Law

law@sudoroom.org

19 discussions

Fwd: [berkmanfriends] MARCO CIVIL approved in the House!

by eddan.com

sent from eddan.com Begin forwarded message: > From: Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini(a)gmail.com> > Date: March 25, 2014 at 5:36:15 PM PDT > To: Berkman Friends <berkmanfriends(a)eon.law.harvard.edu> > Subject: [berkmanfriends] MARCO CIVIL approved in the House! > > Dear all, > > As we have received so much support from the international community, I'm happy to let you know that Marco Civil has just been approved at the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. Now we need to approve it in the Senate. > > This is the final version of the text: > http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=1238705… > > Of course, the text is not perfect and we still have to fight for changes on data retention. Nevertheless, its a happy day for many of the Brazilian civil society organizations mobilized for approving a bill of rights for the Internet. A lot of very good people have been engaged and doing an amazing job in Brasilia and on the social networks, without giving up, despite of the never ending vote-not vote soap opera. #FeelingProud :) > > I would like to thank you for all the support received to far, as international pressure have helped as well. > > This is also a good step for NetMundial. > > all the best > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini(a)gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ---------- > You are subscribed to the BerkmanFriends discussion list. > > Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends > Mailing list members: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends > > Reminder: emails sent through this list are considered on-record unless > otherwise noted. > >

10 years

Fwd: [Ipprofs] Aereo Int'l brief

by eddan.com

sent from eddan.com Begin forwarded message: > From: "Sean Flynn" <sflynn(a)wcl.american.edu> > Date: March 24, 2014 at 1:03:45 PM PDT > To: <ipprofs(a)listserv.law.unh.edu> > Subject: [Ipprofs] Aereo Int'l brief > > Hi all, > > There is at least one more opportunity to sign a law prof brief in Aereo! > > Peter Jaszi, Margot Kaminski and I (with additional help from Kim Weatherall and Ariel Katz and others) have a draft brief on the international issues raised by the IFPI professors brief circulated to this list a couple weeks ago. > > A summary of arguments is included below. > > If you are interested in reviewing the draft, please let us know at pijip(a)wcl.american.edu and I can send you a draft. Comments will accepted until Wednesday MARCH 26 MIDNIGHT EST. > > As the summary notes below, this brief is only addressed to the international law issues primarily raised by the IFPI brief. It takes no position on the ultimate issue under US law. > > The brief is open for signature to all law professors teaching international, comparative US or foreign (to the US) copyright law. Given the international and comparative issues in this case, you need not be a U.S. professor to sign on. > > Please email pijip(a)wcl.american.edu with name and affiliation to sign on or comment. > > Thanks!! > > (Margot Kaminski, Peter Jaszi,). > > > > > > TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................... i > TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................... ii > STATEMENT OF INTEREST 1 > SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 1 > ARGUMENT...................................................................... 3 > A. The Charming Betsy canon is inapplicable to later-in-time non-self-executing agreements that Congress has repeatedly instructed do not modify U.S. law 5 > B. The Charming Betsy canon is inapplicable because there is no conflict between Aereo’s position and international copyright agreements 11 > 1. The communication and making available rights in the Berne Convention and WCT do not apply to infrastructure providers that facilitate private copying and transmissions by consumers......................... 12 > 2. This question is without uniform resolution in the jurisprudence of other countries, further evidencing that there is no binding international standard 17 > 3. The provisions of U.S. Free Trade Agreements are inapposite because they regulate only the extension of statutory licenses to Internet rebroacasters 21 > > > SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT > In order to rule in favor of Aereo in this case, this Court needs to affirm only that a one-to-one transmission of a consumer-made copy back to that same consumer is a private performance, not a public performance, under Section 106(4) of the U.S. Copyright Act. Whether the copy is a lawful reproduction is not before this Court. > Petitioners and some of the supporting amici argue that in applying Section 106(4) in this case, the Court should turn to international copyright treaties and trade agreements as interpretive tools. The argument relies on the Charming Betsy canon of statutory interpretation, requiring that, where possible, statues “be construed so as not to conflict with international law or with an international agreement of the United States,” Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, citing Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804). > The argument for application of the Charming Betsy doctrine in this case should be rejected. No provision of international law dictates or recommends Petitioners preferred interpretation of the U.S. Copyright Act. The executive branch has not identified a potential violation of U.S. international commitments by the Second Circuit decision in this case below, including in its brief before this Court. Nor is there any evidence that Congress intended to alter the interpretation of the Section 106 public performance right when it approved entry into any of the international agreements cited in this case. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. Petitioner and Amici are asking that this Court ignore explicit commands from Congress in implementing legislation that that the cited international commitments not modify the U.S. public performance right in any way. > There would be no conflict between a holding for Aereo and the provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, (Berne) and the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WCT), which between them recognize of a “right of communication to the public,” including a right to make copyright protected subject matter available on demand. The Berne and WCT communication rights were drafted to leave a great deal of flexibility in local implementation. Most relevant to this case, the right to make works available on demand extends only to communications “to the public.” The concept of a “public” communication is not defined in international copyright conventions. This leaves member states free to define “public” in domestic implementation. In addition, the conventions envisage “the mere provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication” would not render such providers directly liable for the transmissions of the users of such infrastructure. These characteristics of the international treaty architecture leave U.S. courts and policy makers free to define the use of Aereo’s equipment as creating only private performances. > Foreign law further evidences that no controlling international standard is applicable here. The law cited in the Petitioners’ and amici briefs is selective and mischaracterized. The cases cited, and the field viewed as a whole, support, or would not conflict with, a holding that Aereo does not make works publicly available because users make the reproductions at issue and transmit those reproductions to themselves. > Finally, the cited provisions of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) are not relevant to this Court’s consideration. The Charming Betsy canon has no application to such agreements because in each Congress expressly declared that their provisions cannot survive any conflicting “construction” of U.S. law. Even if these clear statements were not sufficient to jettison application of the Charming Betsy canon, there would be no conflict between a holding for Aereo and the cited FTA provisions, which relate solely to the use of statutory licenses to authorize internet rebroadcasting. > This brief takes no position on the ultimate application of the U.S. Copyright to Aereo or its consumers. > > > > Sean M Fiil Flynn > Associate Director > Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP) > American University Washington College of Law > 4801 Massachusetts Ave., NW > Washington, D.C. 20016 > (202) 274-4157 > > Connect with PIJIP on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn: > > > _______________________________________________ > IPProfs mailing list > IPProfs(a)listserv.law.unh.edu > http://listserv.law.unh.edu/mailman/listinfo/ipprofs

10 years

Fwd: Legal case could kill key part of San Francisco sunshine law

by eddan.com

sent from eddan.com Begin forwarded message: > From: Richard Knee <rak0408(a)EARTHLINK.NET> > Date: March 10, 2014 at 4:49:23 PM PDT > To: FOI-L(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Legal case could kill key part of San Francisco sunshine law > Reply-To: Richard Knee <rak0408(a)EARTHLINK.NET> > > By Tim Redmond > > There’s a legal case making its way through the court system that could invalidate a critical part of the city’s landmark Sunshine Ordinance. > > The case, St. Croix v Superior Court, stems from a lawsuit sunshine activist Allen Grossman filed seeking copies of the communications the Ethics Commission had with the City Attorney’s Office over proposed changes to how the commission handles sunshine complaints. > > At issue is one of the trickier points of law: Does the long-sacred right of attorney-client privilege always trump the ability of the voters in a city to mandate the release of documents? > > [. . .] > > http://48hillsonline.org/2014/03/10/legal-case-could-invalidate-part-of-sfs…

10 years, 1 month

Fwd: Net neutrality decision is "alarming for all Internet users" - Summary

by eddan.com

sent from eddan.com Begin forwarded message: > From: Chris Riley <mchris(a)mozilla.com> > Date: January 15, 2014 at 9:38:59 AM PST > To: Netpolicy <Netpolicy(a)mozilla.org> > Subject: Fwd: Net neutrality decision is "alarming for all Internet users" - Summary > > Here's my longer writeup on the net neutrality decision and surrounding posture and opportunities. > > Thanks, > Chris > > - - - > > On Tuesday, January 14th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the core of the Federal Communications Commission's 2010 Open Internet order. The FCC's order, while not nearly as complete as Mozilla and other net neutrality advocates had sought, included fundamental protections against blocking and discrimination in modern broadband services that are now no longer effective. The result is significant risk of severe harm to innovation and user choice on the Internet. Over the coming months, expect to see many efforts to push the FCC to respond. Mozilla's public policy team intends to play a major role in these efforts. > > The history of this decision goes back many years. The core of the D.C. Circuit's decision rests on three FCC orders from the early-mid 2000's that categorized cable modem, DSL, and wireless data services as "information services" (the same broad regulatory category, for FCC purposes, as, say, email and search engines), and distinctly not "telecommunications services" (such as traditional phone services). The court upheld the FCC's authority to adopt open Internet rules despite this classification decision, but said that authority ends if the FCC imposes "common carrier" rules on the information services, as is the case with the 2010 Open Internet order. > > On the good side, the D.C. Circuit blatantly upheld the FCC's policy justification for its rules. In no uncertain terms, the court said that net neutrality is important for broadband development and the Internet ecosystem, and that the FCC has general authority to oversee Internet access services. On the (much bigger) bad side, the court held essentially that any rule proscribing neutral treatment for network traffic - including any rule that prohibits blocking - was barred as a common carrier protection. More subtly, but also concerning, the opinion declares unequivocally that broadband providers have cognizable relationships with all edge providers - regardless of whether they interconnect with them. This assumes that the Internet is, in fact, a two-sided market, with potential repercussions for a range of future pricing and interconnection practices. > > As many have noted (see, e.g., GigaOm), the biggest losers are individual Internet users, because consumer choice of Internet websites and services will be greatly affected by future behind-the-scenes deals for prioritization (or even blocking). The second category of losers in the wake of this decision are startups and investors. Innovators and new entrants in the Internet applications and services market will face an uphill battle if incumbents have established deals for preferential treatment. But big tech will almost certainly find itself far worse off as the political power balance shifts, as broadband providers will be able to give their vertically-integrated competing offerings every advantage. > > In the worst-case scenario, "Internet" to consumers means access to only a few chosen partner sites, in the vein of this well-known graphic. In a more likely outcome, ISPs sell or give prioritized routing to some service providers, placing a huge thumb on the competitive scale in favor of a select few - a major factor when some studies have shown that 1 second of delay can lower traffic by 11%. Perversely, the value of priority deals increases along with congestion, creating disincentives for future investment in broadband capacity, making it seem likely the United States will fall even further than its current rank of 16th in global rankings of broadband services. To some extent, this is a competition policy problem, but its severity rises to the level of an innovation and user choice problem, for which there is no adequate competition law remedy. > > The options for next steps to advance net neutrality are many, but none are easy. En banc D.C. Circuit review is possible, but unlikely; the same is true of Congressional action to adopt net neutrality law or grant FCC clear authority. The FCC may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, which would take quite some time and presents uncertain prospects. The two most likely outcomes are that the FCC may reclassify broadband services as telecommunications services, undoing the orders of the early 2000s and allowing for the adoption and enforcement of common carrier protections, or the FCC may do nothing for now, and take future case-by-case actions to curtail specific bad practices and slowly build precedents, a tactic that has failed in the past but may work in theory going forward, if in each individual case the FCC can argue that the practice is harmful to broadband service deployment generally. > > Net neutrality has often been a hugely divisive political issue, but the principles of openness, innovation, and user choice on the Internet are very widely endorsed. Both the FCC Chairman and President Obama released quick statements of support for the open Internet after the court's decision. And the legal context is fairly straightforward, for a change - the D.C. Circuit was reasonably clear what arguments would need to be made successfully to uphold case-by-case actions, and signaled strongly that a reclassification order would be upheld in court review. > > Mozilla is uniquely positioned to be a leader in the push to restore net neutrality and protect the open Internet, through advocacy and coalition building. Mozilla can work alongside civil society groups engaged in grassroots organizing, while simultaneously recruiting technology companies, investors, and others from the private sector to join the fight. Without a unified front of public and corporate support, net neutrality may indeed be dead. But the FCC's new Chairman Wheeler has indicated a willingness to preserve the open Internet, and if we on the outside can provide ample political pressure (and cover), victory is ultimately within reach. > > Additional, select reference articles: > > GigaOm overview: http://gigaom.com/2014/01/14/breaking-court-strikes-down-fccs-net-neutralit… > GigaOm wrapup of commentary: http://gigaom.com/2014/01/14/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-court-decision… > Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/how-the-fcc-screwed-up-its-chanc… > Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/court-creates-new-game-fo… > CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57617199-38/appeals-court-strikes-down-fc… > > > > _______________________________________________ > Netpolicy mailing list > Netpolicy(a)mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/netpolicy

10 years, 3 months

Fwd: Fast Track bill submitted - decisive moment for TPP

by Eddan Katz

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Steve, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch" <gtwinfo(a)citizen.org> > Subject: Fast Track bill submitted - decisive moment for TPP > Date: January 9, 2014 11:26:35 AM PST > To: eddank(a)aya.yale.edu > Reply-To: gtwinfo(a)citizen.org > > > January 9, 2014 > > Eddan, > > This moment could not be more important. > > It is do-or-die time for our years of work against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). > > Hours ago, U.S. Representative Dave Camp and U.S. Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill for Congress to grant President Barack Obama Fast Track trade authority. > > If Congress approves this bill, it will give away its constitutional authority to protect us from the numerous threats posed by the TPP. > > Write now and demand that your representative commit to you in writing to vote “no” on Fast Track. > > If the Fast Track bill passes, the TPP could be signed before Congress votes on it. Then the deal could be railroaded through Congress with no amendments and limited debate. > > We must not allow Congress to give away its authority to save us from the TPP. > > Email your representative today and demand that he or she commits to vote “no” to Fast Track. > > The last thing we need is to Fast Track another so-called “free trade” agreement written for the benefit of big corporations and to the detriment of us, our families and our communities. > > Fast Track trade authority is how Clinton and Bush passed the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA and other disastrous “trade” deals. > > If Congress grants President Obama Fast Track, then the TPP likely will be added to that list. > > Email your member of the House of Representatives today and tell him or her to oppose Fast Track. > > There is almost no progressive movement or campaign whose goals are not threatened by the TPP. And vast swaths of public interest policy achieved through decades of struggle would be undermined by the deal if it gets Fast Tracked through Congress. > > If we don’t get Congress to say “no” to Fast Track right now, all of the TPP’s threats we’ve been warning about for the past three years could become reality. > > The TPP would empower foreign corporations to sue governments in international tribunals if a country implements environmental, public health or other public interests policies that undermine corporations’ “expected future profits.” > > It would create new incentives to offshore more American jobs. > > The TPP would grant new monopoly privileges to Big Pharma that would raise medicine prices and cut consumers’ access to live-saving medicines. > > As revealed by the TPP chapter released by WikiLeaks in November, it would even attack Internet freedom by imposing copyright provisions that put the interests of Hollywood fat cats before our basic right to free speech. > > And that’s only a sliver of the damage that could be done by the TPP. > > Write now. > > There is so much at stake. > > But if we act together, we can derail Fast Track and the TPP. > > Onward, > > Steve Knievel > Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch > About GTW | Contact Us | Write Your Rep | Support Us > Stay informed and speak out when it counts. Sign up for the Public Citizen Action Network or other online announcements. If you do not wish to receive e-mail messages from Public Citizen in the future, please click here. > Public Citizen employees are members of SEIU Local 500. We support the right of workers in the United States and around the world to organize freely. Union Yes! > Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. All Rights Reserved > 215 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, 3rd Floor > Washington, DC 20003 >

10 years, 3 months

Fwd: Access to knowledge: a basic human right

by Eddan Katz

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Creative Commons" <donate(a)creativecommons.org> > Subject: Access to knowledge: a basic human right > Date: January 7, 2014 10:21:25 AM PST > To: <eddank(a)aya.yale.edu> > Reply-To: "Creative Commons" <donate(a)creativecommons.org> > > > Join the fight for open science. > Support Creative Commons. > > At the age of 15, Jack Andraka developed a new method for detecting a rare type of pancreatic cancer. Like all scientific discoveries, Jack’s research built on the work of other researchers. Unlike those researchers, however, he lacked access to the expensive scholarly databases usually paid for by their universities. Fortunately, open access databases carrying a Creative Commons license gave him the tools he needed. > > “Access to knowledge is, you know, a basic human right,” Jack says. “Knowledge should not be commoditized; it wants to be free.” > > There’s been a lot of talk about open access to science research over the past year. In February, the U.S. White House issued a directive requiring that most publicly funded research be available to the public. It was a step in the right direction, but the fight is far from over. > > For example, not all of the papers Jack needed were free. He spent nearly a thousand dollars paying to read the research he needed that wasn’t open. He’s the first to admit that he was lucky: for most young scientists around the world, those expenses aren’t an option. “We need the best and most recent research to be available to everyone.” > > If you think that everyone should have access to the most current scientific knowledge, then stand with Jack and thousands of other scientists who believe in open by making a gift to Creative Commons. > > *The Brin Wojcicki Foundation has agreed to match every donation that Creative Commons receives in January 2014. > > > > (To opt-out of any future mailings such as these from Creative Commons, simply visit this URL: https://donate.creativecommons.org/civicrm/mailing/optout?reset=1&jid=1168&…) > > > 444 Castro Street, Suite 916 > Mountain View, CA > 94303 > United States >

10 years, 3 months

Fwd: [wetlands-activism] TPP Twitterstorm Tonight + 5 More Actions/Events vs. TPP

by eddan.com

sent from eddan.com Begin forwarded message: > From: Adam Weissman <adam(a)tradejustice.net> > Date: January 1, 2014 at 4:44:14 PM PST > To: tradejustice-news(a)lists.riseup.net, wetlands-activism(a)lists.riseup.net, nyprotest(a)lists.riseup.net, ows-environmental-solidarity(a)googlegroups.com, loc-talk(a)googlegroups.com, labor-outreach-committee(a)googlegroups.com, dan(a)lists.riseup.net, NYPROTEST(a)LISTS.RISEUP.NET, s17-discussion(a)lists.occupy.net, actiongreens(a)yahoogroups.com, westharlem_ows_peopleofcolorcommittee(a)googlegroups.com, ows-trade(a)tradejustice.net, owshealthcarealerts(a)googlegroups.com, owshealthcarealerts(a)googlegroups.com > Subject: [wetlands-activism] TPP Twitterstorm Tonight + 5 More Actions/Events vs. TPP > Reply-To: Adam Weissman <adam(a)tradejustice.net> > > Six Critical Actions & Events vs. TPP > > The Fast Track vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement could take place in the first few weeks of January. Senator Baucus and House Ways and Means Chair Camp will file their Fast Track bill as soon as Congress re-convenes in January (around Jan. 8). 151 House Democrats and 23 Republicans have pledged to oppose the bill but more votes are needed. To stop Fast Track at least another 40 Representatives must vote NO - that's 180 Democrats and 50 Republicans total. THIS IS NOW A RACE AGAINST THE CLOCK! > TONIGHT @ 7PM! NEW YEAR'S DAY HASHTAG STORM! > Anti-TPP Twitter Storm Wednesday 1/1/14 @ 7 pm EST, the whole world will tweet and post an ANTI-TPP hashtag #Awake2014 with posts about why people should stop the Trans Pacific Partnership. The goal of this" "hashtag storm" is to get this hashtag trending on both Twitter and Facebook, so we can inform the public about the dangers of the Trans Pacific Partnership and agitate people to ACT to stop the TPP. Join us and help expose the corporate coup known as the Trans Pacific Partnership. > More info & RSVP (optional): http://tradejustice.net/hash1114 > > SAT, JAN 4 @ 2 PM: RALLY: REP. RANGEL – VOTE NO ON FAST TRACK! > Please make a New Year's Resolution to join 350.org in an EMERGENCY RALLY to tell Rep. Rangel > Make it a Happy New Year - Vote NO on TPP! No on Fast Track! > Location: Adam Clayton Powell State Office Bldg., 163 W. 125th St., just east of Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. Blvd. (7th Ave), Manhattan > Directions: 2/3 (closest), a, b, c, or d to 125th st. > More info & RSVP (optional): http://tradejustice.net/rangel1414 > > WED, JAN 8th ALL DAY: FAST TRACK CALL STORM! > Call your US House Representative when he/she returns to Congress as part of a national call-in day! Ask for your Rep's legislative assistant on trade and DEMAND that your rep vote NO on Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority! You can find your Rep's name and contact info by entering your address at http://tradejustice.net/leg. > More info & RSVP (optional): http://tradejustice.net/call1814 > > WED, JAN 8th @ 8PM: PRESENTATION: WHAT TPP WILL MEAN FOR WORKERS & THE ENVIRONMENT > Attend a TPP presentation by TradeJustice New York Metro at the next meeting of the Three Parks Independent Democrats. You can read their resolution against TPP at http://www.threeparksdems.org/Positions/TPPresolution.pdf > Location: Youth Hostel (ballroom), 891 Amsterdam Ave at 103rd Street, Manhattan. > DIRECTIONS: 1 train to 103rd Street. > MORE INFO: http://www.threeparksdems.org/contact.html > > FRI, JAN 10TH: FILM SCREENING: THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE > This Is What Democracy Looks Like, a co-production of the Independent Media Center and Big Noise Films, weaves the footage of over 100 videographers into a gripping document of what really happened on Seattle’s streets. The film cuts through the confusion and tear gas to paint an intimate, passionate portrait of a week that changed the world. This Is What Democracy Looks Like was the first documentary to capture the raw energy of the WTO protests, while clarifying their global and historic significance. Watch the trailer at http://tradejustice.net/demfilm. Join us for a discussion where we'll connect the battle of the late nineties vs. WTO to the ongoing struggle against the WTO – and our current fight against TPP! > Location: Park Slope Food Coop, 782 Union Street (between 6th and 7th Avenues in Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY 11231. > Directions: R to Union St (at intersection of Union Street and 4th Avenue), 2 or 3 train to Grand Army Plaza station (at intersection of Flatbush Avenue and Plaza Street) or B, Q to 7th Ave (at intersection of Flatbush and 7th Avenues). Additional directions at http://tradejustice.net/coop. > Contact: Ieva at (718) 369-4942 or yclarkeconstituents(a)tradejustice.net. > More info & RSVP: http://tradejustice.net/call11014 > > AND FINALLY... > > DONATE TO TRADEJUSTICE NEW YORK METRO! > Please make a donation to support our work at this critical moment in the fight against TPP! You can make a one time or monthly recurring contribution at http://tradejustice.net/stoptppfund or a daily, weekly, or annual recurring contribution at http://tradejustice.net/recur. > > Donations will help us to: > > copy and deliver thousands of signed letters to elected officials; > alert our supporters to urge their reps to vote against Fast Track by opening an online advocacy software account (see http://www.vocus.com/government-relations/online-advocacy-software/ for an example); > help us open a new office to coordinate anti-TPP volunteer efforts; > cover printing costs for leaflets, petitions, and other publications; > purchase art supply costs for banners, signs, costumes, and props for demonstrations; > allow us to pay for sound permits for rallies; > cover web and email hosting costs for http://tradejustice.net; > pay our phone bills; > store our large collection of anti-TPP signs and banners. > buy office supplies > replace or repair aging technology - computers, printers, and photocopiers, etc. > > Please make a generous contribution today! > > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to wetlands-activism-unsubscribe(a)lists.riseup.net.

10 years, 3 months

Fwd: DoC (C) Green Paper comments extended

by eddan.com

> The Commerce Dept. will publish on Dec 26 a notice extending of Comment Period for Public Comments on > Department of Commerce Green Paper, Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy > http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-12-26/pdf/2013-30690.pdf > > SUMMARY: On October 3, 2013, the Department of Commerce’s Internet > Policy Task Force (Task Force) published a notice of public meeting > and a request for public comments on five separate copyright policy issues > critical to economic growth, job creation, and cultural development that > were identified in the Department’s Green Paper on Copyright Policy, > Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy (Green Paper). > > The purpose of this notice is to announce an extension of the period for filing post-meeting > comments. > DATES: To be ensured of consideration, post-meeting comments are due on or > before January 17, 2014. The filing of pre-meeting comments is not a > prerequisite for filing post-meeting comments. > > Details of the five issues are provided in Request for Public Comments and Notice of Public Meeting, 78 Fed. Reg. 61337 (Oct. 3, 2013), available at > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_pto_rfc_10032013.pdf . > > > > Adam Goldberg > AGP, LLC > +1-202-507-9900 >

10 years, 3 months

Fwd: White House advisory group report on surveillance

by eddan.com

> From: Chris Riley <mchris(a)mozilla.com> > Subject: White House advisory group report on surveillance > > For those of you tracking the NSA and potential reform efforts, the > official version of the White House advisory group report (not to be > confused with the oversight board, PCLOB, which is preparing a separate > report) has been posted on the White House website: > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_repo… > > Much commentary is already flying around Twitter, based on earlier leaks > of its contents. Here's the Washington Post initial analysis: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-shouldnt-keep-pho… > > Best, > Chris > _______________________________________________ > Netpolicy mailing list > Netpolicy(a)mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/netpolicy

10 years, 4 months

FTC Seeks Comment on Issues Raised at Internet of Things Workshop

by Eddan Katz

> > > > FTC Seeks Comment on Issues Raised at Internet of Things Workshop > The staff of the Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comments on the issues raised at the recent workshop exploring consumer privacy and security issues posed by the Internet of Things. > > Held on Nov. 19, the workshop focused on privacy and security issues related to increased connectivity for consumers, both in the home through home automation, smart home appliances, and connected devices, and on the move through health and fitness devices, personal devices, and cars. It brought together academics, business and industry representatives, and consumer advocates to explore the security and privacy issues in our increasingly connected world. > > The workshop agenda, speakers’ bios and an archived video are all available on the workshop’s webpage. A transcript of the proceedings will also be available on the webpage in the coming days. > > To further its understanding of the issues, the Federal Trade Commission staff seeks public comments on issues raised at the workshop, including but not limited to: > > How can consumers benefit from the Internet of Things? > What are the unique privacy and security concerns and solutions associated with the Internet of Things? > What existing security technologies and practices could businesses and consumers use to enhance privacy and security in the Internet of Things? > What is the role of the Fair Information Practice Principles in the Internet of Things? > What steps can companies take (before putting a product or service on the market) to prevent connected devices from becoming targets of, or vectors for, malware or adware? > How can companies provide effective notice and choice? If there are circumstances where effective notice and choice aren’t possible, what solutions are available to protect consumers? > What new challenges does constant, passive data-collection pose? > What effect does the Internet of Things have on data de-identification or anonymization? > How can privacy and security risks be weighed against potential societal benefits (such as improved health-care decision-making or energy efficiency) for consumers and businesses? > How can companies update device software for security purposes or patch security vulnerabilities in connected devices, particularly if they do not have an ongoing relationship with the consumer? Do companies have adequate incentives to provide updates or patches over products’ lifecycles? > How should the FTC encourage innovation in this area while protecting consumers’ privacy and the security of their data? > Are new use-restrictions necessary to protect consumers’ privacy? > How could shifting social norms be taken into account? > How can consumers learn more about the security and privacy of specific products or services? > How can consumers or researchers with insight into vulnerabilities best reach companies? > The deadline for filing comments is Jan. 10, 2014, and comments can be filed electronically or by mail. If you have previously filed comments about the workshop, those comments will be taken into consideration. The staff welcomes research and surveys in addition to other comments. > > The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources. > > Contact Information > > MEDIA CONTACT: > > Jay Mayfield, > Office of Public Affairs > 202-326-2181 > > STAFF CONTACT: > > Kristen Anderson, > Bureau of Consumer Protection > 202-326-3209 > > Related Resources > > Internet of Things Workshop webpage > > More news from the FTC >> > > > SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Preferences | Unsubscribe | Help > > This is a free service provided by the Federal Trade Commission. > > This email was sent to eddank(a)aya.yale.edu using GovDelivery, on behalf of: Federal Trade Commission · 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW · Washington, DC 20580 · 1-877-382-4357

10 years, 4 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

Law