BBV:Firm's attempts to down hyperlinks an attack on free speech, says EFF

THE ANTICS OF DIEBOLD, a maker of electronic voting systems, which has been leaning on ISPs to get them to prevent linking to a election of its internal memos here, have drawn the EFF into the ring.
The memos seem to show how Diebold sought to demo software it didn't have and apparently installed outdated versions of its GEM software in elections.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation says it stepped in because it wants to defend the right to link to controversial information about flaws in electronic voting systems: "What topic could be more important to our democracy than discussions about the mechanics and legitimacy of electronic voting systems now being introduced nationwide?" said EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer, in a statement.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12180

:kick:

check out Eric Alterman's lead link yesterday...to the Independent article on the electronic voting issue. Roxanne was even quoted!

Have I missed something? I'm glad they came over to the dark side but I'm confused by their flip-flopping.

It was a very contentious conversation, at first. Now they are helping, but indirectly -- but only after I called them on this on the air, when both me and the EFF were on at the same time. They started complimenting me -- that's nice, but I asked point blank, then why not help me?

The issue, you see, is pretty egregious: While IndyMedia got a cease over a link, BlackBoxVoting.org got a cease on the link, not only had the page pulled down with the link, but had the whole site pulled down, over 300 pages, including many that had nothing whatever to do with Diebold; then we lost access to our own files on the FTP server, and then were told we could not relocate our domain name to a new ISP. That is much, much more egregious than what happened to IndyMedia.

What the EFF told me today was that they opted not to help us because AIT, Inc. -- our ISP -- was not willing to fight it even if they helped. However, when I spoke with the EFF on the day this happened, she told me she regretted that she had to be so unhelpful when talking with AIT's lawyer.

Then, I spoke with an attorney from the Samuelson Center at Berkeley, who said they were going to take our case, but then changed their mind later in the day, saying they sometimes work with the EFF and there might be "a conflict of interest" with a case there. At that time, the IndyMedia case was not on the radar. I asked what could possibly be a "conflict of interest" but she would not tell me.

What I cannot obtain -- from anyone -- is straight answers in writing. I'm not sure I want the EFF choosing my representation on this, because I have other questions about what happened that I won't air on this list.

We need to file some motions to get the answers in writing from each party. So far it's just been a finger-pointing game. At some point, the buck stops; what everyone agrees, even the EFF, is that overreaching occurred. That is actionable, and each person involved is liable for the damage that resulted.

Bev

First a snub and now, not necessarily the right kind of help. I hope something comes of this. Diebold needs to be made an example of or free speech on the internet will go down under contortions of DMCA. You have my support when you need it...and I mean that in a financial way.

On edit: You go, girl. Great job confronting them publicly. They deserved to be shamed for their negligence.

Purpose. A lot of these Neo-cons seem to only pick up on things that they can use to screw other people over with. I am sure its no accident they do most of these things on purpose (probably with malice).

To me these people are down right sick, evil and have no business in government. My guess is they have pounded on several ISP's already so the corrupt small minded people could have a more free hand and not worry about things getting out about it.

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot-act-II-analysis.php

EFF Analysis of "Patriot II,"
Provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 20031 that Impact the Internet and Surveillance
Read the bill

With the full effect of the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) on civil liberties in the United States still unknown, and without a shred of evidence that USAPA was required to help fight terrorism, the Bush Administration has been preparing a second piece of legislation. Tentatively titled the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," it was instantly dubbed Patriot II or Son of Patriot. For purposes of this report, it's called USAPA II. Recently Attorney General Ashcroft denied that a bill was in the works, although he admitted that the leaked document is "what we've been thinking."2

Whether or not USAPA II is introduced, it's clear that the Patriot Act is casting a long shadow in Washington, D.C. For instance, Attorney General John Ashcroft recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had authorized more than 170 "emergency" FISA searches since 9/11. In the previous 20 years, attorneys general had only authorized a total of 47 emergency FISA searches.

The first Patriot Act assumes that lack of information caused by laws that restricted government information-gathering was a major reason for the September 11 terrorist attacks. But nothing could be further from the truth. The most objective analysis -- that of the congressional joint inquiry committee focused on the government's failure to "connect the dots."3 It noted poor coordination between the many government agencies responsible for intelligence and counter-intelligence and poor sorting of the information it did have.

Simply collecting more information cannot solve this problem. But USAPA II makes the same mistake: it seeks more power to gather information with less oversight. Meanwhile, more agencies or task forces that you've never heard of are being created.

Let's be frank. The government has an insatiable appetite for data. But the mindless accumulation of data is not intelligence. Intelligence requires focused thinking and focused questions. Instead, we're building a Tower of Babel. If this continues, we'll get the worst of both worlds -- all the disadvantages of widespread privacy invasion with none of the security benefits.
(snip)

Being Googled
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=17950