}

data/spec/fixtures/subscriptions.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+[{"id":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks","website":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","categories":[],"updated":1373935361457},{"id":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","title":"Dave Cheney | Unsafe at any speed","website":"http://dave.cheney.net","categories":[],"updated":1373326937104},{"id":"feed/http://emberjs.com/blog/feed.xml","title":"Ember.js - Ember 1.0 Prerelease","website":"http://emberjs.com/blog","categories":[],"updated":1372889249574}]

data/spec/fixtures/tagged.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"id":"user/00000000-000-NOT-VALID-a29b6679bb3c/tag/global.saved","updated":0,"items":[{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe4eddd97:12f6b34:e95a5f49","originId":"75003 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"a630a89f","title":"The Times Profiles a Patent Troll","published":1373931257000,"crawled":1373935361431,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/times-profiles-patent-troll","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Daniel Nazer and Daniel Nazer","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>This weekend, the <em>New York Times</em> published a <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/has-patent-will-sue-an-alert-to-corporate-america.html\">fascinating portrait</a> of Erich Spangenberg of IPNav, who has been called one of \"one of the most notorious patent trolls in America.\" In the past five years, IPNav has sued 1,638 companies.\n<p>While the <em>Times</em>' profile includes many colorful details (such as the time Spangenberg purchased so much wine at a Christie's auction that it had to be delivered by an 18 wheel truck), this is not the important part of the story. What is far more important is the evidence that IPNav's business, and patent trolling more generally, is a huge tax on innovation.\n<p>Thanks to trolls like IPNav, the <em>Times</em> explains, U.S. companies are forced to spend upwards of $30 billion every year on patent litigation. Most of that money goes to troll profits and legal expenses, with less than 25 percent flowing to inventors. Even Spangenberg concedes that his business uses “the courts as a marketplace, and the courts are horribly inefficient and horribly expensive as a market.” Patent trolls like IPNav are a symptom of a fundamentally broken system.\n<p>In a <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/how-a-typical-patent-battle-took-an-unexpected-turn.html\">follow up article</a>, the <em>Times</em> tells the story of Peter Braxton and his app <a href=\"http://jumpropetheapp.com/\">Jump Rope</a>. In an <a href=\"http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2013/01/17/are-patent-trolls-now-zeroed-in-on-start-ups/\">all too common tale</a>, Braxton's promising start-up was devastated by a troll lawsuit (brought by a company not associated with IPNav). Even though Braxton won a clear victory at the district court, litigation costs were destroying his business. In exchange for a substantial equity stake in Braxton's company, IPNav agreed to handle the litigation. As the <em>Times</em> explained, this story suggests that “there is really only one way to deal with a patent bully: team up with a bigger bully.”\n<p>This is a terrible climate for innovation. We hope that media attention like this helps spur <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/legislative-solutions-patent-reform\">legislative reform</a>. We should create a patent system that doesn't squelch start-ups solely to enrich patent trolls. Erich Spangenberg doesn't need a seventh Lamborghini.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/innovation\">Innovation</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/patent\">Patents</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims\">Patent Trolls</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=The+Times+Profiles+a+Patent+Troll+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll&t=The+Times+Profiles+a+Patent+Troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=The+Times+Profiles+a+Patent+Troll+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=The Times Profiles a Patent Troll&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ftimes-profiles-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":false,"tags":[{"id":"user/00000000-000-NOT-VALID-a29b6679bb3c/tag/global.saved","label":""},{"id":"user/00000000-000-NOT-VALID-a29b6679bb3c/tag/global.read","label":"global.read"}],"actionTimestamp":1373946246300}]}

data/spec/fixtures/uncategoriezed.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"id":"user/00000000-000-NOT-VALID-a29b6679bb3c/category/global.uncategorized","updated":0,"items":[{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe4b6e72f:1243ffd:e95a5f49","originId":"74988 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"c04da56","title":"The EFF Guide to San Diego Comic-Con","published":1373927909000,"crawled":1373931759407,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/eff-guide-san-diego-comic-con","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Maass","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p><b><img height=\"350\" alt=\"\" align=\"right\" width=\"182\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images_insert/poi-keycard-toldja.jpg?itok=sbc7Vsv3\"></b>With the arrival of summer at EFF, you can hear the excitement in the stuffing of luggage and locking of office doors as our team prepares for some of the most important conventions in the world. <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/event/black-hat-briefings\">Black Hat</a> starts on July 27, with <a href=\"https://www.defcon.org/\">DEF CON</a> immediately after. But before those two kick off, there's <a href=\"https://secure.comic-con.org/cci\">San Diego Comic-Con</a>, the largest celebration of the popular arts. For the first time, an EFF staffer will be pounding the plush conference carpet (and maneuvering around cosplayers) to take the pulse of the entertainment industry and catch up with some of our friends and fans.\n<p>After all, the geeks and nerds and fan-kids at Comic-Con are our peeps. In preparation, we threw together this quick guide to the panels that are bound to engage anyone following our issues, whether that's surveillance, free speech, or intellectual property.\n<p>If you're a creator with a booth at Comic-Con, drop me an email at <a href=\"mailto:dm@eff.org\">dm@eff.org</a>, and I'll swing by with some swag (as long as it lasts). If you're doing something EFF-friendly, maybe we'll even feature your work on our Deeplinks blog.\n<p>A quick note in advance on information safety: It's easy to lapse into the comfort of trust that comes with mingling with 100,000 like-minded folks. Still, you should take some basic precautions. If you're logging onto public Wi-Fi, make sure you use <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere\">HTTPS Everywhere</a>. Remember also that paying for goods in cash is always safer than swiping your credit card through a mobile device. Finally, when you’re signing up on mailing lists, or trading personal information for goodies, make sure to read the fine print about how that information will be shared.\n<p>Now for the fun stuff.\n<h3><b><u>For the Surveillance-Heads</u></b></h3>\n<p>As the U.S. chases Edward Snowden and his trail of NSA documents around the world, it’s worth contemplating whether truth has finally proved itself stranger than fiction. How can sci-fi even keep up with real world? Two TV shows and a video game have panels that, at least in some way, will touch on the issue.\n<p><b>Intelligence: </b>Let's imagine all the spying power of the NSA and more: direct access to the global information grid, WiFi, cell phones, satellites, all channeled through the brain of Sawyer from <i>Lost</i>, or at least Josh Holloway, the actor who played the sly con-man. That’s the premise of <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://www.cbs.com/shows/intelligence/\"><i>Intelligence</i></a>, a show set to start airing in February 2014 on CBS. Holloway and other members of the cast, and its executive producers, will sit on a panel moderated by the president and editor-in-chief of <i>TV Guide</i>.  The booth on the convention floor will also feature a special “experience” with Google Glass.\n<p><a href=\"http://sched.co/1246Iat\">Thursday, July 18, 10am to 11am - Ballroom 20</a>\n<p><b>Person of Interest: </b>With the third season starting this call, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://www.cbs.com/shows/person_of_interest/\"><i>Person of Interest</i></a> is about what happens when you combine predictive technology with big-data collected through video surveillance—and the secret operatives who act on the information. There will be a Q&amp;A with the cast on Saturday, but supervising producer Amy Berg will also talk about the realities of the show as part of panel on “science” in “science fiction.”  The CBS show this year has also sponsored hotel key cards (see above) that capture the sentiment at EFF these days in the wake of the NSA leaks.\n<p><em>The Science of Science Fiction  - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/14UGZzt\">Thursday July 18,  6:30pm - 7:30pm - Room 24ABC</a>\n<p><em>Person of Interest Special Video Presentation and Q&amp;A - </em><a href=\"http://sched.co/14UGZzt\">Saturday July 20, 4:00pm - 4:45pm - Room 6BCF</a>\n<p><b>Watch_Dogs: Does Privacy Exist? </b>In this new, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://watchdogs.ubi.com/watchdogs/en-us/home/index.aspx\">cross-platform video game</a>, the user plays a hacker in Chicago with the power to manipulate the city’s digital infrastructure, including traffic signals and surveillance cameras. So-far unnamed security consultants are joining the lead story designer in a discussion about the technological truths (and stretches of truth) in the video game.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/18DO8K8\">Saturday July 20, 6:00pm - 7:00pm - Room 9 </a>\n<h3></h3>\n<h3><b><u>For the Legal Nerds</u></b></h3>\n<p>At EFF, we love the law like Browncoats love <i>Firefly</i>. So, of course we’re keeping an eyes on the robust legal programming at Comic-Con.\n<p><b>Comic Book Law School:  </b>Michael Lovitz, author of <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://prismcomics.org/profile.php?id=685\"><i>The Trademark and Copyright Book</i> </a>comic book, is leading a three-part series of panels on the intersection of intellectual property and pop culture. It’s designed for both creators and lawyers, with progressing levels of advancement—101, 202 and 303. (Bonus for attorneys: You’ll earn California MCLE credits.)  \n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246IqT\">Thursday</a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/10Eg63u\">Friday</a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/14UkZFj\">Saturday</a>, 10:30am - 12:00pm - Room 30CDE\n<p><b>Comic Book Legal Defense Fund</b>: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://cbldf.org/\">CBLDF</a> is a legal-nonprofit that joins us on the front lines of free-speech, standing up for comic-book artists wherever in the world they face oppression. This year, the organization is featuring a panel on manga in Japan and an in-depth, three-part examination of the most important courtroom battles over comics. In another panel, they’ll go over the list of comics banned from public libraries and gear up support for Banned Book Week (Sept. 22-28).\n<p><em>Banned Comics - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246Kz6\">Thursday, July 18, 12:00pm - 1:00pm - Room 30CDE</a>\n<p><em>Comics on Trial, Part 1, 2, 3 - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246IY5\">Thursday</a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/10EfP0F\">Friday</a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/18DNDjg\">Saturday</a> 1:00pm - 2:00pm - Room 30CDE\n<p><em>Defending Manga - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/14Ul3F8\">Saturday, July 20, 2013 12:00pm - 1:00pm - Room 30CDE</a>\n<p><em>Banned Comics Jam - </em><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/12OXhHg\">Sunday July 21, 12:15pm - 1:45pm - Room 5AB</a>\n<div>CBLDF will also have a welcome party on Thursday night. Details and RSVP <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.eventbrite.com/event/7429956199/?invite=&err=29&referrer=&discount=&affiliate=&eventpassword=\">here</a>.</div>\n<div></div>\n<p><b>Comics Arts Conference Session #12: Superman on Trial: The Secret History of the Siegel and Shuster Lawsuits: </b> The copyright dispute over Superman dates back more than 60 years, and only just in January received a major decision in the 9<sup>th</sup> U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A biographer and an intellectual-property professor will bring attendees up to speed on the case.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/12OXFWg\">Sunday July 21, 10:30am - 11:30am - Room 26AB</a>\n<h3></h3>\n<h3><b><u>For the Geektivists</u> </b></h3>\n<p>If you were to take a tour of EFF’s office, you’d immediately notice our love of activist art with the posters lining our halls and office walls. While the following panels don’t directly address digital issues, they do reflect how art can be a powerful tool in affecting change.\n<p><b>Comic-Con How-To: Social Practice: Guerilla Art Tactics for Sharing Your Vision with the World</b>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246LTG\">Thursday July 18, 3:00pm - 5:00pm - Room 2</a> <b> </b>\n<p><b>Black Mask: Bringing a Punk Rock Sensibility, Activism, and Wu-Tang to Comics</b>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246NLm\">Thursday July 18, 8:30pm - 9:30pm - Room 8 </a>\n<p><b>Comics Arts Conference Session #7: Heroes/Creators: The Comic Art Creations of Civil Rights Legends</b>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/10EfMSi\">Friday July 19, 2013 1:00pm - 2:00pm - Room 26AB</a>\n<h3><b><u> Friends of EFF</u></b></h3>\n<p><b>Ode to Nerds: </b>EFF fellow and Pioneer Award winner <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/about/staff/cory-doctorow\">Cory Doctorow</a> (whose young-adult novel <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://craphound.com/littlebrother/\"><i>Little Brother</i></a> is San Francisco's <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sfpl.org/index.php?pg=2000615601\">One City One Book</a> selection) joins io9.com writer and EFF buddy Charlie Jane Anders in a panel about nerd culture, featuring non-other than <i>Fight Club</i>’s Chuck Palahniuk. They'll be signing autographs at 3:15 p.m. as well in the Comic-Con Sails Pavillion.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/1246JeH\">Thursday, July 18, 1:45pm - 2:45pm - Room 6A</a>\n<p><b>Publishing SF/F in the Digital Age: </b> Doctorow, also a champion of DRM-free e-books, will join a panel of authors and booksellers discussing the evolution of fiction in an increasingly digital world.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/132tb7P\">Friday July 19, 7:00pm - 8:00pm - Room 25ABC</a>\n<p><b>Science Fiction That Will Change Your Life:  </b>Anders and io9 editor and former EFF staffer Annalee Newitz are leading a panel on the most inspiring science fiction of the past year.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/132tb7P\">Friday July 19, 6:45pm - 7:45pm - Room 5AB</a>\n<p><b>Adam and Jamie Look Toward the Future: </b>The <i>Mythbusters </i>team have long been supporters of EFF’s work and now’s the time to return the favor. We’ll be in line early to check out the show’s 10 year retrospective discussion and the duos plans moving forward.\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sched.co/10Egi2G\">Friday July 19, 7:00pm - 8:00pm - Room 6BCF</a>\n</div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=The+EFF+Guide+to+San+Diego+Comic-Con++https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con&t=The+EFF+Guide+to+San+Diego+Comic-Con+\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=The+EFF+Guide+to+San+Diego+Comic-Con++https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=The EFF Guide to San Diego Comic-Con &url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-guide-san-diego-comic-con\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe47fde69:11b1db1:e95a5f49","originId":"74964 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"529097cc","title":"EFF Addresses Protesters at San Francisco's \"Restore the Fourth\" Protest","published":1373914564000,"crawled":1373928152681,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/eff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Parker Higgins","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Hundreds of protesters gathered in San Francisco and thousands more in cities around the United States earlier this month in support of <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/restore-fourth-campaign-organizes-protests-against-unconstitutional-surveillance\">\"Restore the Fourth,\" a grassroots and non-partisan campaign dedicated to defending the Fourth Amendment</a>. The protests took aim in particular at the National Security Agency's unconstitutional dragnet surveillance programs, details of which have emerged in leaked documents over the past month.\n<p>\"Restore the Fourth\" isn't officially affiliated with any formal organizations, but given our shared goal of ending illegal spying on Americans, EFF had the opportunity to speak to the crowd. Below, you'll find a short video of some highlights from that speech, and the full text as prepared.\n<p><center><div><div><img height=\"250\" alt=\"mytubethumb\" width=\"400\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/mytube/yt_NNb0H3aKpt4.jpg\"><img alt=\"play\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/modules/mytube/play.png\"></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/02/embedded-video-and-your-privacy\">Privacy info.</a> This embed will serve content from <em><a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/NNb0H3aKpt4?rel=1&autoplay=1&wmode=opaque\">youtube.com</a></em><br></div></div></center>\n<blockquote><p>Hello everybody, and thank you for coming out here today to stand up for all of our Fourth Amendment rights. At EFF, we've been engaged in lawsuits about these secret and unconstitutional NSA programs for the better part of a decade, and we need the government to see that the American people are outraged.\n<p>Because nearly 250 years ago today, our founding fathers refused to live under tyranny and declared independence from their ruling government. The king, they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, had made it impossible to live under a rule of law.\n<p>A few years later they wrote the document that established the United States of America, our Constitution, and with it they published our Bill of Rights to protect the basic rights that every person in this country is entitled to.\n<p>The actions of the National Security Agency spying on Americans, revealed by a series of whistleblowers driven by conscience, represents a break from that tradition. And it's our duty not to allow that break. It's our duty as human beings, entitled to dignity and privacy, and it's our duty as Americans, protecting those rights not just for ourselves but for everybody who follows in our steps.\n<p>The Founders wrote the Fourth Amendment deliberately, with a specific purpose: to ensure that so-called \"general warrants\" were illegal. These general warrants were broad and unreasonable dragnets, requiring anyone targeted to forfeit their information to the government.\n<p>No, under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant needs to be specific. You need a particular target and probable cause.\n<p>Compare that with what we know the NSA is doing, and has been doing for years. Even now we can't know the full scope of what the government is doing when it claims to act in our names, but we know about these four programs:\n<ul><li>The NSA obtains the telephone records of every single customer of phone companies like Verizon. They try to brush that under the rug by saying it's \"just metadata,\" but the invasiveness of that metadata can be truly astonishing: every single call, who is on both ends, how long they spoke, and more.\n<li>The NSA in some cases obtains the actual content of phone calls, effectively listening in on private conversations.\n<li>The NSA taps the very basic infrastructure of our net, sucking up the raw data and storing it for who knows how long, doing who knows what kind of analysis to it.\n<li>The NSA obtains content from major tech companies, many of whom are based right here in this city, including videos, email messages and more, based on a 51% chance—a guess, basically—that the \"target\" of the investigation is a foreigner talking to somebody in the US.\n</ul><p>Make no mistake: these programs are illegal. These are illegal under the Fourth Amendment, which we celebrate here today, and they are propped up only by outrageous and dishonest readings of laws that violate Congress' intentions.\n<p>And when the Director of National Intelligence was asked about these illegal programs on the floor of Congress, he flat-out lied about them, to Congress and to the American people. Once again, this government is acting in our name, but it refuses even basic accountability for its actions.\n<p>You don't lie to Congress to hide programs if you believe that they're legal. That's why we're demanding a few steps to once and for all shine some light on the activities of the NSA.\n<p>We want a full, independent, public Congressional investigation into what the NSA is doing, and what it claims it's allowed to do.\n<p>We want the public to see the secret legal decisions, made in a secret court, about what kind of surveillance the government's doing.\n<p>We want the public to see the Inspector General Reports about these programs.\n<p>We want to see how the government justifies these programs—that means any other reports about how necessary and effective they are.\n<p>And most importantly, we want public courts to determine the legality of these programs.\n<p>We think public courts will see through the NSA's torturing of the English language, and see that it's searching all of us, and seizing our data, in ways that are absolutely unreasonable.\n<p>Once the courts have reviewed these programs, we want the dragnet surveillance to stop. No more bulk collection of Americans' communication records, and no more open access to the backbone of the Internet.\n<p>In 1975, after widespread illegal activity by the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee to examine that bad behavior and reign it in with new laws. It wasn't an easy road, but the Church Committee was able to establish some of the first real safeguards against these sorts of illegal activities. Frank Church was clear about why these were necessary:\n<p>If these agencies were to turn on the American people, Church said, \"no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.\"\n<p>Those are powerful words. But it's up to us to ensure that those words are a battle cry in the fight for our privacy, and not the epitaph on its grave.\n<p>The Fourth Amendment is there to protect us, but there comes a time when we have to step in and protect it. The NSA has treated the Fourth Amendment and the rest of the US Constitution like a suggestion they're free to ignore. Today, we stand up, and we let them know: that is unacceptable. We, the American people, will not let ourselves fall under tyranny, and we will not let government agencies establish the infrastructure for turnkey totalitarianism.\n<p>We will push back, we will fight, and we will do whatever it takes to restore the Fourth Amendment and the rest of the U.S. Constitution. Thank you all for coming out today to send that message.</blockquote>\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy\">Privacy</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=EFF+Addresses+Protesters+at+San+Francisco%27s+%22Restore+the+Fourth%22+Protest+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth&t=EFF+Addresses+Protesters+at+San+Francisco%27s+%22Restore+the+Fourth%22+Protest\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=EFF+Addresses+Protesters+at+San+Francisco%27s+%22Restore+the+Fourth%22+Protest+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=EFF Addresses Protesters at San Francisco%27s %22Restore the Fourth%22 Protest&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Feff-rallies-protesters-restore-fourth\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe35125e9:d7f955:c159ab3d","originId":"74875 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"61df9f7b","title":"Yahoo's Fight for its Users in Secret Court Earns the Company Special Recognition in Who Has Your Back Survey","published":1373905493000,"crawled":1373908313577,"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Each year, EFF’s <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013\">Who Has Your Back </a>campaign assesses the policies and practices of major Internet companies as a way to encourage and incentivize those companies <span>to take a stand for their users in the face of government demands for data. </span><span><span>Normally, when a compan</span></span><span><span>y demonstrates it has a policy or practice that advances user privacy, like fighting for its users in courts, we award the company a gold star. </span>Sometimes, even when companies stand up for their users, they're forbidden from telling us about it because of unduly restrictive secrecy laws or court orders prohibiting them from doing so. </span><p><span><img height=\"79\" width=\"85\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/images_insert/sparklystarnew.gif\"></span><span>Which, for the past six years, is <a href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0\">exactly what happened to Yahoo</a>. In honor and appreciation of the company’s silent and</span><span> thankle</span><span>s</span><span>s </span><span>battle for us</span><span>er privacy in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), EFF is proud to award Yahoo with a</span><span> star of sp</span><span>ecial d</span><span>istinction in our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013\">Who Has Your Back</a> survey for fighting for its users in (secret) courts.</span><p><span>In 2007, Yahoo received an order to produce user data under the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007\">Protect America Act</a> (the predecessor statute to the <a href=\"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008\">FISA Amendments Act</a>, the law on which the NSA’s</span><span> recently disclosed Prism program relies). Instead of blindly accepting the government’s constitutionally qu</span><span>estionable order, Yahoo fought back. The company challenged the legality of the order in the FISC, the secret surveillance court that grants government applications for surveillance</span><span>. And when the order was u</span><span>pheld by the FISC, Yahoo didn’t stop fighting: it appealed the decision to the Foreign Intelligenc</span><span>e </span><span>Surveillance Court of Review, a three-judge appellate court established to review decisions of the FISC.</span><p><span>Ultimately, the Court of Review <a href=\"https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr082208.pdf\">ruled against Yahoo</a>, upholding the constitutionality of the Protect America Act and ordering Yahoo to turn over the user data the government requested. The details of the data turned over, and even the full opinion of the Court of Review, remain secret (a redacted version of the court’s opinion was released in 2008). Indeed, the fact that Yahoo was involved in the case was a secret until the <em>New York Times </em><a href=\"http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/secret-court-declassifies-yahoos-role-in-disclosure-fight/\">revealed it</a> earlier this month. Following the <em>Times </em>article and <a href=\"http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/105b-g-07-01-motion-130614.pdf\">a new motion</a> for disclosure by Yahoo, the government <a href=\"http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/105b-g-07-01-motion-130625.pdf\">acknowledged</a> that more information could be made available about the case, including the fact that Yahoo was involved. </span><p><span>After six years of silence, Yahoo is finally able to speak publicly about its fight.</span><p><span>Yahoo went to bat for its users – not because it had to, and not because of a possible PR benefit – but because it was the right move for its users and the company. It’s precisely this type of fight – a secret fight for user privacy – that should serve as the gold standard for companies, and such a fight must be commended. While Yahoo still has a way to go in the other Who Has Your Back <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013\">categories</a> (and they remain the last major email carrier not using HTTPS encryption by default), Yahoo leads the pack in fighting for its users under seal and in secret.</span><p>Of course, it's possible more companies have challeneged this secret surveillance, but we just don't know about it yet. We encourage every company that has opposed a FISA order or directive to move to unseal their oppositions so the public will have a better understanding of how they've fought for their users.<p>Until then, we hope Yahoo's star will serve as a beacon for all companies: fighting for your users' privacy is the right thing to do, even if you can't let them know.<p> \n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Yahoo%27s+Fight+for+its+Users+in+Secret+Court+Earns+the+Company+Special+Recognition+in+Who+Has+Your+Back+Survey++https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition&t=Yahoo%27s+Fight+for+its+Users+in+Secret+Court+Earns+the+Company+Special+Recognition+in+Who+Has+Your+Back+Survey+\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Yahoo%27s+Fight+for+its+Users+in+Secret+Court+Earns+the+Company+Special+Recognition+in+Who+Has+Your+Back+Survey++https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Yahoo%27s Fight for its Users in Secret Court Earns the Company Special Recognition in Who Has Your Back Survey &url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fyahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"author":"Mark Rumold","alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/yahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition","type":"text/html"}],"origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fe161ce88:78394e:c159ab3d","originId":"74972 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"6f04dad6","title":"Bills Introduced by Congress Fail to Fix Unconstitutional NSA Spying","published":1373872618000,"crawled":1373875850888,"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>In the past two weeks Congress has introduced a slew of bills responding to the <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order\"><em>Guardian</em></a>'s publication of a <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/confirmed-nsa-spying-millions-americans\">top secret court order</a> using <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/foia/section-215-usa-patriot-act\">Section 215</a> of the PATRIOT Act to demand that Verizon Business Network Services give the National Security Agency (NSA)<i> </i>a record of <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/confirmed-nsa-spying-millions-americans\"><i>every</i> customer's call history</a><i> </i>for three months. The order was confirmed by officials like President Obama and Senator Feinstein, who said it was a \"routine\" 90 day reauthorization of a program started in 2007.\n<p>Currently, four bills have been introduced to fix the problem: one by <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/leahy-nsa-spying-fix\">Senator Leahy</a>, <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/sanders-nsa-spying\">Senator Sanders</a>, <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/udall-wyden-nsa-spying\">Senators Udall and Wyden</a>, and <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/document/conyers-nsa-spying-bill\">Rep. Conyers</a>. The well-intentioned bills try to address the Justice Department's (DOJ) abusive interpretations of Section 215 (more formally, <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861\">50 USC § 1861</a>) apparently approved by the reclusive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) in <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/foia/fisc-orders-illegal-government-sureveillance\">secret legal opinions</a>.\n<p>Sadly, all of them fail to fix the problem of unconstitutional domestic spying—not only because they ignore the <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/what-we-need-to-know-about-prism\">PRISM</a> program, which uses Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and collects Americans' emails and phone calls—but because the legislators simply don't have key information about how the government interprets and uses the statute. <em>Congress must find out more about the programs before it can propose fixes.</em> That's why a <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/campaign-end-nsa-warrantless-surveillance-surges-past-500000-signers\">coalition of over 100 civil liberties groups</a> and <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/stopwatching.us/?r=eff\">over half a million people</a> are pushing for a special congressional investigatory committee, more transparency, and more accountability.\n<h3>More Information Needed</h3>\n<p>The American public has not seen the secret law and legal opinions supposedly justifying the unconstitutional NSA spying. Just this week the <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0\"><i>New York Times </i></a>and <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344.html\"><i>Wall Street Journal</i></a> (paywall) reported that the secret law includes dozens of opinions—some of which are hundreds of pages long—gutting the Fourth Amendment. The special investigative committee must find out necessary information about the programs and about the opinions. Or, at the very least, extant committees like the Judiciary or Oversight Committees must conduct more open hearings and release more information to the public. Either way, the process must start with the publication of the secret legal opinions of the FISA Court, and the opinions drafted by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).\n<h3>Why the Legislation Fails to Fix Section 215</h3>\n<p>Some of the bills try to narrow Section 215 by heightening the legal standard for the government to access information. Currently, the FBI can obtain \"any tangible thing\"—including, surprisingly, intangible business records about Americans—that is \"relevant\"\n<blockquote><p>to an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a US person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities</blockquote>\n<p>with a statement of facts showing that there are \"reasonable grounds to believe\" that the tangible things are \"relevant\" to such an investigation. Bills by Rep. Conyers and Sen. Sanders attempt to heighten the standard by using pre-9/11 language mandating \"specific and articulable facts\" about why the FBI needs the records. Rep. Conyers goes one step further than Sen. Sanders by forcing the FBI to include why the records are \"material,\" or significantly relevant, to an investigation.\n<p>By heightening the legal standard, the legislators intend for the FBI to show exactly why a mass database of calling records is relevant to an investigation. But it's impossible to know if these fixes will stop the unconstitutional spying without knowing how the government defines key terms in the bills. The bills by Sen. Leahy and Sens. Udall and Wyden do not touch this part of the law.\n<h3>Failure to Stop the Unconstitutional Collection of \"Bulk Records\"</h3>\n<p>Sens. Udall, Wyden, and Leahy use a different approach; their bills mandate every order include why the records \"pertain to\" an individual or are \"relevant to\" an investigation. Collectively this aims—but most likely fails—to stop the government from issuing \"bulk records orders\" like the Verizon order. Senator Sanders travels a different path by requiring the government specify why \"each of\" the business records is related to an investigation; however, it's also unclear if this stops the spying. Yet again, Rep. Conyers bill provides the strongest language as it deletes ambiguous clauses and forces all requests \"pertain only to\" an individual; however even the strongest language found in these bills will probably not stop the unconstitutional spying.\n<h3>Legislators Are Drafting in the Dark</h3>\n<p>Unfortunately, legislators are trying to edit the statutory text before a thorough understanding of how the government is using key definitions in the bill or how the FISA Court is interpreting the statute. For instance, take the word \"relevant.\" The \"tangible thing\" produced under a Section 215 order must be \"relevant\" to the specific type of investigation mentioned above. But the Verizon order requires <i>every</i> Verizon customer's call history.\n<p>The <a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0\"><em>New York Times</em></a> confirmed the secret FISA court was persuaded by the government that this information is somehow relevant to such an investigation. The <i><a target=\"_self\" href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344.html\"><i>Wall Street Journal</i></a> </i>(paywall)<i>, </i>quoting \"people familiar with the [FISA Court] rulings\" wrote: \"According to the [FISA Court], the special nature of national-security and terrorism-prevention cases means 'relevant' can have a broader meaning for those investigations.\" Obviously, only severely strained legalese—similar to the Department of Justice's re-definition of \"<a href=\"http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite\">imminent</a>\"—could justify such an argument. And the Fourth Amendment was created to protect against this exact thing—vague, overbroad \"<a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/generalwarrantsmemo.pdf\">general warrants</a>\" (.pdf).\n<p>If \"relevant\" has been defined to permit bulk data collection, requiring more or better facts about <em>why</em> is unlikely to matter. Even Sen. Sanders's approach—which would require \"each\" record be related to an investigation—could fall short if \"relevance\" is evaluated in terms of the database as a whole, rather than its individual records. This is just one example of why the secret FISA Court decisions and OLC opinions must be released. Without them, legislators cannot perform one of their jobs: writing legislation.\n<h3>Congress Must Obtain and Release the Secret Law</h3>\n<p>The actions revealed by the government strike at the very core of our Constitution. Further, the majority of Congress is unaware about the specific language and legal interpretations used to justify the spying. Without this information, Congress can only legislate in the dark. It's time for Congress to investigate these matters to the fullest extent possible. American privacy should not be held hostage by secrecy. <a target=\"_self\" href=\"https://eff.org/fight-nsa\">Tell Congress now</a> to push for an special investigative committee, more transparency, and more accountability.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Bills+Introduced+by+Congress+Fail+to+Fix+Unconstitutional+NSA+Spying+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying&t=Bills+Introduced+by+Congress+Fail+to+Fix+Unconstitutional+NSA+Spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Bills+Introduced+by+Congress+Fail+to+Fix+Unconstitutional+NSA+Spying+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Bills Introduced by Congress Fail to Fix Unconstitutional NSA Spying&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fbills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"author":"Mark M. Jaycox","alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/bills-fail-fix-unconstitutional-nsa-spying","type":"text/html"}],"origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fd51f2b1e:18693:bb18093a","originId":"74976 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"722914c9","title":"Independent Game Developers: The Latest Targets of a Bad Patent Troll","published":1373667438000,"crawled":1373670157086,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/independent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Adi Kamdar and Adi Kamdar","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>A growing number of independent game developers have <a href=\"http://gamepolitics.com/2013/07/10/three-more-mmo-developers-receive-letters-treehouse-attorneys\">received demand letters</a> from Treehouse Avatar Technologies for allegedly violating patent <a href=\"https://www.google.com/patents/US8180858\">8,180,858</a>, a \"Method and system for presenting data over a network based on network user choices and collecting real-time data related to said choices.\" Essentially, this patent covers creating a character online, and having the game log how many times a particular character trait was chosen.\n<p>In other words, an unbelievably basic data analytics method was somehow approved to become a patent.\n<p>The patent troll, Treehouse, has surfaced before. Back in October 2012, <a href=\"http://www.joystiq.com/2012/10/12/treehouse-avatar-technologies-sues-turbine-over-a-patent-granted/\">the company sued Turbine</a>, developer of <em>Dungeons and Dragons Online</em> and Lord of the Rings Online.\n<p>This is a textbook patent troll case. Treehouse owns a very broad software patent but doesn't, it seems, make or manufacture anything itself. They simply send demands around or, in some cases, sue alleged infringers. And developers—most recently, independent game developers—lose out by being subject to lawyer fees, licensing fees, litigation costs, or the fear of implementing what seems to be a very basic, obvious feature to their product.\n<p>When trolls attack, innovation is stifled. For more on everything EFF is doing to change this reality, visit our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/patent\">patent issue page</a>.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/patent\">Patents</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims\">Patent Trolls</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Independent+Game+Developers%3A+The+Latest+Targets+of+a+Bad+Patent+Troll+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll&t=Independent+Game+Developers%3A+The+Latest+Targets+of+a+Bad+Patent+Troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Independent+Game+Developers%3A+The+Latest+Targets+of+a+Bad+Patent+Troll+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Independent Game Developers%3A The Latest Targets of a Bad Patent Troll&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Findependent-game-developers-latest-targets-bad-patent-troll\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fd011344c:e67890:9d82f563","originId":"74969 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"590afc53","title":"July 12: Call on Congress to Restore the Fourth Amendment","published":1373583117000,"crawled":1373585355852,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/july-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Rainey Reitman","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Over July 4<sup>th</sup>, thousands of people in cities across the United States <a href=\"http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/04/19287215-independence-day-nsa-leaks-inspire-fourth-amendment-rallies?lite\">rallied in defense of the Fourth Amendment</a>.\n<p>Tomorrow, Restore the Fourth – the grassroots, nonpartisan movement supporting the Fourth Amendment and opposing NSA spying – is taking the battle to the phones.  A number of Restore the Fourth chapters will be hosting a “Restore the Phone” event. They will be encouraging concerned citizens to call their members of Congress and demand transparency and reform of America’s domestic spying practices.\n<p>According to their <a href=\"http://www.restorethefourth.net/blog/restore-the-phones-tell-congress-this-isnt-over-and-a-look-at-future-activities/\">blog post</a>, Restore the Fourth intends to use Friday to draw the attention of Congress. They provide a suggested <a href=\"https://docs.google.com/document/d/190S5tUzQLl1kuu7ErBqgC57FUnZBjpX6TuDK_ypeXiE/edit\">script</a>  (Google doc) for callers which includes strong language against the NSA spying program:\n<blockquote><p>This type of blanket data collection by the government erodes essential and constitutionally protected American values. Furthermore, the body of secret surveillance law that has developed in an attempt to justify this type of domestic surveillance is antithetical to democracy. The NSA’s domestic spying program is not the American way. </blockquote>\n<p>We think that phone calls are among the most effective ways to make Washington hear the concerns of constituents. We’re proud to support this initiative, and urge our friends and members to join the call in day.\n<p>Here are two ways you can speak out (note, if you are outside of the United States you should <a href=\"https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9297\">go here to take our international alert</a>).\n<ol start=\"1\"><li>Dial <strong>1-STOP-323-NSA</strong> (1-786-732-3672). The automated system will connect you to your legislators. Urge them to provide public <strong>transparency</strong> about NSA spying and <strong>stop</strong> warrantless wiretapping on the communications of millions of ordinary Americans. Visit <a href=\"http://callday.org\">CallDay.org</a> for more info.\n<li>Visit <a href=\"https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9311\">the EFF action center</a>. We will look up the phone number of your elected officials. Call them and tell them you oppose NSA’s spying programs.\n</ol><p>And when you’ve finished calling Congress, remember to spread the word on social media and add your name to the <a href=\"https://optin.stopwatching.us/?r=eff\">Stop Watching Us campaign</a>.\n<p><i>Important notes about your privacy</i>: we’ve required that the automated tools above promise to protect your privacy by insisting that your phone number be used for this campaign and nothing else unless you request additional contact. If you don’t want your information processed by the automatic calling tools, use <a href=\"https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9311\">the EFF page</a> to get a phone number and call directly. Learn more by visiting the privacy policies of <a href=\"http://www.fightforthefuture.org/privacy\">Fight for the Future</a> and <a href=\"http://www.twilio.com/legal/privacy\">Twilio</a>.\n<p> \n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=July+12%3A+Call+on+Congress+to+Restore+the+Fourth+Amendment+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment&t=July+12%3A+Call+on+Congress+to+Restore+the+Fourth+Amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=July+12%3A+Call+on+Congress+to+Restore+the+Fourth+Amendment+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=July 12%3A Call on Congress to Restore the Fourth Amendment&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fjuly-12-call-congress-restore-fourth-amendment\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fce8fa561:a89090:60f5fbac","originId":"74954 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"ee3e5b9b","title":"Reform the FISA Court: Privacy Law Should Never Be Radically Reinterpreted in Secret","published":1373492532000,"crawled":1373560087905,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/fisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Trevor Timm","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Since the <i>Guardian</i> and <i>Washington Post</i> started published secret NSA documents a month ago, the press has finally started digging into the operations of ultra-secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, which is partly responsible for the veneer of legality painted onto the NSA’s domestic surveillance programs. The new reports are quite disturbing to anyone who cares about the Fourth Amendment, and they only underscore the need for major reform.\n<p>As the <i>New York Times</i> <a href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all\">reported on its front page</a> on Sunday, “In more than a dozen classified rulings, the nation’s surveillance court has created a secret body of law giving the <a title=\"More articles about National Security Agency, U.S.\" href=\"http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_security_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org\">National Security Agency</a> the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans.” The court, which was originally set up to just approve or deny wiretap requests now “has taken on a much more expansive role by regularly assessing broad constitutional questions and establishing important judicial precedents,” with no opposing counsel to offer counter arguments to the government, and rulings that cannot be appealed outside its secret structure. “It has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court,” reported the <i>Times</i>.\n<p><i>The Wall Street Journal</i> <a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html\">reported on one of the court’s</a> most controversial decisions (or at least one of the controversial decisions we know of), in which it radically re-interpreted the word “relevant” in Section 215 of the Patriot Act to allow for the dragnet collection of every phone call record in the United States.\n<p>The <i>Journal</i> explained:\n<blockquote><p>The history of the word \"relevant\" is key to understanding that passage. The Supreme Court in 1991 said things are \"relevant\" if there is a \"reasonable possibility\" that they will produce information related to the subject of the investigation. In criminal cases, courts previously have found that very large sets of information didn't meet the relevance standard because significant portions—innocent people's information—wouldn't be pertinent.\n<p>But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, has developed separate precedents, centered on the idea that investigations to prevent national-security threats are different from ordinary criminal cases. The court's rulings on such matters are classified and almost impossible to challenge because of the secret nature of the proceedings.</blockquote>\n<p>Essentially, the court re-defined the word “relevant” to mean “anything and everything.” Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall explained two years ago on the Senate floor that Americans would be shocked if they knew how the government was interpreting the Patriot Act. This is exactly what they were talking about.\n<p>It’s likely the precedent laid down in the last few years will stay law for years to come if the courts are not reformed. FISA judges <a href=\"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/chief-justice-roberts-is-awesome-power-behind-fisa-court.html\">are appointed by one unelected official</a> who holds lifetime office: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under current law, for the coming decades, Chief Justice John Roberts will solely decide who will write the sweeping surveillance opinions few will be allowed to read, but which everyone will be subject to.\n<p>Judge James Robertson was once one of those judges. He was appointed to the court in the mid-2000s. He confirmed yesterday for the first time that he resigned in 2005 in protest of the Bush administration illegally bypassing the court altogether. Since Robertson retired, however, the court has transitioned from being ignored to wielding enormous, undemocratic power.\n<p>“What FISA does is not adjudication, but approval,” <a href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jul/09/fisa-courts-judge-nsa-surveillance\">Judge Robertson said</a>. “This works just fine when it deals with individual applications for warrants, but the [FISA Amendments Act of 2008] has turned the FISA court into administrative agency making rules for others to follow.”\n<p>Under the FISA Amendments Act, \"the court is now approving programmatic surveillance. I don't think that is a judicial function.” He continued, \"Anyone who has been a judge will tell you a judge needs to hear both sides of a case…This process needs an adversary.\"\n<p>No opposing counsel, rulings handed down in complete secrecy by judges appointed by an unelected official, and no way for those affected to appeal. As <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/07/secret-government?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/america_against_democracy\"><i>The Economist </i>stated</a>,  “Sounds a lot like the sort of thing authoritarian governments set up when they make a half-hearted attempt to create the appearance of the rule of law.”\n<p>This scandal should precipitate many reforms, but one thing is certain: FISA rulings need to be made public so the American people understand how courts are interpreting their constitutional rights. The very idea of democratic law depends on it.\n<p> \n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><div>Related Cases: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel\">Jewel v. NSA</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Reform+the+FISA+Court%3A+Privacy+Law+Should+Never+Be+Radically+Reinterpreted+in+Secret+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret&t=Reform+the+FISA+Court%3A+Privacy+Law+Should+Never+Be+Radically+Reinterpreted+in+Secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Reform+the+FISA+Court%3A+Privacy+Law+Should+Never+Be+Radically+Reinterpreted+in+Secret+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Reform the FISA Court%3A Privacy Law Should Never Be Radically Reinterpreted in Secret&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fcba8781f:293db4:60f5fbac","originId":"74961 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"d99fead3","title":"Online and Off, Information Control Persists in Turkey","published":1373507068000,"crawled":1373511383071,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/online-and-information-control-persists-turkey","type":"text/html"}],"author":"EFF Intern","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>By Greg Epstein, EFF and <a href=\"http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/\">Global Voices Advocacy</a> Intern\n<p>Demonstrators in Turkey have occupied Istanbul’s Taksim Square since last May, in a movement that began as an effort to protect a city park, but has evolved into a larger mobilization against the ruling party’s increasingly autocratic stance.\n<p>Prime Minister Erdogan and the ruling AKP party have used many tools to silence voices of the opposition. On June 15, police began using <a href=\"http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/06/30/Police-use-tear-gas-water-cannons-in-Turkey-protests/UPI-13041372608490/\">tear gas and water cannons</a> to clear out the large encampment in the park. But this effort also has stretched beyond episodes of physical violence and police brutality into the digital world, where information control and media intimidation are on the rise.\n<p>Since the protests began, dozens of Turkish social media users <a href=\"http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/06/07/as-protests-continue-turkey-cracks-down-on-twitter-users/\">have been detained</a> on charges ranging from <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/turkey-cracks-down-on-twitter-users/article4784440.ece\">inciting demonstrations, to spreading propaganda</a> and <a href=\"http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/world/europe/turkey-protests/\">false information</a>, to <a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/turkey-investigates-social-media_n_3509365.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology\">insulting government officials</a>. Dozens more Twitter users were reportedly arrested for posting images of <a href=\"http://www.businessinsider.com/turkish-police-arrest-twitter-users-2013-6\">police brutality</a>, though the legal pretense for these arrests is unclear. A recent ruling in an Ankara court ordered 22 demonstrators detained on <a href=\"http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/06/201362216245060913.html\">terrorism-related charges</a>.\n<p>Prime Minister Erdogan made his view of social media known when he described social media as “<a href=\"http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/03/turkey_protests_prime_minister_erdogan_blames_twitter_calls_social_media.html\">the worst menace to society</a>” at a June press conference. It is worth noting that <a href=\"http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/turkey/130629/turkey-twitter-facebook-social-media-erdogan-taksim-bbc-turkce#1\">Erdogan himself is said to maintain a Twitter account with over 3 million followers and 2,000 tweets</a> (some Turks question whether the unverified account is really him, or an unofficial supporter.) While the Turkish government has had <a href=\"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/18/turkey-vows-to-strengthen-police-powers/2433709/\">limited</a>, <a href=\"http://blogs.wsj.com/middleeast/2013/06/03/amid-turkey-unrest-social-media-becomes-a-battleground/\">if any</a>, involvement in tampering with social media access thus far, government officials appear eager to take further action.\n<p><strong>Roots in traditional media</strong>\n<p>Although current circumstances appear to be testing the limits of Turkey’s information policy framework, the country has a long history of restrictive media policy and practice. In 2013, Turkey ranked <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1054\">154 out of 166</a> on the Reporters Without Borders’ Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index, due in part to the fact that since 1992 <a href=\"http://cpj.org/killed/europe/turkey/\">18 journalists have been murdered</a> there, 14 with impunity. In responding to protest coverage, authorities have <a href=\"http://www.cpj.org/2013/06/turkey-fines-tv-stations-in-connection-with-protes.php\">fined</a>, <a href=\"http://www.cpj.org/2013/06/in-crackdown-on-dissent-turkey-detains-press-raids.php\">detained</a> and even <a href=\"http://www.cpj.org/2013/06/journalists-detained-beaten-obstructed-in-istanbul.php\">beaten</a> members of the press. Institutional censorship has also been prevalent: When clashes between protesters and police escalated, activists noted that <a href=\"http://news.yahoo.com/pinned-under-governments-thumb-turkish-media-covers-penguins-124645832.html\">CNN Turk</a> aired a documentary on penguins <a href=\"http://www.dailydot.com/news/cnn-turk-istanbul-riots-penguin-doc-social-media/\">while CNN International</a> ran live coverage of the events in Taksim Square.\n<p><span>Dubbed the “</span><span><a href=\"https://en.rsf.org/turkey-turkey-world-s-biggest-prison-for-19-12-2012,43816.html\">the world’s biggest prison for journalists</a></span><span>” by Reporters Without Borders, Turkey has been particularly aggressive in </span><span><a href=\"http://www.opendemocracy.net/anna-bragga/turkey-media-crisis-how-anti-terrorism-laws-equip-war-on-dissent\">arresting Kurdish journalists under Turkey’s anti-terrorism law</a></span><span> known as Terörle Mücadele Yasası.</span>\n<p><strong>Controlling digital expression</strong>\n<p>As of 2012, <a href=\"http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/icteye/DisplayCountry.aspx?code=TUR\">45% of Turkey’s population</a> had regular access to the Internet. The country’s leading ISP, <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_Telekom\">Türk Telekom (TT)</a>, formerly a government-controlled monopoly, was privatized in 2005 but retained a <a href=\"https://opennet.net/research/profiles/turkey#footnote6_oj6yz7g\">95% percent market share in 2007</a>. Türk Telekom also controls the country’s only commercial backbone.\n<p><a href=\"http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.5651&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=\">Internet Law No. 5651</a>, passed in 2007, <a href=\"http://sites.psu.edu/comm410censorshipinturkey/literature-review/\">prohibits online content</a> in eight categories including <a href=\"https://opennet.net/research/profiles/turkey\">prostituion, sexual abuse of children, facilitation of the abuse of drugs, and crimes against (or insults to) Atatürk</a>. The law authorizes the Turkish Supreme Council for Telecommunications and IT (TIB) to block a website when it has “adequate suspicion” that the site hosts illegal content. In 2011, the Council of Europe’s <a href=\"https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1814085\">Commissioner for Human Rights</a> reported that 80% of online content blocked in Turkey was <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turkey-turkey-11-03-2011,39758.html\">due to decisions made by the TIB</a>, with the remaining 20% being blocked as the result of orders by Turkey’s traditional court system. In 2009 alone, nearly <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/surveillance-turkey,39758.html\">200 court decisions</a> found TIB decisions to block websites unjustifiable because they fell outside the scope of Law 5651. The law also has been criticized for authorizing takedowns of entire sites when only a small portion of their content stands in violation of the law.\n<p>Between 2008 and 2010, YouTube was blocked in its entirety under Law 5651 because of specific videos that fell into the category of “crimes against Atatürk”. During this period, YouTube continued to be the <a href=\"http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2008/11/27/tdn-banned-youtube-still-in-top-10-in-turkey/\">10th most visited site</a> in Turkey, with users accessing the site through proxies. The ban was eventually lifted when YouTube removed the videos in question and came under compliance with Turkish law. Sites likes Blogspot, Metacafe, Wix and others have gone through similar ordeals in Turkey in recent years. An estimated <a href=\"http://engelliweb.com/\">31,000 websites are blocked</a> in the country.\n<p>In December 2012, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/european-human-rights-court-finds-turkey-violation-freedom-expression\">found</a> that Turkey had violated their citizen’s right to free expression by blocking <a href=\"http://sites.google.com\">Google Sites</a>. While Turkey justified the ban based on Sites’ hosting of websites that violated Law 5651, the ECHR found that Turkish law did not allow for “wholesale blocking of access” to a hosting provider like Google Sites. Furthermore, Google Sites had not been informed that it was hosting “illegal” content.\n<p>In 2011, Turkey <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/week-internet-censorship-opaque-censorship-turkey-russia-and-britain\">proposed a mandatory online filtering system</a> described as an effort to protect minors and families. This new system, dubbed Güvenli İnternet, or Secure Internet, would block any website that contained keywords from a list of <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turkey-online-censorship-now-bordering-on-29-04-2011,40194.html\">138 terms</a> deemed inappropriate by telecom authority BTK. The plan was met with public backlash and <a href=\"http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9216750/Protests_in_Turkey_against_Internet_controls\">protests</a> causing the government to re-evaluate the system and eventually offer it as an opt-in service. While only <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turkey-turkey-12-03-2012,42065.html\">22,000 of Turkey’s 11 million Internet users</a> have so far opted for the system, opponents of Güvenli İnternet decry it as a <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turquie-new-internet-filtering-system-02-12-2011,41498.html\">form of censorship, </a><a href=\"http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.rsf.org%2Fturquie-new-internet-filtering-system-02-12-2011%2C41498.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGpw5o8xnE47-LjuK_fvBbtgt5Row\">disguised </a><a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turquie-new-internet-filtering-system-02-12-2011,41498.html\">as an effort to protect children</a> and families from “objectionable content”.\n<p><strong>New policies could further restrict social networks</strong>\n<p>As the protests continue, the Turkish government is working to use legal tools already at its disposal to increase control over social network activity. Transportation and Communications Minister Binali Yildirim has called on Twitter to establish a <a href=\"http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/net-us-turkey-protests-twitter-idUSBRE95P0XC20130626\">representative office within the country</a>. Legally, this could give the Turkish government greater ability to obtain user data from the company. But these requests have not received a warm response from Twitter, which has developed a <a href=\"https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fwho-has-your-back-2013&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEv4KpiTWJHxBwMpjfO3nW7kaiNHw\">reputation for protecting user data</a> in the face of government requests. While Twitter has “<a href=\"http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/minister-says-twitter-turned-down-cooperation-offer-over-turkey-protests.aspx?pageID=238&nID=49496&NewsCatID=374\">turned down</a>” requests from the Turkish government for user data and general cooperation, Minister Yildirim stated that Facebook had <a href=\"http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/facebook-and-twitter-refuse-to-cooperate-with-turkish-govt-crackdown-on-protesters/\">responded “positively</a>”. Shortly thereafter, Facebook published a <a href=\"https://newsroom.fb.com/fact-check\">“Fact Check”</a> post that denied cooperation with Turkish officials.\n<p>Turkey’s Interior Minister Muammer Güler told journalists that “<a href=\"http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/governement-working-on-draft-to-restrict-social-media-in-turkey.aspx?pageID=238&nID=48982&NewsCatID=338#.UcCVIc-KyUs.twitter\">the issue [of social media] needs a separate regulation</a>” and Deputy <a href=\"http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=111568\">Prime Minister Bozdag stated that the government had no intention of placing an outright ban</a> on social media, but indicated a desire to <a href=\"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-20/turkey-announces-plan-to-restrict-fake-social-media-accounts.html\">outlaw “fake” social media accounts</a>. Sources have confirmed that the <a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/turkey-investigates-social-media_n_3509365.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology\">Justice Ministry is conducting research and drafting legislation on the issue</a>.\n<p>New media expert Ozgur Uckan of Istanbul’s Bilgi University <a href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/06/26/195889178/thanks-but-no-social-media-refuses-to-share-with-turkey\">noted that</a> “censoring social media sites presents a technical challenge, and that may be why officials are talking about criminalizing certain content, in an effort to intimidate users and encourage self-censorship.”\n<p>While the details of <a href=\"http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action;jsessionid=F3B400500B268D2945E03E7F4BF27331?newsId=318800&columnistId=0\">these new laws </a>remain to be seen, it is likely that they will have some impact on journalistic and activist activities in the country, especially in times of rising public protest and dissent.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/free-speech\">Free Speech</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers-under-fire\">Bloggers Under Fire</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/international\">International</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Online+and+Off%2C+Information+Control+Persists+in+Turkey+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey&t=Online+and+Off%2C+Information+Control+Persists+in+Turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Online+and+Off%2C+Information+Control+Persists+in+Turkey+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Online and Off%2C Information Control Persists in Turkey&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fcab0b34e:7a49e:9d82f563","originId":"74936 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"73850e04","title":"NSA Leaks Prompt Surveillance Dialogue in India","published":1373493485000,"crawled":1373495145294,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/nsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Jillian C. York","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p dir=\"ltr\"><em>This is the 8th article in our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spy-without-borders\">Spies Without Borders</a></em> <em>series. The series looks at how the information disclosed in the NSA leaks affect internet users around the world.</em>\n<p dir=\"ltr\">As we have discussed throughout our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spy-without-borders\">Spies Without Borders</a> series, the backlash against the NSA’s global surveillance programs has been strong. From <a href=\"http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/us-government-surveillance-bad-for-silicon-valley-bad-for-democracy-around-the-world/277335/\">Germany</a>, where activists demonstrated against the mass spying, to <a href=\"http://madamasr.com/content/america%E2%80%99s-prism-our-fears-digital-age-come-true\">Egypt</a>—allegedly one of the NSA’s <a href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining\">top targets</a>—where the reaction is largely the same: “<a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/world-us-congress-im-not-american-i-have-privacy-rights\">I’m not American, but I have rights too</a>.”\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Indian commentators are no exception. A piece in the <em>Financial Times</em> stated that the revelations highlighted the “<a href=\"http://www.ft.com/cms/s/04b972d8-e59b-11e2-ad1a-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F04b972d8-e59b-11e2-ad1a-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fnews%2F2013-07-08%2Findians-see-a-gift-in-nsa-leaks.html#axzz2YRT5XQVr\">moral decline of America</a>,” while another in the <em>Hindu</em> <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/indias-cowardly-display-of-servility/article4874219.ece\">berated India</a> for its “servility” toward the U.S.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">But the revelations about the NSA’s spying activities have also created an opportunity for Indian activists to speak out about their own country’s practices. As Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director for the Centre for Internet &amp; Society <a href=\"http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-13/news/39952596_1_nsa-india-us-homeland-security-dialogue-national-security-letters\">argues in a piece for the <em>Economic Times</em></a>, Indian surveillance laws and practices have been “far worse” than those in the U.S. Writing for <em>Quartz</em>, Nandagopal J. Nair <a href=\"http://qz.com/99019/no-call-email-or-text-will-be-safe-from-indias-surveillance-network/\">agrees</a>, saying that “India’s new surveillance network will make the NSA green with envy.”\n<p dir=\"ltr\">The U.S. has in fact refused Indian requests for real-time access to internet activity routed through U.S.-based Internet sites, and U.S. companies have also <a href=\"http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280094658/Google-refuses-access-to-Gmail-encryption-for-Indian-government\">stood up to privacy-violating demands</a>. Other companies, such as RIM—the company that owns BlackBerry—have <a href=\"http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-10-29/news/34798663_1_interception-solution-blackberry-interception-blackberry-services\">cooperated with the Indian government</a>.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Regulatory privacy protections in India are weak: Telecom companies are required by license to provide data to the government, and the use of encryption is <a href=\"https://www.dot.gov.in/isp/internet-licence-dated%2016-10-2007.pdf\">extremely limited</a>. As we <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/disproportionate-state-surveillance-violation-privacy\">have previously explained</a>, India service providers are required to ensure that bulk encryption is not deployed. Additionally, no individual or entity can employ encryption with a key longer than 40 bits. If the encryption surpasses this limit, the individual or entity will need prior written permission from the Department of Telecommunications and must deposit the decryption keys with the <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/License%20Agreement%20for%20Provision%20of%20Internet%20Services%20Section%202.2%20(vii)\">Department</a>. The limitation on encryption in India means that technically any encrypted material over 40 bits would be accessible by the State. Ironically, the Reserve Bank of India issues security recommendations that banks should use strong encryption as higher as 128-bit for securing browser. In addition to such limitations on the use of encryption, commentators have also <a href=\"http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Concerns-over-central-snoop/Article1-1083658.aspx\">raised concerns</a> about the process for lawful intercept.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">The <a href=\"http://qz.com/99019/no-call-email-or-text-will-be-safe-from-indias-surveillance-network/\">latest attempt</a> at surveillance by the Indian government has been <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indias-surveillance-project-may-be-as-lethal-as-prism/article4834619.ece\">roundly criticized</a> as “more intrusive” than the NSA’s programs. In the <em>New York Times</em>, Prakash <a href=\"http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/how-surveillance-works-in-india/\">explained</a> the new program, the Centralized Monitoring System or C.M.S.:\n<blockquote><p dir=\"ltr\">With the C.M.S., the government will get <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indias-surveillance-project-may-be-as-lethal-as-prism/article4834619.ece\">centralized access to all communications metadata and content</a> traversing through all telecom networks in India. This means that the government can listen to all your calls, track a mobile phone and its user’s location, read all your text messages, personal e-mails and chat conversations. It can also see all your Google searches, Web site visits, usernames and passwords if your communications aren’t encrypted.\n</blockquote>\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Notably, India does not have laws allowing for mass surveillance; rather, lawful intercept is covered under the archaic Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 [<a href=\"http://www.ijlt.in/pdffiles/Indian-Telegraph-Act-1885.pdf\">PDF</a>] and the <a href=\"http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=185999\">Information Technology Act of 2000</a> (IT Act). Under both laws, interception must be time-limited and targeted.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">In the <em>Times</em> piece, Prakash also lambasts the IT Act, which he says “very substantially lowers the bar for wiretapping.”  \n<p dir=\"ltr\">All of this points to the fact that our fight for privacy is a shared global challenge; or as a columnist for India’s Sunday Guardian <a href=\"http://www.sunday-guardian.com/technologic/your-freedom-has-just-left-the-building\">recently put it</a>: “We're all now citizens of the surveillance state.”\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/international\">International</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/surveillance-human-rights\">State Surveillance &amp; Human Rights</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=NSA+Leaks+Prompt+Surveillance+Dialogue+in+India+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india&t=NSA+Leaks+Prompt+Surveillance+Dialogue+in+India\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=NSA+Leaks+Prompt+Surveillance+Dialogue+in+India+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=NSA Leaks Prompt Surveillance Dialogue in India&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"BNU7PBBhwHi0trgjATqXMRVLGGikmyZQMhiBOKF3WjM=_13fc0aa0b96:2e660ce:b4edca20","originId":"http://dave.cheney.net/?p=672","fingerprint":"a19ae370","keywords":["Go","Programming","cgo","cross compilation","cross compile"],"content":{"content":"<p>This post is a compliment to one I wrote in <a title=\"An introduction to cross compilation with Go\" href=\"http://dave.cheney.net/2012/09/08/an-introduction-to-cross-compilation-with-go\">August of last year</a>, updating it for Go 1.1. Since last year tools such as <a title=\"goxc\" href=\"http://www.laher.net.nz/goxc/\">goxc</a> have appeared which go a beyond a simple shell wrapper to provide a complete build and distribution solution.\n<h1>Introduction</h1>\n<p>Go provides excellent support for producing binaries for foreign platforms without having to install Go on the target. This is extremely handy for testing packages that use build tags or where the target platform is not suitable for development.\n<p>Support for building a version of Go suitable for cross compilation is built into the Go build scripts; just set the <code>GOOS</code>, <code>GOARCH</code>, and possibly <code>GOARM</code> correctly and invoke <code>./make.bash</code> in <code>$GOROOT/src</code>. Therefore, what follows is provided simply for convenience.\n<h1>Getting started</h1>\n<p>1. Install Go from source. The instructions are well documented on the Go website, <a href=\"http://golang.org/doc/install/source\">golang.org/doc/install/source</a>. A summary for those familiar with the process follows.\n<pre>% hg clone https://code.google.com/p/go\n% cd go/src\n% ./all.bash</pre>\n<p>2. Checkout the support scripts from Github, <a href=\"https://github.com/davecheney/golang-crosscompile\">github.com/davecheney/golang-crosscompile</a>\n<pre>% git clone git://github.com/davecheney/golang-crosscompile.git\n% source golang-crosscompile/crosscompile.bash</pre>\n<p>3. Build Go for all supported platforms\n<pre>% go-crosscompile-build-all\ngo-crosscompile-build darwin/386\ngo-crosscompile-build darwin/amd64\ngo-crosscompile-build freebsd/386\ngo-crosscompile-build freebsd/amd64\ngo-crosscompile-build linux/386\ngo-crosscompile-build linux/amd64\ngo-crosscompile-build linux/arm\ngo-crosscompile-build windows/386\ngo-crosscompile-build windows/amd64</pre>\n<p>This will compile the Go runtime and standard library for each platform. You can see these packages if you look in <code>go/pkg</code>.\n<pre>% ls -1 go/pkg \ndarwin_386\ndarwin_amd64\nfreebsd_386\nfreebsd_amd64\nlinux_386\nlinux_amd64\nlinux_arm\nobj\ntool\nwindows_386\nwindows_amd64</pre>\n<h1>Using your cross compilation environment</h1>\n<p>Sourcing <code>crosscompile.bash</code> provides a <code>go-$GOOS-$GOARCH</code> function for each platform, you can use these as you would the standard <code>go</code> tool. For example, to compile a program to run on <code>linux/arm</code>.\n<pre>% cd $GOPATH/github.com/davecheney/gmx/gmxc\n% go-linux-arm build \n% file ./gmxc \n./gmxc: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, ARM, version 1 (SYSV), \nstatically linked, not stripped</pre>\n<p>This file is not executable on the host system (<code>darwin/amd64</code>), but will work on <code>linux/arm</code>.\n<h1>Some caveats</h1>\n<h2>Cross compiled binaries, not a cross compiled Go installation</h2>\n<p>This post describes how to produce an environment that will build Go programs for your target environment, it will not however build a Go environment for your target. For that, you must build Go directly on the target platform. For most platforms this means installing from source, or using a version of Go provided by your operating systems packaging system.<br>\nIf you are using\n<h2>No cgo in cross platform builds</h2>\n<p>It is currently not possible to produce a <code>cgo</code> enabled binary when cross compiling from one operating system to another. This is because packages that use <code>cgo</code> invoke the C compiler directly as part of the build process to compile their C code and produce the C to Go trampoline functions. At the moment the name of the C compiler is hard coded to <code>gcc</code>, which assumes the system default gcc compiler even if a cross compiler is installed.\n<p>In Go 1.1 this restriction was reinforced further by making <code>CGO_ENABLED</code> default to <code>0</code> (off) when any cross compilation was attempted.\n<h2>GOARM flag needed for cross compiling to linux/arm.</h2>\n<p>Because some arm platforms lack a hardware floating point unit the <code>GOARM</code> value is used to tell the linker to use hardware or software floating point code. Depending on the specifics of the target machine you are building for, you may need to supply this environment value when building.\n<pre>% GOARM=5 go-linux-arm build</pre>\n<p>As of <code><a href=\"https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=e4b20018f7979a6c3ef259d36267bd753a92d9d2\">e4b20018f797</a></code> you will at least get a nice error telling you which <code>GOARM</code> value to use.\n<pre>$ ./gmxc \nruntime: this CPU has no floating point hardware, so it cannot \nrun this GOARM=7 binary. Recompile using GOARM=5.</pre>\n<p>By default, Go assumes a hardware floating point unit if no <code>GOARM</code> value is supplied. You can read more about Go on <code>linux/arm</code> on the <a href=\"http://code.google.com/p/go-wiki/wiki/GoArm\">Go Language Community Wiki</a>.","direction":"ltr"},"title":"An introduction to cross compilation with Go 1.1","published":1373325259000,"alternate":[{"href":"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/07/09/an-introduction-to-cross-compilation-with-go-1-1","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Cheney","crawled":1373326936982,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","htmlUrl":"http://dave.cheney.net","title":"Dave Cheney"},"summary":{"content":"This post is a compliment to one I wrote in August of last year, updating it for Go 1.1. Since last year tools such as goxc have appeared which go a beyond a simple shell wrapper to provide a complete build and distribution solution. Introduction Go provides excellent support for producing binaries for foreign platforms [...]","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"BNU7PBBhwHi0trgjATqXMRVLGGikmyZQMhiBOKF3WjM=_13fb7a49547:1a07f27:1fba5d06","originId":"http://dave.cheney.net/?p=655","fingerprint":"e20fa0ad","keywords":["Go","Programming","benchmarking","profiling"],"content":{"content":"<h1>Introduction</h1>\n<p>The Go runtime has built in support for several types of profiling that can be used to inspect the performance of your programs. A common way to leverage this support is via the <code>testing</code> package, but if you want to profile a full application it is sometimes complicated to configure the various profiling mechanisms.\n<p>I wrote <em><a href=\"https://github.com/davecheney/profile\">profile</a></em> to scratch my own itch and create a simple way to profile an existing Go program without having to restructure it as a benchmark.\n<h1>Installation</h1>\n<p><em>profile</em> is <code>go get</code>able so installation is a simple as\n<pre>go get github.com/davecheney/profile</pre>\n<h1>Usage</h1>\n<p>Enabling profiling in your application is as simple as one line at the top of your <code>main</code> function\n<pre>import \"github.com/davecheney/profile\"\n\nfunc main() {\n defer profile.Start(profile.CPUProfile).Stop()\n ...\n}</pre>\n<h1>Options</h1>\n<p>What to profile is controlled by the <code>*profile.Config</code> value passed to <code>profile.Start</code>. A <code>nil</code> <code>*profile.Config</code> is the same as choosing all the defaults. By default no profiles are enabled.\n<p>In this more complicated example a <code>*profile.Config</code> is constructed by hand which enables memory profiling, but disables the shutdown hook.\n<pre>import \"github.com/davecheney/profile\"\n\nfunc main() {\n cfg := profile.Config {\n MemProfile: true,\n NoShutdownHook: true, // do not hook SIGINT\n }\n // p.Stop() must be called before the program exits to \n // ensure profiling information is written to disk.\n p := profile.Start(&amp;cfg)\n ...\n}</pre>\n<p>Several <a href=\"http://godoc.org/github.com/davecheney/profile#_variables\">convenience variables</a> are provided for cpu, memory, and block (contention) profiling.\n<p>For more complex options, consult the documentation on the <a href=\"http://godoc.org/github.com/davecheney/profile#Config\"><code>profile.Config</code></a> type. Enabling more than one profile may cause your results to be less reliable as profiling itself is not without overhead.\n<h1>Example</h1>\n<p>To show <em>profile</em> in action, I modified <code>cmd/godoc</code> following the instructions in the first example.\n<pre>% godoc -http=:8080\n2013/07/07 15:29:11 profile: cpu profiling enabled, /tmp/profile002803/cpu.pprof</pre>\n<p>In another window I visited <code>http://localhost:8080</code> a few times to have some profiling data to record, then stopped <code>godoc</code>.\n<pre>^C2013/07/07 15:29:33 profile: caught interrupt, stopping profiles\n% go tool pprof $(which godoc) /tmp/profile002803/cpu.pprof\nWelcome to pprof! For help, type 'help'.\n(pprof) top10\nTotal: 15 samples\n 2 13.3% 13.3% 2 13.3% go/scanner.(*Scanner).next\n 2 13.3% 26.7% 2 13.3% path.Clean\n 1 6.7% 33.3% 3 20.0% go/scanner.(*Scanner).Scan\n 1 6.7% 40.0% 1 6.7% main.hasPathPrefix\n 1 6.7% 46.7% 3 20.0% main.mountedFS.translate\n 1 6.7% 53.3% 1 6.7% path.Dir\n 1 6.7% 60.0% 1 6.7% path/filepath.(*lazybuf).append\n 1 6.7% 66.7% 1 6.7% runtime.findfunc\n 1 6.7% 73.3% 2 13.3% runtime.makeslice\n 1 6.7% 80.0% 2 13.3% runtime.mallocgc</pre>\n<h1>Licence</h1>\n<p><em>profile</em> is available under a <a href=\"https://github.com/davecheney/profile/blob/master/LICENSE\">BSD licence</a>.","direction":"ltr"},"title":"Introducing profile, super simple profiling for Go programs","published":1373175683000,"alternate":[{"href":"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/07/07/introducing-profile-super-simple-profiling-for-go-programs","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Cheney","crawled":1373175584071,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","htmlUrl":"http://dave.cheney.net","title":"Dave Cheney"},"summary":{"content":"Introduction The Go runtime has built in support for several types of profiling that can be used to inspect the performance of your programs. A common way to leverage this support is via the testing package, but if you want to profile a full application it is sometimes complicated to configure the various profiling mechanisms. [...]","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"J04hLsLffn9GYO0/gp4Z4+C/kSDo3Uxwtg7Qn1jJCK4=_13fa693749b:503b:eacbe387","originId":"/blog/2013/06/23/ember-1-0-rc6.html","fingerprint":"e695138f","content":{"content":"<p>Ember.js 1.0 RC6 has been released and is available from the\nmain website and at <a href=\"http://builds.emberjs.com\">builds.emberjs.com</a>. This\nrelease features two big changes: 1) router update 2) Ember Components.\n<p><strong><em>Router Update</em></strong>\n<p>The biggest change is router update (aka \"router facelift\"), which addresses\ntwo major issues. The first was inconsistent semantics between URL-based transitions\nand <code>transitionTo</code>. The second was spotty async support which made it difficult to\nprevent or delay route entry in cases such as authentication and async code-loading.\n<p>We have now harmonized URL changes and <code>transitionTo</code> semantics and more fully embraced\nasynchrony using promises.\n<p>Additionally, router transitions have become first-class citizens and there are\nnew hooks to prevent or decorate transitions:\n<p><code>willTransition</code>: fires on current routes whenever a transition is about to take place\n<code>beforeModel</code>/<code>model</code>/<code>afterModel</code>: hooks fired during the async validation phase\n<p>Finally there is an <code>error</code> event which fires whenever there is a rejected promise or\nerror thrown in any of the <code>beforeModel</code>/<code>model</code>/<code>afterModel</code> hooks.\n<p>For more on new router features, see:\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://machty.s3.amazonaws.com/ember-facelift-presentation/index.html#/1\">New router overview given by Alex Matchneer's at the June Ember NYC Meetup </a>\n<li><a href=\"https://gist.github.com/machty/5647589\">Usage Examples</a>\n<li><a href=\"http://www.embercasts.com/episodes/client-side-authentication-part-2\">Client-side Authentication Part 2 Embercast</a>\n</ul>\n<p>Special thanks to Alex Matchneer for his work on this!\n<p><strong><em>Ember Components</em></strong>\n<p>The other major change is the introduction of Ember Components, which shares Web\nComponents' goal of facilitating creation of reusable higher-level page elements.\n<p>Ember Components will generally consist of a <code>template</code> and a <code>view</code> which encapsulate the <code>template</code>'s\nproperty access and actions. Any reference to outside constructs is handled through context\ninfo passed into the <code>view</code>. Components can be customized through subclassing.\n<p>Ember Components naming conventions are: 1) the <code>template</code>'s name begins with 'components/', and 2) the\nComponent's name must include a '-' (this latter convention is consistent with Web Components standards,\nand prevents name collisions with built-in controls that wrap HTML elements). As an example, a component\nmight be named <code>'radio-button'</code>. Its <code>template</code> would be <code>'components/radio-button'</code> and you would call\nit as <code>{{radio-button}}</code> in other <code>templates</code>.\n<p>Stay tuned for more docs and examples of this exciting new feature.","direction":"ltr"},"title":"Ember 1.0 RC6","updated":1371945600000,"published":1371945600000,"author":"Ember","crawled":1372889248923,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://emberjs.com/blog/feed.xml","htmlUrl":"http://emberjs.com/blog","title":"Ember Blog"},"summary":{"content":"<p>Ember.js 1.0 RC6 has been released and is available from the\nmain website and at <a href=\"http://builds.emberjs.com\">builds.emberjs.com</a>. This\nrelease features two big changes: 1) router update 2) Ember Components.\n<p><strong><em>Router Update</em></strong>\n<p>The biggest change is router update (aka \"router facelift...","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"BNU7PBBhwHi0trgjATqXMRVLGGikmyZQMhiBOKF3WjM=_13fa12b9416:28475e:f5ac5ed","originId":"http://dave.cheney.net/?p=650","fingerprint":"dc7ecd3d","keywords":["Go","Programming","arm","tarball"],"content":{"content":"<p>This evening I rebuilt my unofficial ARM tarball distributions to Go version 1.1.1.\n<p>You can find them by following the <a title=\"Unofficial ARM tarballs for Go\" href=\"http://dave.cheney.net/unofficial-arm-tarballs\">link in the main header of this page</a>.","direction":"ltr"},"title":"Unofficial Go 1.1.1 tarballs for ARM now available","published":1372766216000,"alternate":[{"href":"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/07/02/unofficial-go-1-1-1-tarballs-for-arm-now-available","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Cheney","crawled":1372798555158,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","htmlUrl":"http://dave.cheney.net","title":"Dave Cheney"},"summary":{"content":"This evening I rebuilt my unofficial ARM tarball distributions to Go version 1.1.1. You can find them by following the link in the main header of this page.","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"recrawled":1372565864356,"id":"BNU7PBBhwHi0trgjATqXMRVLGGikmyZQMhiBOKF3WjM=_13f92dee4c0:494f6d:2ae58ca9","fingerprint":"b5d314e9","originId":"http://dave.cheney.net/?p=612","keywords":["Go","Programming","benchmark","testing"],"content":{"content":"<p>This post continues a series on the <code>testing</code> package I started a few weeks back. You can read the previous article on <a title=\"Writing table driven tests in Go\" href=\"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/06/09/writing-table-driven-tests-in-go\">writing table driven tests here</a>. You can find the code mentioned below in the <a href=\"https://github.com/davecheney/fib\">https://github.com/davecheney/fib</a> repository.\n<h1>Introduction</h1>\n<p>The Go <code><a href=\"http://golang.org/pkg/testing/\">testing</a></code> package contains a benchmarking facility that can be used to examine the performance of your Go code. This post explains how to use the <code>testing</code> package to write a simple benchmark.\n<p>You should also review the introductory paragraphs of <a href=\"http://blog.golang.org/profiling-go-programs\">Profiling Go programs</a>, specifically the section on configuring power management on your machine. For better or worse, modern CPUs rely heavily on active thermal management which can add noise to benchmark results.\n<h1>Writing a benchmark</h1>\n<p>We’ll reuse the <code>Fib</code> function from the previous article.\n<pre>func Fib(n int) int {\n if n &lt; 2 {\n return n\n }\n return Fib(n-1) + Fib(n-2)\n}</pre>\n<p>Benchmarks are placed inside <code>_test.go</code> files and follow the rules of their <code>Test</code> counterparts. In this first example we’re going to benchmark the speed of computing the 10<sup>th</sup> number in the Fibonacci series.\n<pre>// from fib_test.go\nfunc BenchmarkFib10(b *testing.B) {\n // run the Fib function b.N times\n for n := 0; n &lt; b.N; n++ {\n Fib(10)\n }\n}</pre>\n<p>Writing a benchmark is very similar to writing a test as they share the infrastructure from the <code>testing</code> package. Some of the key differences are\n<ul>\n<li>Benchmark functions start with <code>Benchmark</code> not <code>Test</code>.\n<li>Benchmark functions are run several times by the <code>testing</code> package. The value of <code>b.N</code> will increase each time until the benchmark runner is satisfied with the stability of the benchmark. This has some important ramifications which we’ll investigate later in this article.\n<li>Each benchmark must execute the code under test <code>b.N</code> times. The <code>for</code> loop in <code>BenchmarkFib10</code> will be present in every benchmark function.\n</ul>\n<h1>Running benchmarks</h1>\n<p>Now that we have a benchmark function defined in the tests for the <code>fib</code> package, we can invoke it with <code>go test -bench=.</code>\n<pre>% go test -bench=.\nPASS\nBenchmarkFib10 5000000 509 ns/op\nok github.com/davecheney/fib 3.084s</pre>\n<p>Breaking down the text above, we pass the <code>-bench</code> flag to <code>go test</code> supplying a regular expression matching everything. You must pass a valid regex to <code>-bench</code>, just passing <code>-bench</code> is a syntax error. You can use this property to run a subset of benchmarks.\n<p>The first line of the result, <code>PASS</code>, comes from the testing portion of the test driver, asking <code>go test</code> to run your benchmarks does not disable the tests in the package. If you want to skip the tests, you can do so by passing a regex to the <code>-run</code> flag that will not match anything. I usually use\n<pre>go test -run=XXX -bench=.</pre>\n<p>The second line is the average run time of the function under test for the final value of <code>b.N</code> iterations. In this case, my laptop can execute <code>Fib(10)</code> in 509 nanoseconds. If there were additional <code>Benchmark</code> functions that matched the <code>-bench</code> filter, they would be listed here.\n<h1>Benchmarking various inputs</h1>\n<p>As the original <code>Fib</code> function is the classic recursive implementation, we’d expect it to exhibit exponential behavior as the input grows. We can explore this by rewriting our benchmark slightly using a pattern that is very common in the Go standard library.\n<pre>func benchmarkFib(i int, b *testing.B) {\n for n := 0; n &lt; b.N; n++ {\n Fib(i)\n }\n}\n\nfunc BenchmarkFib1(b *testing.B) { benchmarkFib(1, b) }\nfunc BenchmarkFib2(b *testing.B) { benchmarkFib(2, b) }\nfunc BenchmarkFib3(b *testing.B) { benchmarkFib(3, b) }\nfunc BenchmarkFib10(b *testing.B) { benchmarkFib(10, b) }\nfunc BenchmarkFib20(b *testing.B) { benchmarkFib(20, b) }\nfunc BenchmarkFib40(b *testing.B) { benchmarkFib(40, b) }</pre>\n<p>Making <code>benchmarkFib</code> private avoids the testing driver trying to invoke it directly, which would fail as its signature does not match <code>func(*testing.B)</code>. Running this new set of benchmarks gives these results on my machine.\n<pre>BenchmarkFib1 1000000000 2.84 ns/op\nBenchmarkFib2 500000000 7.92 ns/op\nBenchmarkFib3 100000000 13.0 ns/op\nBenchmarkFib10 5000000 447 ns/op\nBenchmarkFib20 50000 55668 ns/op\nBenchmarkFib40 2 942888676 ns/op</pre>\n<p>Apart from confirming the exponential behavior of our simplistic <code>Fib</code> function, there are some other things to observe in this benchmark run.\n<ul>\n<li>Each benchmark is run for a <em>minimum</em> of 1 second by default. If the second has not elapsed when the <code>Benchmark</code> function returns, the value of <code>b.N</code> is increased in the sequence 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, … and the function run again.\n<li>The final <code>BenchmarkFib40</code> only ran two times with the average was just under a second for each run. As the <code>testing</code> package uses a simple average (total time to run the benchmark function over <code>b.N</code>) this result is statistically weak. You can increase the minimum benchmark time using the <code>-benchtime</code> flag to produce a more accurate result.\n<pre>% go test -bench=Fib40 -benchtime=20s\nPASS\nBenchmarkFib40 50 944501481 ns/op</pre>\n\n</ul>\n<h1>Traps for young players</h1>\n<p>Above I mentioned the <code>for</code> loop is crucial to the operation of the benchmark driver. Here are two examples of a faulty <code>Fib</code> benchmark.\n<pre>func BenchmarkFibWrong(b *testing.B) {\n for n := 0; n &lt; b.N; n++ {\n Fib(n)\n }\n}\n\nfunc BenchmarkFibWrong2(b *testing.B) {\n Fib(b.N)\n}</pre>\n<p>On my system <code>BenchmarkFibWrong</code> never completes. This is because the run time of the benchmark will increase as <code>b.N</code> grows, never converging on a stable value. <code>BenchmarkFibWrong2</code> is similarly affected and never completes.\n<h1>A note on compiler optimisations</h1>\n<p>Before concluding I wanted to highlight that to be completely accurate, any benchmark should be careful to avoid compiler optimisations eliminating the function under test and artificially lowering the run time of the benchmark.\n<pre>var result int\n\nfunc BenchmarkFibComplete(b *testing.B) {\n var r int\n for n := 0; n &lt; b.N; n++ {\n // always record the result of Fib to prevent\n // the compiler eliminating the function call.\n r = Fib(10)\n }\n // always store the result to a package level variable\n // so the compiler cannot eliminate the Benchmark itself.\n result = r\n}</pre>\n<h1>Conclusion</h1>\n<p>The benchmarking facility in Go works well, and is widely accepted as a reliable standard for measuring the performance of Go code. Writing benchmarks in this manner is an excellent way of communicating a performance improvement, or a regression, in a reproducible way.","direction":"ltr"},"alternate":[{"href":"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/06/30/how-to-write-benchmarks-in-go","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Cheney","crawled":1372558648512,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","htmlUrl":"http://dave.cheney.net","title":"Dave Cheney"},"published":1372557972000,"summary":{"content":"This post continues a series on the testing package I started a few weeks back. You can read the previous article on writing table driven tests here. You can find the code mentioned below in the https://github.com/davecheney/fib repository. Introduction The Go testing package contains a benchmarking facility that can be used to examine the performance [...]","direction":"ltr"},"title":"How to write benchmarks in Go","unread":true},{"id":"BNU7PBBhwHi0trgjATqXMRVLGGikmyZQMhiBOKF3WjM=_13f59dcd0ef:41f8b:f1c0ed2","fingerprint":"2fc77cae","originId":"http://dave.cheney.net/?p=608","keywords":["Go","Programming","concurrency","race","testing"],"content":{"content":"<p>This is a short post on stress testing your Go packages. Concurrency or memory correctness errors are more likely to show up at higher concurrency levels (higher values of <code>GOMAXPROCS</code>). I use this script when testing my packages, or when reviewing code that goes into the standard library.\n<pre>#!/usr/bin/env bash -e\n\ngo test -c\n# comment above and uncomment below to enable the race builder\n# go test -c -race\nPKG=$(basename $(pwd))\n\nwhile true ; do \n export GOMAXPROCS=$[ 1 + $[ RANDOM % 128 ]]\n ./$PKG.test $@ 2>&amp;1\ndone</pre>\n<p>I keep this script in <code>$HOME/bin</code> so usage is\n<pre>$ cd $SOMEPACKAGE\n$ stress.bash\nPASS\nPASS\nPASS</pre>\n<p>You can pass additional arguments to your test binary on the command line,\n<pre>stress.bash -test.v -test.run=ThisTestOnly</pre>\n<p>The goal is to be able to run the stress test for as long as you want without a test failure. Once you achieve that, uncomment <code>go test -c -race</code> and try again.","direction":"ltr"},"title":"Stress test your Go packages","published":1371599292000,"alternate":[{"href":"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/06/19/stress-test-your-go-packages","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Cheney","crawled":1371602211055,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","htmlUrl":"http://dave.cheney.net","title":"Dave Cheney"},"summary":{"content":"This is a short post on stress testing your Go packages. Concurrency or memory correctness errors are more likely to show up at higher concurrency levels (higher values of GOMAXPROCS). I use this script when testing my packages, or when reviewing code that goes into the standard library. #!/usr/bin/env bash -e go test -c # [...]","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"recrawled":1371602211055,"id":"BNU7PBBhwHi0trgjATqXMRVLGGikmyZQMhiBOKF3WjM=_13f52f80b5c:a18618:a7cd00","fingerprint":"ced7c14","originId":"http://dave.cheney.net/?p=526","keywords":["Go","Programming","centos","redhat","unsupported"],"content":{"content":"<p><strong>Important Go 1.0 or 1.1 has never supported RHEL5 or CentOS5. Please do not interpret anything in this article as a statement that Go does support RHEL5 or CentOS5.</strong>\n<hr>\n<h1>Introduction</h1>\n<p>Go has never supported RedHat 5 or CentOS 5. We’ve been pretty good at getting that message out, but it still catches a few people by surprise. The reason these old releases are not supported is the Linux kernel that ships with them, a derivative of 2.6.18, does not provide three facilities required by the Go runtime. \n<p>These are\n<ol>\n<li>Support for the <code>O_CLOEXEC</code> flag passed to <code>open(2)</code>. We attempt to work around this in the <code>os.OpenFile</code> function, but not all kernels that <em>do not</em> support this flag return an error telling us they don’t support it. The result on RHEL5/CentOS5 systems is file descriptors can leak into child processes, this isn’t a big problem, but does cause test failures.\n<li>Support for <code>accept4(2)</code>. <code>accept4(2)</code> was introduced in kernel 2.6.28 to allow <code>O_CLOEXEC</code> to be set on newly accepted socket file descriptors. In the case that this syscall is not supported, we fall back to the older <code>accept(2)</code> syscall at a small performance hit.\n<li>Support for high resolution vDSO <code>clock_gettime(2)</code>. vDSO is a way of projecting a small part of the kernel into your process address space. This means you can call certain syscalls (known as vsyscalls) without the cost of a trap into kernel space or a context switch. Go uses <code>clock_gettime(2)</code> via the vDSO in preference to the older <code>gettimeofday(2)</code> syscall as it is both faster, and higher precision.\n</ol>\n<h1>Installing Go from source</h1>\n<p>As RHEL5/CentOS5 are not supported, there are no binary packages available on the <a href=\"https://golang.org/\">golang.org</a> website. To install Go you will need to use the source tarball, in this case we’re using the Go 1.1.1 release. I’m using a CentOS 5.9 amd64 image running in a vm.\n<h2>Install prerequisites</h2>\n<p>The packages required to build Go on RedHat platforms are listed on the <a href=\"https://code.google.com/p/go-wiki/wiki/InstallFromSource#Install_C_tools\">Go community wiki</a>.\n<pre>$ sudo yum install gcc glibc-devel</pre>\n<h2>Download and unpack</h2>\n<p>We’re going to download the Go 1.1.1 source distribution and unpack it to <code>$HOME/go</code>.\n<pre>$ curl https://go.googlecode.com/files/go1.1.1.src.tar.gz | tar xz\n % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current\n Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed\n100 8833k 100 8833k 0 0 710k 0 0:00:12 0:00:12 --:--:-- 974k\n$ ls\nDesktop go</pre>\n<h2>Build</h2>\n<pre>$ cd go/src\n$ ./make.bash\n# Building C bootstrap tool.\ncmd/dist\n\n# Building compilers and Go bootstrap tool for host, linux/amd64.\nlib9\nlibbio\n...\nInstalled Go for linux/amd64 in /home/dfc/go\nInstalled commands in /home/dfc/go/bin</pre>\n<h2>Add <code>go</code> to <code>PATH</code></h2>\n<pre>$ export PATH=$PATH:$HOME/go/bin\n$ go version\ngo version go1.1.1 linux/amd64</pre>\n<h1>Known issues</h1>\n<p>As described above, RHEL5/CentOS5 are not supported as their kernel is too old. Here are some of the known issues. As RHEL5/CentOS5 are unsupported, they will not be fixed. \n<h2>Test failures</h2>\n<p>You’ll notice above to build Go I ran <code>make.bash</code>, not the recommended <code>all.bash</code>, to skip the tests. Due to the lack of working <code>O_CLOEXEC</code> support, some tests will fail. This is a known issue and will not be fixed.\n<pre>$ ./run.bash\n...\n--- FAIL: TestExtraFiles (0.05 seconds)\n exec_test.go:302: Something already leaked - closed fd 3\n exec_test.go:359: Run: exit status 1; stdout \"leaked parent file. fd = 10; want 9\\n\", stderr \"\"\nFAIL\nFAIL os/exec 0.489s</pre>\n<h2>Segfaults and crashes due to missing vDSO support</h2>\n<p>A some point during the RHEL5 release cycle support for vDSO vsyscalls was added to RedHat’s 2.6.18 kernel. However that point appears to differ by point release. For example, for RedHat 5, kernel 2.6.18-238.el5 does not work, whereas <a href=\"https://twitter.com/jehiah/status/343162971071070209\">2.6.18-238.19.1.el5 does</a>. Running CentOS 5.9 with kernel 2.6.18.348.el5 does work.\n<pre>$ ./make.bash\n...\ncmd/go\n./make.bash: line 141: 8269 segmentfault \"$GOTOOLDIR\"/go_bootstrap clean -i std</pre>\n<p>In summary, if the your Go programs crash or segfault using RHEL5/CentOS5, you should try upgrading to the latest kernel available for your point release. I’ll leave the comments on this article open for a while so people can contribute their known working kernel versions, perhaps I can build a (partial) table of known good configurations.</hr>","direction":"ltr"},"title":"How to install Go 1.1 on CentOS 5.9","published":1371486466000,"alternate":[{"href":"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/06/18/how-to-install-go-1-1-on-centos-5","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Cheney","crawled":1371486554972,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","htmlUrl":"http://dave.cheney.net","title":"Dave Cheney"},"summary":{"content":"Important Go 1.0 or 1.1 has never supported RHEL5 or CentOS5. Please do not interpret anything in this article as a statement that Go does support RHEL5 or CentOS5. Introduction Go has never supported RedHat 5 or CentOS 5. We’ve been pretty good at getting that message out, but it still catches a few people by surprise. [...]","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true}]}

data/spec/fixtures/uncategoriezed_10.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"id":"user/00000000-000-NOT-VALID-a29b6679bb3c/category/global.uncategorized","updated":0,"items":[{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fce8fa561:a89090:60f5fbac","originId":"74954 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"ee3e5b9b","title":"Reform the FISA Court: Privacy Law Should Never Be Radically Reinterpreted in Secret","published":1373492532000,"crawled":1373560087905,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/fisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Trevor Timm","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>Since the <i>Guardian</i> and <i>Washington Post</i> started published secret NSA documents a month ago, the press has finally started digging into the operations of ultra-secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, which is partly responsible for the veneer of legality painted onto the NSA’s domestic surveillance programs. The new reports are quite disturbing to anyone who cares about the Fourth Amendment, and they only underscore the need for major reform.\n<p>As the <i>New York Times</i> <a href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all\">reported on its front page</a> on Sunday, “In more than a dozen classified rulings, the nation’s surveillance court has created a secret body of law giving the <a title=\"More articles about National Security Agency, U.S.\" href=\"http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_security_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org\">National Security Agency</a> the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans.” The court, which was originally set up to just approve or deny wiretap requests now “has taken on a much more expansive role by regularly assessing broad constitutional questions and establishing important judicial precedents,” with no opposing counsel to offer counter arguments to the government, and rulings that cannot be appealed outside its secret structure. “It has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court,” reported the <i>Times</i>.\n<p><i>The Wall Street Journal</i> <a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html\">reported on one of the court’s</a> most controversial decisions (or at least one of the controversial decisions we know of), in which it radically re-interpreted the word “relevant” in Section 215 of the Patriot Act to allow for the dragnet collection of every phone call record in the United States.\n<p>The <i>Journal</i> explained:\n<blockquote><p>The history of the word \"relevant\" is key to understanding that passage. The Supreme Court in 1991 said things are \"relevant\" if there is a \"reasonable possibility\" that they will produce information related to the subject of the investigation. In criminal cases, courts previously have found that very large sets of information didn't meet the relevance standard because significant portions—innocent people's information—wouldn't be pertinent.\n<p>But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, has developed separate precedents, centered on the idea that investigations to prevent national-security threats are different from ordinary criminal cases. The court's rulings on such matters are classified and almost impossible to challenge because of the secret nature of the proceedings.</blockquote>\n<p>Essentially, the court re-defined the word “relevant” to mean “anything and everything.” Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall explained two years ago on the Senate floor that Americans would be shocked if they knew how the government was interpreting the Patriot Act. This is exactly what they were talking about.\n<p>It’s likely the precedent laid down in the last few years will stay law for years to come if the courts are not reformed. FISA judges <a href=\"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/chief-justice-roberts-is-awesome-power-behind-fisa-court.html\">are appointed by one unelected official</a> who holds lifetime office: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under current law, for the coming decades, Chief Justice John Roberts will solely decide who will write the sweeping surveillance opinions few will be allowed to read, but which everyone will be subject to.\n<p>Judge James Robertson was once one of those judges. He was appointed to the court in the mid-2000s. He confirmed yesterday for the first time that he resigned in 2005 in protest of the Bush administration illegally bypassing the court altogether. Since Robertson retired, however, the court has transitioned from being ignored to wielding enormous, undemocratic power.\n<p>“What FISA does is not adjudication, but approval,” <a href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jul/09/fisa-courts-judge-nsa-surveillance\">Judge Robertson said</a>. “This works just fine when it deals with individual applications for warrants, but the [FISA Amendments Act of 2008] has turned the FISA court into administrative agency making rules for others to follow.”\n<p>Under the FISA Amendments Act, \"the court is now approving programmatic surveillance. I don't think that is a judicial function.” He continued, \"Anyone who has been a judge will tell you a judge needs to hear both sides of a case…This process needs an adversary.\"\n<p>No opposing counsel, rulings handed down in complete secrecy by judges appointed by an unelected official, and no way for those affected to appeal. As <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/07/secret-government?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/america_against_democracy\"><i>The Economist </i>stated</a>,  “Sounds a lot like the sort of thing authoritarian governments set up when they make a half-hearted attempt to create the appearance of the rule of law.”\n<p>This scandal should precipitate many reforms, but one thing is certain: FISA rulings need to be made public so the American people understand how courts are interpreting their constitutional rights. The very idea of democratic law depends on it.\n<p> \n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><div>Related Cases: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel\">Jewel v. NSA</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Reform+the+FISA+Court%3A+Privacy+Law+Should+Never+Be+Radically+Reinterpreted+in+Secret+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret&t=Reform+the+FISA+Court%3A+Privacy+Law+Should+Never+Be+Radically+Reinterpreted+in+Secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Reform+the+FISA+Court%3A+Privacy+Law+Should+Never+Be+Radically+Reinterpreted+in+Secret+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Reform the FISA Court%3A Privacy Law Should Never Be Radically Reinterpreted in Secret&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Ffisa-court-has-been-radically-reinterpreting-privacy-law-secret\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fcba8781f:293db4:60f5fbac","originId":"74961 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"d99fead3","title":"Online and Off, Information Control Persists in Turkey","published":1373507068000,"crawled":1373511383071,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/online-and-information-control-persists-turkey","type":"text/html"}],"author":"EFF Intern","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p>By Greg Epstein, EFF and <a href=\"http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/\">Global Voices Advocacy</a> Intern\n<p>Demonstrators in Turkey have occupied Istanbul’s Taksim Square since last May, in a movement that began as an effort to protect a city park, but has evolved into a larger mobilization against the ruling party’s increasingly autocratic stance.\n<p>Prime Minister Erdogan and the ruling AKP party have used many tools to silence voices of the opposition. On June 15, police began using <a href=\"http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/06/30/Police-use-tear-gas-water-cannons-in-Turkey-protests/UPI-13041372608490/\">tear gas and water cannons</a> to clear out the large encampment in the park. But this effort also has stretched beyond episodes of physical violence and police brutality into the digital world, where information control and media intimidation are on the rise.\n<p>Since the protests began, dozens of Turkish social media users <a href=\"http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/06/07/as-protests-continue-turkey-cracks-down-on-twitter-users/\">have been detained</a> on charges ranging from <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/turkey-cracks-down-on-twitter-users/article4784440.ece\">inciting demonstrations, to spreading propaganda</a> and <a href=\"http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/world/europe/turkey-protests/\">false information</a>, to <a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/turkey-investigates-social-media_n_3509365.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology\">insulting government officials</a>. Dozens more Twitter users were reportedly arrested for posting images of <a href=\"http://www.businessinsider.com/turkish-police-arrest-twitter-users-2013-6\">police brutality</a>, though the legal pretense for these arrests is unclear. A recent ruling in an Ankara court ordered 22 demonstrators detained on <a href=\"http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/06/201362216245060913.html\">terrorism-related charges</a>.\n<p>Prime Minister Erdogan made his view of social media known when he described social media as “<a href=\"http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/03/turkey_protests_prime_minister_erdogan_blames_twitter_calls_social_media.html\">the worst menace to society</a>” at a June press conference. It is worth noting that <a href=\"http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/turkey/130629/turkey-twitter-facebook-social-media-erdogan-taksim-bbc-turkce#1\">Erdogan himself is said to maintain a Twitter account with over 3 million followers and 2,000 tweets</a> (some Turks question whether the unverified account is really him, or an unofficial supporter.) While the Turkish government has had <a href=\"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/18/turkey-vows-to-strengthen-police-powers/2433709/\">limited</a>, <a href=\"http://blogs.wsj.com/middleeast/2013/06/03/amid-turkey-unrest-social-media-becomes-a-battleground/\">if any</a>, involvement in tampering with social media access thus far, government officials appear eager to take further action.\n<p><strong>Roots in traditional media</strong>\n<p>Although current circumstances appear to be testing the limits of Turkey’s information policy framework, the country has a long history of restrictive media policy and practice. In 2013, Turkey ranked <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1054\">154 out of 166</a> on the Reporters Without Borders’ Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index, due in part to the fact that since 1992 <a href=\"http://cpj.org/killed/europe/turkey/\">18 journalists have been murdered</a> there, 14 with impunity. In responding to protest coverage, authorities have <a href=\"http://www.cpj.org/2013/06/turkey-fines-tv-stations-in-connection-with-protes.php\">fined</a>, <a href=\"http://www.cpj.org/2013/06/in-crackdown-on-dissent-turkey-detains-press-raids.php\">detained</a> and even <a href=\"http://www.cpj.org/2013/06/journalists-detained-beaten-obstructed-in-istanbul.php\">beaten</a> members of the press. Institutional censorship has also been prevalent: When clashes between protesters and police escalated, activists noted that <a href=\"http://news.yahoo.com/pinned-under-governments-thumb-turkish-media-covers-penguins-124645832.html\">CNN Turk</a> aired a documentary on penguins <a href=\"http://www.dailydot.com/news/cnn-turk-istanbul-riots-penguin-doc-social-media/\">while CNN International</a> ran live coverage of the events in Taksim Square.\n<p><span>Dubbed the “</span><span><a href=\"https://en.rsf.org/turkey-turkey-world-s-biggest-prison-for-19-12-2012,43816.html\">the world’s biggest prison for journalists</a></span><span>” by Reporters Without Borders, Turkey has been particularly aggressive in </span><span><a href=\"http://www.opendemocracy.net/anna-bragga/turkey-media-crisis-how-anti-terrorism-laws-equip-war-on-dissent\">arresting Kurdish journalists under Turkey’s anti-terrorism law</a></span><span> known as Terörle Mücadele Yasası.</span>\n<p><strong>Controlling digital expression</strong>\n<p>As of 2012, <a href=\"http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/icteye/DisplayCountry.aspx?code=TUR\">45% of Turkey’s population</a> had regular access to the Internet. The country’s leading ISP, <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_Telekom\">Türk Telekom (TT)</a>, formerly a government-controlled monopoly, was privatized in 2005 but retained a <a href=\"https://opennet.net/research/profiles/turkey#footnote6_oj6yz7g\">95% percent market share in 2007</a>. Türk Telekom also controls the country’s only commercial backbone.\n<p><a href=\"http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.5651&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=\">Internet Law No. 5651</a>, passed in 2007, <a href=\"http://sites.psu.edu/comm410censorshipinturkey/literature-review/\">prohibits online content</a> in eight categories including <a href=\"https://opennet.net/research/profiles/turkey\">prostituion, sexual abuse of children, facilitation of the abuse of drugs, and crimes against (or insults to) Atatürk</a>. The law authorizes the Turkish Supreme Council for Telecommunications and IT (TIB) to block a website when it has “adequate suspicion” that the site hosts illegal content. In 2011, the Council of Europe’s <a href=\"https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1814085\">Commissioner for Human Rights</a> reported that 80% of online content blocked in Turkey was <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turkey-turkey-11-03-2011,39758.html\">due to decisions made by the TIB</a>, with the remaining 20% being blocked as the result of orders by Turkey’s traditional court system. In 2009 alone, nearly <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/surveillance-turkey,39758.html\">200 court decisions</a> found TIB decisions to block websites unjustifiable because they fell outside the scope of Law 5651. The law also has been criticized for authorizing takedowns of entire sites when only a small portion of their content stands in violation of the law.\n<p>Between 2008 and 2010, YouTube was blocked in its entirety under Law 5651 because of specific videos that fell into the category of “crimes against Atatürk”. During this period, YouTube continued to be the <a href=\"http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2008/11/27/tdn-banned-youtube-still-in-top-10-in-turkey/\">10th most visited site</a> in Turkey, with users accessing the site through proxies. The ban was eventually lifted when YouTube removed the videos in question and came under compliance with Turkish law. Sites likes Blogspot, Metacafe, Wix and others have gone through similar ordeals in Turkey in recent years. An estimated <a href=\"http://engelliweb.com/\">31,000 websites are blocked</a> in the country.\n<p>In December 2012, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/european-human-rights-court-finds-turkey-violation-freedom-expression\">found</a> that Turkey had violated their citizen’s right to free expression by blocking <a href=\"http://sites.google.com\">Google Sites</a>. While Turkey justified the ban based on Sites’ hosting of websites that violated Law 5651, the ECHR found that Turkish law did not allow for “wholesale blocking of access” to a hosting provider like Google Sites. Furthermore, Google Sites had not been informed that it was hosting “illegal” content.\n<p>In 2011, Turkey <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/week-internet-censorship-opaque-censorship-turkey-russia-and-britain\">proposed a mandatory online filtering system</a> described as an effort to protect minors and families. This new system, dubbed Güvenli İnternet, or Secure Internet, would block any website that contained keywords from a list of <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turkey-online-censorship-now-bordering-on-29-04-2011,40194.html\">138 terms</a> deemed inappropriate by telecom authority BTK. The plan was met with public backlash and <a href=\"http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9216750/Protests_in_Turkey_against_Internet_controls\">protests</a> causing the government to re-evaluate the system and eventually offer it as an opt-in service. While only <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turkey-turkey-12-03-2012,42065.html\">22,000 of Turkey’s 11 million Internet users</a> have so far opted for the system, opponents of Güvenli İnternet decry it as a <a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turquie-new-internet-filtering-system-02-12-2011,41498.html\">form of censorship, </a><a href=\"http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.rsf.org%2Fturquie-new-internet-filtering-system-02-12-2011%2C41498.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGpw5o8xnE47-LjuK_fvBbtgt5Row\">disguised </a><a href=\"http://en.rsf.org/turquie-new-internet-filtering-system-02-12-2011,41498.html\">as an effort to protect children</a> and families from “objectionable content”.\n<p><strong>New policies could further restrict social networks</strong>\n<p>As the protests continue, the Turkish government is working to use legal tools already at its disposal to increase control over social network activity. Transportation and Communications Minister Binali Yildirim has called on Twitter to establish a <a href=\"http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/net-us-turkey-protests-twitter-idUSBRE95P0XC20130626\">representative office within the country</a>. Legally, this could give the Turkish government greater ability to obtain user data from the company. But these requests have not received a warm response from Twitter, which has developed a <a href=\"https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fwho-has-your-back-2013&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEv4KpiTWJHxBwMpjfO3nW7kaiNHw\">reputation for protecting user data</a> in the face of government requests. While Twitter has “<a href=\"http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/minister-says-twitter-turned-down-cooperation-offer-over-turkey-protests.aspx?pageID=238&nID=49496&NewsCatID=374\">turned down</a>” requests from the Turkish government for user data and general cooperation, Minister Yildirim stated that Facebook had <a href=\"http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/facebook-and-twitter-refuse-to-cooperate-with-turkish-govt-crackdown-on-protesters/\">responded “positively</a>”. Shortly thereafter, Facebook published a <a href=\"https://newsroom.fb.com/fact-check\">“Fact Check”</a> post that denied cooperation with Turkish officials.\n<p>Turkey’s Interior Minister Muammer Güler told journalists that “<a href=\"http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/governement-working-on-draft-to-restrict-social-media-in-turkey.aspx?pageID=238&nID=48982&NewsCatID=338#.UcCVIc-KyUs.twitter\">the issue [of social media] needs a separate regulation</a>” and Deputy <a href=\"http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=111568\">Prime Minister Bozdag stated that the government had no intention of placing an outright ban</a> on social media, but indicated a desire to <a href=\"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-20/turkey-announces-plan-to-restrict-fake-social-media-accounts.html\">outlaw “fake” social media accounts</a>. Sources have confirmed that the <a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/turkey-investigates-social-media_n_3509365.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology\">Justice Ministry is conducting research and drafting legislation on the issue</a>.\n<p>New media expert Ozgur Uckan of Istanbul’s Bilgi University <a href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/06/26/195889178/thanks-but-no-social-media-refuses-to-share-with-turkey\">noted that</a> “censoring social media sites presents a technical challenge, and that may be why officials are talking about criminalizing certain content, in an effort to intimidate users and encourage self-censorship.”\n<p>While the details of <a href=\"http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action;jsessionid=F3B400500B268D2945E03E7F4BF27331?newsId=318800&columnistId=0\">these new laws </a>remain to be seen, it is likely that they will have some impact on journalistic and activist activities in the country, especially in times of rising public protest and dissent.\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/free-speech\">Free Speech</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers-under-fire\">Bloggers Under Fire</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/international\">International</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=Online+and+Off%2C+Information+Control+Persists+in+Turkey+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey&t=Online+and+Off%2C+Information+Control+Persists+in+Turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=Online+and+Off%2C+Information+Control+Persists+in+Turkey+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=Online and Off%2C Information Control Persists in Turkey&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fonline-and-information-control-persists-turkey\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"55jQyVFBayOwBJQ5qCX8DsgTPumTnzjw6LozTAKPiWA=_13fcab0b34e:7a49e:9d82f563","originId":"74936 at https://www.eff.org","fingerprint":"73850e04","title":"NSA Leaks Prompt Surveillance Dialogue in India","published":1373493485000,"crawled":1373495145294,"alternate":[{"href":"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/nsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Jillian C. York","origin":{"htmlUrl":"https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","streamId":"feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml","title":"Deeplinks"},"summary":{"content":"<div><div><div><p dir=\"ltr\"><em>This is the 8th article in our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spy-without-borders\">Spies Without Borders</a></em> <em>series. The series looks at how the information disclosed in the NSA leaks affect internet users around the world.</em>\n<p dir=\"ltr\">As we have discussed throughout our <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spy-without-borders\">Spies Without Borders</a> series, the backlash against the NSA’s global surveillance programs has been strong. From <a href=\"http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/us-government-surveillance-bad-for-silicon-valley-bad-for-democracy-around-the-world/277335/\">Germany</a>, where activists demonstrated against the mass spying, to <a href=\"http://madamasr.com/content/america%E2%80%99s-prism-our-fears-digital-age-come-true\">Egypt</a>—allegedly one of the NSA’s <a href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining\">top targets</a>—where the reaction is largely the same: “<a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/world-us-congress-im-not-american-i-have-privacy-rights\">I’m not American, but I have rights too</a>.”\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Indian commentators are no exception. A piece in the <em>Financial Times</em> stated that the revelations highlighted the “<a href=\"http://www.ft.com/cms/s/04b972d8-e59b-11e2-ad1a-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F04b972d8-e59b-11e2-ad1a-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fnews%2F2013-07-08%2Findians-see-a-gift-in-nsa-leaks.html#axzz2YRT5XQVr\">moral decline of America</a>,” while another in the <em>Hindu</em> <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/indias-cowardly-display-of-servility/article4874219.ece\">berated India</a> for its “servility” toward the U.S.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">But the revelations about the NSA’s spying activities have also created an opportunity for Indian activists to speak out about their own country’s practices. As Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director for the Centre for Internet &amp; Society <a href=\"http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-13/news/39952596_1_nsa-india-us-homeland-security-dialogue-national-security-letters\">argues in a piece for the <em>Economic Times</em></a>, Indian surveillance laws and practices have been “far worse” than those in the U.S. Writing for <em>Quartz</em>, Nandagopal J. Nair <a href=\"http://qz.com/99019/no-call-email-or-text-will-be-safe-from-indias-surveillance-network/\">agrees</a>, saying that “India’s new surveillance network will make the NSA green with envy.”\n<p dir=\"ltr\">The U.S. has in fact refused Indian requests for real-time access to internet activity routed through U.S.-based Internet sites, and U.S. companies have also <a href=\"http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280094658/Google-refuses-access-to-Gmail-encryption-for-Indian-government\">stood up to privacy-violating demands</a>. Other companies, such as RIM—the company that owns BlackBerry—have <a href=\"http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-10-29/news/34798663_1_interception-solution-blackberry-interception-blackberry-services\">cooperated with the Indian government</a>.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Regulatory privacy protections in India are weak: Telecom companies are required by license to provide data to the government, and the use of encryption is <a href=\"https://www.dot.gov.in/isp/internet-licence-dated%2016-10-2007.pdf\">extremely limited</a>. As we <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/disproportionate-state-surveillance-violation-privacy\">have previously explained</a>, India service providers are required to ensure that bulk encryption is not deployed. Additionally, no individual or entity can employ encryption with a key longer than 40 bits. If the encryption surpasses this limit, the individual or entity will need prior written permission from the Department of Telecommunications and must deposit the decryption keys with the <a href=\"https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/License%20Agreement%20for%20Provision%20of%20Internet%20Services%20Section%202.2%20(vii)\">Department</a>. The limitation on encryption in India means that technically any encrypted material over 40 bits would be accessible by the State. Ironically, the Reserve Bank of India issues security recommendations that banks should use strong encryption as higher as 128-bit for securing browser. In addition to such limitations on the use of encryption, commentators have also <a href=\"http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Concerns-over-central-snoop/Article1-1083658.aspx\">raised concerns</a> about the process for lawful intercept.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">The <a href=\"http://qz.com/99019/no-call-email-or-text-will-be-safe-from-indias-surveillance-network/\">latest attempt</a> at surveillance by the Indian government has been <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indias-surveillance-project-may-be-as-lethal-as-prism/article4834619.ece\">roundly criticized</a> as “more intrusive” than the NSA’s programs. In the <em>New York Times</em>, Prakash <a href=\"http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/how-surveillance-works-in-india/\">explained</a> the new program, the Centralized Monitoring System or C.M.S.:\n<blockquote><p dir=\"ltr\">With the C.M.S., the government will get <a href=\"http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indias-surveillance-project-may-be-as-lethal-as-prism/article4834619.ece\">centralized access to all communications metadata and content</a> traversing through all telecom networks in India. This means that the government can listen to all your calls, track a mobile phone and its user’s location, read all your text messages, personal e-mails and chat conversations. It can also see all your Google searches, Web site visits, usernames and passwords if your communications aren’t encrypted.\n</blockquote>\n<p dir=\"ltr\">Notably, India does not have laws allowing for mass surveillance; rather, lawful intercept is covered under the archaic Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 [<a href=\"http://www.ijlt.in/pdffiles/Indian-Telegraph-Act-1885.pdf\">PDF</a>] and the <a href=\"http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=185999\">Information Technology Act of 2000</a> (IT Act). Under both laws, interception must be time-limited and targeted.\n<p dir=\"ltr\">In the <em>Times</em> piece, Prakash also lambasts the IT Act, which he says “very substantially lowers the bar for wiretapping.”  \n<p dir=\"ltr\">All of this points to the fact that our fight for privacy is a shared global challenge; or as a columnist for India’s Sunday Guardian <a href=\"http://www.sunday-guardian.com/technologic/your-freedom-has-just-left-the-building\">recently put it</a>: “We're all now citizens of the surveillance state.”\n</div></div></div><div><div>Related Issues: </div><div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/international\">International</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/issues/surveillance-human-rights\">State Surveillance &amp; Human Rights</a></div><div><a href=\"https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying\">NSA Spying</a></div></div></div><div><br>Share this: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://twitter.com/home?status=NSA+Leaks+Prompt+Surveillance+Dialogue+in+India+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Twitter\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/twitter.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india&t=NSA+Leaks+Prompt+Surveillance+Dialogue+in+India\"><img alt=\"Share on Facebook\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/facebook.gif\"></a> <a href=\"https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Google+\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/gplus-16.png\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https://identi.ca/notice/new?status_textarea=NSA+Leaks+Prompt+Surveillance+Dialogue+in+India+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Identi.ca\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/identica.gif\"></a> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http://sharetodiaspora.github.com/?title=NSA Leaks Prompt Surveillance Dialogue in India&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Fdeeplinks%2F2013%2F07%2Fnsa-leaks-prompt-surveillance-dialogue-india\"><img alt=\"Share on Diaspora\" src=\"https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/share/diaspora-16.png\"></a>  ||  <a href=\"https://supporters.eff.org/join\">Join EFF</a></div>","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"BNU7PBBhwHi0trgjATqXMRVLGGikmyZQMhiBOKF3WjM=_13fc0aa0b96:2e660ce:b4edca20","originId":"http://dave.cheney.net/?p=672","fingerprint":"a19ae370","keywords":["Go","Programming","cgo","cross compilation","cross compile"],"content":{"content":"<p>This post is a compliment to one I wrote in <a title=\"An introduction to cross compilation with Go\" href=\"http://dave.cheney.net/2012/09/08/an-introduction-to-cross-compilation-with-go\">August of last year</a>, updating it for Go 1.1. Since last year tools such as <a title=\"goxc\" href=\"http://www.laher.net.nz/goxc/\">goxc</a> have appeared which go a beyond a simple shell wrapper to provide a complete build and distribution solution.\n<h1>Introduction</h1>\n<p>Go provides excellent support for producing binaries for foreign platforms without having to install Go on the target. This is extremely handy for testing packages that use build tags or where the target platform is not suitable for development.\n<p>Support for building a version of Go suitable for cross compilation is built into the Go build scripts; just set the <code>GOOS</code>, <code>GOARCH</code>, and possibly <code>GOARM</code> correctly and invoke <code>./make.bash</code> in <code>$GOROOT/src</code>. Therefore, what follows is provided simply for convenience.\n<h1>Getting started</h1>\n<p>1. Install Go from source. The instructions are well documented on the Go website, <a href=\"http://golang.org/doc/install/source\">golang.org/doc/install/source</a>. A summary for those familiar with the process follows.\n<pre>% hg clone https://code.google.com/p/go\n% cd go/src\n% ./all.bash</pre>\n<p>2. Checkout the support scripts from Github, <a href=\"https://github.com/davecheney/golang-crosscompile\">github.com/davecheney/golang-crosscompile</a>\n<pre>% git clone git://github.com/davecheney/golang-crosscompile.git\n% source golang-crosscompile/crosscompile.bash</pre>\n<p>3. Build Go for all supported platforms\n<pre>% go-crosscompile-build-all\ngo-crosscompile-build darwin/386\ngo-crosscompile-build darwin/amd64\ngo-crosscompile-build freebsd/386\ngo-crosscompile-build freebsd/amd64\ngo-crosscompile-build linux/386\ngo-crosscompile-build linux/amd64\ngo-crosscompile-build linux/arm\ngo-crosscompile-build windows/386\ngo-crosscompile-build windows/amd64</pre>\n<p>This will compile the Go runtime and standard library for each platform. You can see these packages if you look in <code>go/pkg</code>.\n<pre>% ls -1 go/pkg \ndarwin_386\ndarwin_amd64\nfreebsd_386\nfreebsd_amd64\nlinux_386\nlinux_amd64\nlinux_arm\nobj\ntool\nwindows_386\nwindows_amd64</pre>\n<h1>Using your cross compilation environment</h1>\n<p>Sourcing <code>crosscompile.bash</code> provides a <code>go-$GOOS-$GOARCH</code> function for each platform, you can use these as you would the standard <code>go</code> tool. For example, to compile a program to run on <code>linux/arm</code>.\n<pre>% cd $GOPATH/github.com/davecheney/gmx/gmxc\n% go-linux-arm build \n% file ./gmxc \n./gmxc: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, ARM, version 1 (SYSV), \nstatically linked, not stripped</pre>\n<p>This file is not executable on the host system (<code>darwin/amd64</code>), but will work on <code>linux/arm</code>.\n<h1>Some caveats</h1>\n<h2>Cross compiled binaries, not a cross compiled Go installation</h2>\n<p>This post describes how to produce an environment that will build Go programs for your target environment, it will not however build a Go environment for your target. For that, you must build Go directly on the target platform. For most platforms this means installing from source, or using a version of Go provided by your operating systems packaging system.<br>\nIf you are using\n<h2>No cgo in cross platform builds</h2>\n<p>It is currently not possible to produce a <code>cgo</code> enabled binary when cross compiling from one operating system to another. This is because packages that use <code>cgo</code> invoke the C compiler directly as part of the build process to compile their C code and produce the C to Go trampoline functions. At the moment the name of the C compiler is hard coded to <code>gcc</code>, which assumes the system default gcc compiler even if a cross compiler is installed.\n<p>In Go 1.1 this restriction was reinforced further by making <code>CGO_ENABLED</code> default to <code>0</code> (off) when any cross compilation was attempted.\n<h2>GOARM flag needed for cross compiling to linux/arm.</h2>\n<p>Because some arm platforms lack a hardware floating point unit the <code>GOARM</code> value is used to tell the linker to use hardware or software floating point code. Depending on the specifics of the target machine you are building for, you may need to supply this environment value when building.\n<pre>% GOARM=5 go-linux-arm build</pre>\n<p>As of <code><a href=\"https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=e4b20018f7979a6c3ef259d36267bd753a92d9d2\">e4b20018f797</a></code> you will at least get a nice error telling you which <code>GOARM</code> value to use.\n<pre>$ ./gmxc \nruntime: this CPU has no floating point hardware, so it cannot \nrun this GOARM=7 binary. Recompile using GOARM=5.</pre>\n<p>By default, Go assumes a hardware floating point unit if no <code>GOARM</code> value is supplied. You can read more about Go on <code>linux/arm</code> on the <a href=\"http://code.google.com/p/go-wiki/wiki/GoArm\">Go Language Community Wiki</a>.","direction":"ltr"},"title":"An introduction to cross compilation with Go 1.1","published":1373325259000,"alternate":[{"href":"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/07/09/an-introduction-to-cross-compilation-with-go-1-1","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Cheney","crawled":1373326936982,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","htmlUrl":"http://dave.cheney.net","title":"Dave Cheney"},"summary":{"content":"This post is a compliment to one I wrote in August of last year, updating it for Go 1.1. Since last year tools such as goxc have appeared which go a beyond a simple shell wrapper to provide a complete build and distribution solution. Introduction Go provides excellent support for producing binaries for foreign platforms [...]","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"BNU7PBBhwHi0trgjATqXMRVLGGikmyZQMhiBOKF3WjM=_13fb7a49547:1a07f27:1fba5d06","originId":"http://dave.cheney.net/?p=655","fingerprint":"e20fa0ad","keywords":["Go","Programming","benchmarking","profiling"],"content":{"content":"<h1>Introduction</h1>\n<p>The Go runtime has built in support for several types of profiling that can be used to inspect the performance of your programs. A common way to leverage this support is via the <code>testing</code> package, but if you want to profile a full application it is sometimes complicated to configure the various profiling mechanisms.\n<p>I wrote <em><a href=\"https://github.com/davecheney/profile\">profile</a></em> to scratch my own itch and create a simple way to profile an existing Go program without having to restructure it as a benchmark.\n<h1>Installation</h1>\n<p><em>profile</em> is <code>go get</code>able so installation is a simple as\n<pre>go get github.com/davecheney/profile</pre>\n<h1>Usage</h1>\n<p>Enabling profiling in your application is as simple as one line at the top of your <code>main</code> function\n<pre>import \"github.com/davecheney/profile\"\n\nfunc main() {\n defer profile.Start(profile.CPUProfile).Stop()\n ...\n}</pre>\n<h1>Options</h1>\n<p>What to profile is controlled by the <code>*profile.Config</code> value passed to <code>profile.Start</code>. A <code>nil</code> <code>*profile.Config</code> is the same as choosing all the defaults. By default no profiles are enabled.\n<p>In this more complicated example a <code>*profile.Config</code> is constructed by hand which enables memory profiling, but disables the shutdown hook.\n<pre>import \"github.com/davecheney/profile\"\n\nfunc main() {\n cfg := profile.Config {\n MemProfile: true,\n NoShutdownHook: true, // do not hook SIGINT\n }\n // p.Stop() must be called before the program exits to \n // ensure profiling information is written to disk.\n p := profile.Start(&amp;cfg)\n ...\n}</pre>\n<p>Several <a href=\"http://godoc.org/github.com/davecheney/profile#_variables\">convenience variables</a> are provided for cpu, memory, and block (contention) profiling.\n<p>For more complex options, consult the documentation on the <a href=\"http://godoc.org/github.com/davecheney/profile#Config\"><code>profile.Config</code></a> type. Enabling more than one profile may cause your results to be less reliable as profiling itself is not without overhead.\n<h1>Example</h1>\n<p>To show <em>profile</em> in action, I modified <code>cmd/godoc</code> following the instructions in the first example.\n<pre>% godoc -http=:8080\n2013/07/07 15:29:11 profile: cpu profiling enabled, /tmp/profile002803/cpu.pprof</pre>\n<p>In another window I visited <code>http://localhost:8080</code> a few times to have some profiling data to record, then stopped <code>godoc</code>.\n<pre>^C2013/07/07 15:29:33 profile: caught interrupt, stopping profiles\n% go tool pprof $(which godoc) /tmp/profile002803/cpu.pprof\nWelcome to pprof! For help, type 'help'.\n(pprof) top10\nTotal: 15 samples\n 2 13.3% 13.3% 2 13.3% go/scanner.(*Scanner).next\n 2 13.3% 26.7% 2 13.3% path.Clean\n 1 6.7% 33.3% 3 20.0% go/scanner.(*Scanner).Scan\n 1 6.7% 40.0% 1 6.7% main.hasPathPrefix\n 1 6.7% 46.7% 3 20.0% main.mountedFS.translate\n 1 6.7% 53.3% 1 6.7% path.Dir\n 1 6.7% 60.0% 1 6.7% path/filepath.(*lazybuf).append\n 1 6.7% 66.7% 1 6.7% runtime.findfunc\n 1 6.7% 73.3% 2 13.3% runtime.makeslice\n 1 6.7% 80.0% 2 13.3% runtime.mallocgc</pre>\n<h1>Licence</h1>\n<p><em>profile</em> is available under a <a href=\"https://github.com/davecheney/profile/blob/master/LICENSE\">BSD licence</a>.","direction":"ltr"},"title":"Introducing profile, super simple profiling for Go programs","published":1373175683000,"alternate":[{"href":"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/07/07/introducing-profile-super-simple-profiling-for-go-programs","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Cheney","crawled":1373175584071,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","htmlUrl":"http://dave.cheney.net","title":"Dave Cheney"},"summary":{"content":"Introduction The Go runtime has built in support for several types of profiling that can be used to inspect the performance of your programs. A common way to leverage this support is via the testing package, but if you want to profile a full application it is sometimes complicated to configure the various profiling mechanisms. [...]","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"J04hLsLffn9GYO0/gp4Z4+C/kSDo3Uxwtg7Qn1jJCK4=_13fa693749b:503b:eacbe387","originId":"/blog/2013/06/23/ember-1-0-rc6.html","fingerprint":"e695138f","content":{"content":"<p>Ember.js 1.0 RC6 has been released and is available from the\nmain website and at <a href=\"http://builds.emberjs.com\">builds.emberjs.com</a>. This\nrelease features two big changes: 1) router update 2) Ember Components.\n<p><strong><em>Router Update</em></strong>\n<p>The biggest change is router update (aka \"router facelift\"), which addresses\ntwo major issues. The first was inconsistent semantics between URL-based transitions\nand <code>transitionTo</code>. The second was spotty async support which made it difficult to\nprevent or delay route entry in cases such as authentication and async code-loading.\n<p>We have now harmonized URL changes and <code>transitionTo</code> semantics and more fully embraced\nasynchrony using promises.\n<p>Additionally, router transitions have become first-class citizens and there are\nnew hooks to prevent or decorate transitions:\n<p><code>willTransition</code>: fires on current routes whenever a transition is about to take place\n<code>beforeModel</code>/<code>model</code>/<code>afterModel</code>: hooks fired during the async validation phase\n<p>Finally there is an <code>error</code> event which fires whenever there is a rejected promise or\nerror thrown in any of the <code>beforeModel</code>/<code>model</code>/<code>afterModel</code> hooks.\n<p>For more on new router features, see:\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https://machty.s3.amazonaws.com/ember-facelift-presentation/index.html#/1\">New router overview given by Alex Matchneer's at the June Ember NYC Meetup </a>\n<li><a href=\"https://gist.github.com/machty/5647589\">Usage Examples</a>\n<li><a href=\"http://www.embercasts.com/episodes/client-side-authentication-part-2\">Client-side Authentication Part 2 Embercast</a>\n</ul>\n<p>Special thanks to Alex Matchneer for his work on this!\n<p><strong><em>Ember Components</em></strong>\n<p>The other major change is the introduction of Ember Components, which shares Web\nComponents' goal of facilitating creation of reusable higher-level page elements.\n<p>Ember Components will generally consist of a <code>template</code> and a <code>view</code> which encapsulate the <code>template</code>'s\nproperty access and actions. Any reference to outside constructs is handled through context\ninfo passed into the <code>view</code>. Components can be customized through subclassing.\n<p>Ember Components naming conventions are: 1) the <code>template</code>'s name begins with 'components/', and 2) the\nComponent's name must include a '-' (this latter convention is consistent with Web Components standards,\nand prevents name collisions with built-in controls that wrap HTML elements). As an example, a component\nmight be named <code>'radio-button'</code>. Its <code>template</code> would be <code>'components/radio-button'</code> and you would call\nit as <code>{{radio-button}}</code> in other <code>templates</code>.\n<p>Stay tuned for more docs and examples of this exciting new feature.","direction":"ltr"},"title":"Ember 1.0 RC6","updated":1371945600000,"published":1371945600000,"author":"Ember","crawled":1372889248923,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://emberjs.com/blog/feed.xml","htmlUrl":"http://emberjs.com/blog","title":"Ember Blog"},"summary":{"content":"<p>Ember.js 1.0 RC6 has been released and is available from the\nmain website and at <a href=\"http://builds.emberjs.com\">builds.emberjs.com</a>. This\nrelease features two big changes: 1) router update 2) Ember Components.\n<p><strong><em>Router Update</em></strong>\n<p>The biggest change is router update (aka \"router facelift...","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"id":"BNU7PBBhwHi0trgjATqXMRVLGGikmyZQMhiBOKF3WjM=_13fa12b9416:28475e:f5ac5ed","originId":"http://dave.cheney.net/?p=650","fingerprint":"dc7ecd3d","keywords":["Go","Programming","arm","tarball"],"content":{"content":"<p>This evening I rebuilt my unofficial ARM tarball distributions to Go version 1.1.1.\n<p>You can find them by following the <a title=\"Unofficial ARM tarballs for Go\" href=\"http://dave.cheney.net/unofficial-arm-tarballs\">link in the main header of this page</a>.","direction":"ltr"},"title":"Unofficial Go 1.1.1 tarballs for ARM now available","published":1372766216000,"alternate":[{"href":"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/07/02/unofficial-go-1-1-1-tarballs-for-arm-now-available","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Cheney","crawled":1372798555158,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","htmlUrl":"http://dave.cheney.net","title":"Dave Cheney"},"summary":{"content":"This evening I rebuilt my unofficial ARM tarball distributions to Go version 1.1.1. You can find them by following the link in the main header of this page.","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"recrawled":1372565864356,"id":"BNU7PBBhwHi0trgjATqXMRVLGGikmyZQMhiBOKF3WjM=_13f92dee4c0:494f6d:2ae58ca9","fingerprint":"b5d314e9","originId":"http://dave.cheney.net/?p=612","keywords":["Go","Programming","benchmark","testing"],"content":{"content":"<p>This post continues a series on the <code>testing</code> package I started a few weeks back. You can read the previous article on <a title=\"Writing table driven tests in Go\" href=\"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/06/09/writing-table-driven-tests-in-go\">writing table driven tests here</a>. You can find the code mentioned below in the <a href=\"https://github.com/davecheney/fib\">https://github.com/davecheney/fib</a> repository.\n<h1>Introduction</h1>\n<p>The Go <code><a href=\"http://golang.org/pkg/testing/\">testing</a></code> package contains a benchmarking facility that can be used to examine the performance of your Go code. This post explains how to use the <code>testing</code> package to write a simple benchmark.\n<p>You should also review the introductory paragraphs of <a href=\"http://blog.golang.org/profiling-go-programs\">Profiling Go programs</a>, specifically the section on configuring power management on your machine. For better or worse, modern CPUs rely heavily on active thermal management which can add noise to benchmark results.\n<h1>Writing a benchmark</h1>\n<p>We’ll reuse the <code>Fib</code> function from the previous article.\n<pre>func Fib(n int) int {\n if n &lt; 2 {\n return n\n }\n return Fib(n-1) + Fib(n-2)\n}</pre>\n<p>Benchmarks are placed inside <code>_test.go</code> files and follow the rules of their <code>Test</code> counterparts. In this first example we’re going to benchmark the speed of computing the 10<sup>th</sup> number in the Fibonacci series.\n<pre>// from fib_test.go\nfunc BenchmarkFib10(b *testing.B) {\n // run the Fib function b.N times\n for n := 0; n &lt; b.N; n++ {\n Fib(10)\n }\n}</pre>\n<p>Writing a benchmark is very similar to writing a test as they share the infrastructure from the <code>testing</code> package. Some of the key differences are\n<ul>\n<li>Benchmark functions start with <code>Benchmark</code> not <code>Test</code>.\n<li>Benchmark functions are run several times by the <code>testing</code> package. The value of <code>b.N</code> will increase each time until the benchmark runner is satisfied with the stability of the benchmark. This has some important ramifications which we’ll investigate later in this article.\n<li>Each benchmark must execute the code under test <code>b.N</code> times. The <code>for</code> loop in <code>BenchmarkFib10</code> will be present in every benchmark function.\n</ul>\n<h1>Running benchmarks</h1>\n<p>Now that we have a benchmark function defined in the tests for the <code>fib</code> package, we can invoke it with <code>go test -bench=.</code>\n<pre>% go test -bench=.\nPASS\nBenchmarkFib10 5000000 509 ns/op\nok github.com/davecheney/fib 3.084s</pre>\n<p>Breaking down the text above, we pass the <code>-bench</code> flag to <code>go test</code> supplying a regular expression matching everything. You must pass a valid regex to <code>-bench</code>, just passing <code>-bench</code> is a syntax error. You can use this property to run a subset of benchmarks.\n<p>The first line of the result, <code>PASS</code>, comes from the testing portion of the test driver, asking <code>go test</code> to run your benchmarks does not disable the tests in the package. If you want to skip the tests, you can do so by passing a regex to the <code>-run</code> flag that will not match anything. I usually use\n<pre>go test -run=XXX -bench=.</pre>\n<p>The second line is the average run time of the function under test for the final value of <code>b.N</code> iterations. In this case, my laptop can execute <code>Fib(10)</code> in 509 nanoseconds. If there were additional <code>Benchmark</code> functions that matched the <code>-bench</code> filter, they would be listed here.\n<h1>Benchmarking various inputs</h1>\n<p>As the original <code>Fib</code> function is the classic recursive implementation, we’d expect it to exhibit exponential behavior as the input grows. We can explore this by rewriting our benchmark slightly using a pattern that is very common in the Go standard library.\n<pre>func benchmarkFib(i int, b *testing.B) {\n for n := 0; n &lt; b.N; n++ {\n Fib(i)\n }\n}\n\nfunc BenchmarkFib1(b *testing.B) { benchmarkFib(1, b) }\nfunc BenchmarkFib2(b *testing.B) { benchmarkFib(2, b) }\nfunc BenchmarkFib3(b *testing.B) { benchmarkFib(3, b) }\nfunc BenchmarkFib10(b *testing.B) { benchmarkFib(10, b) }\nfunc BenchmarkFib20(b *testing.B) { benchmarkFib(20, b) }\nfunc BenchmarkFib40(b *testing.B) { benchmarkFib(40, b) }</pre>\n<p>Making <code>benchmarkFib</code> private avoids the testing driver trying to invoke it directly, which would fail as its signature does not match <code>func(*testing.B)</code>. Running this new set of benchmarks gives these results on my machine.\n<pre>BenchmarkFib1 1000000000 2.84 ns/op\nBenchmarkFib2 500000000 7.92 ns/op\nBenchmarkFib3 100000000 13.0 ns/op\nBenchmarkFib10 5000000 447 ns/op\nBenchmarkFib20 50000 55668 ns/op\nBenchmarkFib40 2 942888676 ns/op</pre>\n<p>Apart from confirming the exponential behavior of our simplistic <code>Fib</code> function, there are some other things to observe in this benchmark run.\n<ul>\n<li>Each benchmark is run for a <em>minimum</em> of 1 second by default. If the second has not elapsed when the <code>Benchmark</code> function returns, the value of <code>b.N</code> is increased in the sequence 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, … and the function run again.\n<li>The final <code>BenchmarkFib40</code> only ran two times with the average was just under a second for each run. As the <code>testing</code> package uses a simple average (total time to run the benchmark function over <code>b.N</code>) this result is statistically weak. You can increase the minimum benchmark time using the <code>-benchtime</code> flag to produce a more accurate result.\n<pre>% go test -bench=Fib40 -benchtime=20s\nPASS\nBenchmarkFib40 50 944501481 ns/op</pre>\n\n</ul>\n<h1>Traps for young players</h1>\n<p>Above I mentioned the <code>for</code> loop is crucial to the operation of the benchmark driver. Here are two examples of a faulty <code>Fib</code> benchmark.\n<pre>func BenchmarkFibWrong(b *testing.B) {\n for n := 0; n &lt; b.N; n++ {\n Fib(n)\n }\n}\n\nfunc BenchmarkFibWrong2(b *testing.B) {\n Fib(b.N)\n}</pre>\n<p>On my system <code>BenchmarkFibWrong</code> never completes. This is because the run time of the benchmark will increase as <code>b.N</code> grows, never converging on a stable value. <code>BenchmarkFibWrong2</code> is similarly affected and never completes.\n<h1>A note on compiler optimisations</h1>\n<p>Before concluding I wanted to highlight that to be completely accurate, any benchmark should be careful to avoid compiler optimisations eliminating the function under test and artificially lowering the run time of the benchmark.\n<pre>var result int\n\nfunc BenchmarkFibComplete(b *testing.B) {\n var r int\n for n := 0; n &lt; b.N; n++ {\n // always record the result of Fib to prevent\n // the compiler eliminating the function call.\n r = Fib(10)\n }\n // always store the result to a package level variable\n // so the compiler cannot eliminate the Benchmark itself.\n result = r\n}</pre>\n<h1>Conclusion</h1>\n<p>The benchmarking facility in Go works well, and is widely accepted as a reliable standard for measuring the performance of Go code. Writing benchmarks in this manner is an excellent way of communicating a performance improvement, or a regression, in a reproducible way.","direction":"ltr"},"alternate":[{"href":"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/06/30/how-to-write-benchmarks-in-go","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Cheney","crawled":1372558648512,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","htmlUrl":"http://dave.cheney.net","title":"Dave Cheney"},"published":1372557972000,"summary":{"content":"This post continues a series on the testing package I started a few weeks back. You can read the previous article on writing table driven tests here. You can find the code mentioned below in the https://github.com/davecheney/fib repository. Introduction The Go testing package contains a benchmarking facility that can be used to examine the performance [...]","direction":"ltr"},"title":"How to write benchmarks in Go","unread":true},{"id":"BNU7PBBhwHi0trgjATqXMRVLGGikmyZQMhiBOKF3WjM=_13f59dcd0ef:41f8b:f1c0ed2","fingerprint":"2fc77cae","originId":"http://dave.cheney.net/?p=608","keywords":["Go","Programming","concurrency","race","testing"],"content":{"content":"<p>This is a short post on stress testing your Go packages. Concurrency or memory correctness errors are more likely to show up at higher concurrency levels (higher values of <code>GOMAXPROCS</code>). I use this script when testing my packages, or when reviewing code that goes into the standard library.\n<pre>#!/usr/bin/env bash -e\n\ngo test -c\n# comment above and uncomment below to enable the race builder\n# go test -c -race\nPKG=$(basename $(pwd))\n\nwhile true ; do \n export GOMAXPROCS=$[ 1 + $[ RANDOM % 128 ]]\n ./$PKG.test $@ 2>&amp;1\ndone</pre>\n<p>I keep this script in <code>$HOME/bin</code> so usage is\n<pre>$ cd $SOMEPACKAGE\n$ stress.bash\nPASS\nPASS\nPASS</pre>\n<p>You can pass additional arguments to your test binary on the command line,\n<pre>stress.bash -test.v -test.run=ThisTestOnly</pre>\n<p>The goal is to be able to run the stress test for as long as you want without a test failure. Once you achieve that, uncomment <code>go test -c -race</code> and try again.","direction":"ltr"},"title":"Stress test your Go packages","published":1371599292000,"alternate":[{"href":"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/06/19/stress-test-your-go-packages","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Cheney","crawled":1371602211055,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","htmlUrl":"http://dave.cheney.net","title":"Dave Cheney"},"summary":{"content":"This is a short post on stress testing your Go packages. Concurrency or memory correctness errors are more likely to show up at higher concurrency levels (higher values of GOMAXPROCS). I use this script when testing my packages, or when reviewing code that goes into the standard library. #!/usr/bin/env bash -e go test -c # [...]","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true},{"recrawled":1371602211055,"id":"BNU7PBBhwHi0trgjATqXMRVLGGikmyZQMhiBOKF3WjM=_13f52f80b5c:a18618:a7cd00","fingerprint":"ced7c14","originId":"http://dave.cheney.net/?p=526","keywords":["Go","Programming","centos","redhat","unsupported"],"content":{"content":"<p><strong>Important Go 1.0 or 1.1 has never supported RHEL5 or CentOS5. Please do not interpret anything in this article as a statement that Go does support RHEL5 or CentOS5.</strong>\n<hr>\n<h1>Introduction</h1>\n<p>Go has never supported RedHat 5 or CentOS 5. We’ve been pretty good at getting that message out, but it still catches a few people by surprise. The reason these old releases are not supported is the Linux kernel that ships with them, a derivative of 2.6.18, does not provide three facilities required by the Go runtime. \n<p>These are\n<ol>\n<li>Support for the <code>O_CLOEXEC</code> flag passed to <code>open(2)</code>. We attempt to work around this in the <code>os.OpenFile</code> function, but not all kernels that <em>do not</em> support this flag return an error telling us they don’t support it. The result on RHEL5/CentOS5 systems is file descriptors can leak into child processes, this isn’t a big problem, but does cause test failures.\n<li>Support for <code>accept4(2)</code>. <code>accept4(2)</code> was introduced in kernel 2.6.28 to allow <code>O_CLOEXEC</code> to be set on newly accepted socket file descriptors. In the case that this syscall is not supported, we fall back to the older <code>accept(2)</code> syscall at a small performance hit.\n<li>Support for high resolution vDSO <code>clock_gettime(2)</code>. vDSO is a way of projecting a small part of the kernel into your process address space. This means you can call certain syscalls (known as vsyscalls) without the cost of a trap into kernel space or a context switch. Go uses <code>clock_gettime(2)</code> via the vDSO in preference to the older <code>gettimeofday(2)</code> syscall as it is both faster, and higher precision.\n</ol>\n<h1>Installing Go from source</h1>\n<p>As RHEL5/CentOS5 are not supported, there are no binary packages available on the <a href=\"https://golang.org/\">golang.org</a> website. To install Go you will need to use the source tarball, in this case we’re using the Go 1.1.1 release. I’m using a CentOS 5.9 amd64 image running in a vm.\n<h2>Install prerequisites</h2>\n<p>The packages required to build Go on RedHat platforms are listed on the <a href=\"https://code.google.com/p/go-wiki/wiki/InstallFromSource#Install_C_tools\">Go community wiki</a>.\n<pre>$ sudo yum install gcc glibc-devel</pre>\n<h2>Download and unpack</h2>\n<p>We’re going to download the Go 1.1.1 source distribution and unpack it to <code>$HOME/go</code>.\n<pre>$ curl https://go.googlecode.com/files/go1.1.1.src.tar.gz | tar xz\n % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current\n Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed\n100 8833k 100 8833k 0 0 710k 0 0:00:12 0:00:12 --:--:-- 974k\n$ ls\nDesktop go</pre>\n<h2>Build</h2>\n<pre>$ cd go/src\n$ ./make.bash\n# Building C bootstrap tool.\ncmd/dist\n\n# Building compilers and Go bootstrap tool for host, linux/amd64.\nlib9\nlibbio\n...\nInstalled Go for linux/amd64 in /home/dfc/go\nInstalled commands in /home/dfc/go/bin</pre>\n<h2>Add <code>go</code> to <code>PATH</code></h2>\n<pre>$ export PATH=$PATH:$HOME/go/bin\n$ go version\ngo version go1.1.1 linux/amd64</pre>\n<h1>Known issues</h1>\n<p>As described above, RHEL5/CentOS5 are not supported as their kernel is too old. Here are some of the known issues. As RHEL5/CentOS5 are unsupported, they will not be fixed. \n<h2>Test failures</h2>\n<p>You’ll notice above to build Go I ran <code>make.bash</code>, not the recommended <code>all.bash</code>, to skip the tests. Due to the lack of working <code>O_CLOEXEC</code> support, some tests will fail. This is a known issue and will not be fixed.\n<pre>$ ./run.bash\n...\n--- FAIL: TestExtraFiles (0.05 seconds)\n exec_test.go:302: Something already leaked - closed fd 3\n exec_test.go:359: Run: exit status 1; stdout \"leaked parent file. fd = 10; want 9\\n\", stderr \"\"\nFAIL\nFAIL os/exec 0.489s</pre>\n<h2>Segfaults and crashes due to missing vDSO support</h2>\n<p>A some point during the RHEL5 release cycle support for vDSO vsyscalls was added to RedHat’s 2.6.18 kernel. However that point appears to differ by point release. For example, for RedHat 5, kernel 2.6.18-238.el5 does not work, whereas <a href=\"https://twitter.com/jehiah/status/343162971071070209\">2.6.18-238.19.1.el5 does</a>. Running CentOS 5.9 with kernel 2.6.18.348.el5 does work.\n<pre>$ ./make.bash\n...\ncmd/go\n./make.bash: line 141: 8269 segmentfault \"$GOTOOLDIR\"/go_bootstrap clean -i std</pre>\n<p>In summary, if the your Go programs crash or segfault using RHEL5/CentOS5, you should try upgrading to the latest kernel available for your point release. I’ll leave the comments on this article open for a while so people can contribute their known working kernel versions, perhaps I can build a (partial) table of known good configurations.</hr>","direction":"ltr"},"title":"How to install Go 1.1 on CentOS 5.9","published":1371486466000,"alternate":[{"href":"http://dave.cheney.net/2013/06/18/how-to-install-go-1-1-on-centos-5","type":"text/html"}],"author":"Dave Cheney","crawled":1371486554972,"origin":{"streamId":"feed/http://dave.cheney.net/feed","htmlUrl":"http://dave.cheney.net","title":"Dave Cheney"},"summary":{"content":"Important Go 1.0 or 1.1 has never supported RHEL5 or CentOS5. Please do not interpret anything in this article as a statement that Go does support RHEL5 or CentOS5. Introduction Go has never supported RedHat 5 or CentOS 5. We’ve been pretty good at getting that message out, but it still catches a few people by surprise. [...]","direction":"ltr"},"unread":true}]}

data/spec/lib/feedly_api_spec.rb

@@ -1,55 +1,98 @@
 require 'spec_helper'
 
-describe FeedlyApi::Feed do
+describe FeedlyApi::Client do
+  let(:auth_token) { ENV['FEEDLY_TOKEN'] || 'GREATE_AUTH_TOKEN' }
+  let(:user_id)    { ENV['FEEDLY_USER_ID'] || '00000000-000-NOT-VALID-a29b6679bb3c' }
+  let(:client)     { FeedlyApi::Client.new auth_token }
 
   describe '#new' do
-    context 'valid url' do
-      let(:feed) { FeedlyApi::Feed.new 'https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml' }
+    before :each do
+      FeedlyApi.stub(:get).and_return(File.read(File.join('spec', 'fixtures', 'profile.json')))
+    end
 
-      it 'has url' do
-        expect(feed.url).to eq 'https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml'
-      end
+    it 'creates Client object with given token' do
+      client = FeedlyApi::Client.new auth_token
+      expect(client.auth_token).to eq auth_token
+    end
 
-      it 'has id' do
-        expect(feed.id).to eq 'feed%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Frss%2Fupdates.xml'
-      end
+    it 'saves user_id' do
+      expect(client.user_id).to eq '00000000-000-NOT-VALID-a29b6679bb3c' #user_id
     end
+  end
 
-    context 'invalid url' do
-      it 'fails with exception' do
-        expect {
-          FeedlyApi::Feed.new 'https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml12'
-        }.to raise_error
-      end
+  describe '#get_user_profile' do
+    # rewrite for more accurancy
+    it 'returns user info' do
+      FeedlyApi.stub(:get).and_return(File.read(File.join('spec', 'fixtures', 'profile.json')))
+      expect(client.get_user_profile[:client]).to eq 'feedly'
     end
   end
 
-  describe '#items' do
-    let(:feed) { FeedlyApi::Feed.new 'https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml' }
+  describe '#get_feed_info' do
+    it 'retrievs basic feed info' do
+      FeedlyApi.stub(:get).and_return(File.read(File.join('spec', 'fixtures', 'feed_info.json')))
+      feed_info = client.get_feed_info('feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml')
+      expect(feed_info[:website]).to eq 'https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml'
+    end
+  end
 
-    context 'valid params' do
-      it 'returns 20 feed items by default' do
-        expect(feed.items.length).to eq 20
-      end
+  describe '#get_subscriptions' do
+    it 'retrievs user subscriptions' do
+      FeedlyApi.stub(:get).and_return(File.read(File.join('spec', 'fixtures', 'subscriptions.json')))
+      expect(client.get_subscriptions.size).to eq 3
+    end
+  end
 
-      it 'takes :count param to get more or less feed items' do
-        expect(feed.items(count: 50).length).to eq 50
-      end
+  describe '#get_feed_contents' do
+    it 'retrievs feed contents' do
+      FeedlyApi.stub(:get).and_return(File.read(File.join('spec', 'fixtures', 'feed_contents_20.json')))
+      feed_contents = client.get_feed_contents('feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml')
+      expect(feed_contents[:items].size).to eq 20
+    end
 
-      it 'takes :ranked param with value "oldest" and returns oldest items first' do
-        items = feed.items(ranked: 'oldest')
-        expect(items.first[:published] < items.last[:published]).to be_true
-      end
+    it 'retrievs custom number of feed items' do
+      FeedlyApi.stub(:get).and_return(File.read(File.join('spec', 'fixtures', 'feed_contents_10.json')))
+      feed_contents = client.get_feed_contents('feed/https://www.eff.org/rss/updates.xml', {count: 10})
+      expect(feed_contents[:items].size).to eq 10
     end
 
-    context 'not valid params' do
-      it 'returns 0 items for negative :count param' do
-        expect(feed.items(count: -50).length).to eq 0
-      end
+    it 'returns feed items in custom order'
+
+    it 'returns unred only feed items'
+  end
+
+  describe '#get_tag_contents' do
+    it 'retrievs content for specific tag' do
+      FeedlyApi.stub(:get).and_return(File.read(File.join('spec', 'fixtures', 'tagged.json')))
+      feed_contents = client.get_tag_contents('global.saved')
+      expect(feed_contents[:items].size).to eq 1
+    end
+
+    # Update fixture for more items with tags
+    # it 'retrievs custom number of feed items for specific tag' do
+    #   feed_contents = client.get_tag_contents('global.saved', {count: 10})
+    #   expect(feed_contents[:items].size).to eq 10
+    # end
+  end
+
+  describe '#get_category_contents' do
+    it 'retrievs content for custom category_id' do
+      FeedlyApi.stub(:get).and_return(File.read(File.join('spec', 'fixtures', 'uncategoriezed.json')))
+      feed_contents = client.get_category_contents('global.uncategorized')
+      expect(feed_contents[:items].size).to eq 16
+    end
+
+    it 'retrievs custom number of feed items for specific category_id' do
+      FeedlyApi.stub(:get).and_return(File.read(File.join('spec', 'fixtures', 'uncategoriezed_10.json')))
+      feed_contents = client.get_category_contents('global.uncategorized', {count: 10})
+      expect(feed_contents[:items].size).to eq 10
+    end
+  end
 
-      it 'return defaul count of items (20) for non integer value' do
-        expect(feed.items(count: 'NOT_AN_INTEGER').length).to eq 20
-      end
+  describe '#get_markers' do
+    it 'returns unred counts for all feeds' do
+      FeedlyApi.stub(:get).and_return(File.read(File.join('spec', 'fixtures', 'markers.json')))
+      expect(client.get_markers[:unreadcounts].last[:count]).to eq 16
     end
   end
 end

data/spec/spec_helper.rb

@@ -1,4 +1,7 @@
 require 'feedly_api'
 require 'pry'
-require 'coveralls'
-Coveralls.wear!
+
+unless ENV['TRAVIS'].nil?
+  require 'coveralls'
+  Coveralls.wear!
+end

metadata

@@ -1,14 +1,14 @@
 --- !ruby/object:Gem::Specification
 name: feedly_api
 version: !ruby/object:Gem::Version
-  version: 0.4.2
+  version: 0.5.0
 platform: ruby
 authors:
 - Myuzu
 autorequire: 
 bindir: bin
 cert_chain: []
-date: 2013-07-05 00:00:00.000000000 Z
+date: 2013-07-16 00:00:00.000000000 Z
 dependencies:
 - !ruby/object:Gem::Dependency
   name: rake
@@ -84,7 +84,17 @@ files:
 - lib/feedly_api/api.rb
 - lib/feedly_api/client.rb
 - lib/feedly_api/errors.rb
+- lib/feedly_api/feed.rb
 - lib/feedly_api/version.rb
+- spec/fixtures/feed_contents_10.json
+- spec/fixtures/feed_contents_20.json
+- spec/fixtures/feed_info.json
+- spec/fixtures/markers.json
+- spec/fixtures/profile.json
+- spec/fixtures/subscriptions.json
+- spec/fixtures/tagged.json
+- spec/fixtures/uncategoriezed.json
+- spec/fixtures/uncategoriezed_10.json
 - spec/lib/feedly_api_spec.rb
 - spec/spec_helper.rb
 homepage: https://github.com/Myuzu/feedly_api
@@ -107,7 +117,7 @@ required_rubygems_version: !ruby/object:Gem::Requirement
       version: '0'
 requirements: []
 rubyforge_project: 
-rubygems_version: 2.0.3
+rubygems_version: 2.0.5
 signing_key: 
 specification_version: 4
 summary: Ruby wrapper for Feedly API