FBI Withdraws Unconstitutional National Security Letter After ACLU and EFF Challenge Gag Order Lifted on Internet Archive, Allowing Founder to Speak Out for First Time]]>San Francisco - The FBI has withdrawn an unconstitutional national security letter (NSL) issued to the Internet Archive after a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). As the result of a settlement agreement, the FBI withdrew the NSL and agreed to the unsealing of the case, finally allowing the Archive's founder to speak out for the first time about his battle against the record demand.
"The free flow of information is at the heart of every library's work. That's why Congress passed a law limiting the FBI's power to issue NSLs to America's libraries," said Brewster Kahle, founder and Digital Librarian of the Internet Archive. "While it's never easy standing up to the government -- particularly when I was barred from discussing it with anyone -- I knew I had to challenge something that was clearly wrong. I'm grateful that I am able now to talk about what happened to me, so that other libraries can learn how they can fight back from these overreaching demands."
The NSL was served on the Archive -- a digital library recognized by the state of California -- and its attorneys in November of 2007. The letter asked for personal information about one of the Archive's users, including the individual's name, address, and any electronic communication transactional records pertaining to the user. Kahle, who is also a member of EFF's Board of Directors, decided to fight the NSL because it exceeded the FBI's limited authority to issue such demands to libraries.
SLA Needs Your Immediate Help: Support Orphan Works Legislation (but oppose “dark archive”)
If you have a representative serving on the U.S House of Representatives “Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property,” please contact them in support of the proposed Orphan Works Legislation, but in opposition to the "dark archive" that is proposed in the House version of H.R. 5889.
Go to http://capwiz.com/sla/home/ for full details, listing of Subcommittee members, and draft letter for electronic submission.
"Independent Government Observers
The Internet has created a new generation of individuals and institutes that practice the time-honored tradition of observing and reporting on the activities of government. These are reporters in the sense of court reporters, not journalists, auditors as in independent investigators rather than CPAs.
The classic independent observer is the court reporter, such as Henry Wheaton and Richard Peters, two businessmen in the early days of the Republic who took it upon themselves to collect, print, and sell the decisions of courts. Indeed, it was a business spat between those two that led to the classic pronouncement by the Supreme Court on works of government:
The Court is unanimously of opinion that no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions, and that the judges thereof cannot confer on any reporter any such right. Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834)
The new breed of government observers span all walks of life. In addition to a vibrant commercial sector, there are increasingly a number of nonprofit, academic, and individual citizen efforts."
Public.Resource.Org is organizing an unconference -- they are looking for 100 delegates to meet and work on issues of making government information more accessible to more people in a variety of formats. Find out more information here.
]]>The ACLU of Northern California has just issued this advisory regarding Sacramento public libraries:
SACRAMENTO – The ACLU of Northern California (ACLU-NC) and the Sacramento County Chapter of the ACLU-NC are urging the Library Authority Board to revise a policy that limits the public’s access to constitutionally protected material on library computers.
In March, 2007, the Board adopted a "tap on the shoulder" policy that instructs librarians to ask library patrons to stop viewing any material that "would interfere with the maintenance of a safe, welcoming and comfortable environment." Failure to comply can result in the loss of internet privileges. The current policy also requires blocking software on all Sacramento library computers. The software can be turned off only if an adult -- or, for minors, a parent -- specifically requests it.
Because of these policies, a wide array of material that library patrons have a First Amendment right to view is vulnerable to censorship.
“Young people – particularly those who don’t have access to the internet at home - who depend on libraries as a place to go to find out information on sensitive issues are especially impacted by this policy,” said Michael Risher, ACLU-NC staff attorney. “The current policy violates their right to important and sometimes life-saving information.”
The San Jose Public Library recently completed testing of three internet filtering programs and found that WebMD, the American Urological Association, and PFLAG, (Parents and Friends of Lesbian Gays – a LGBT support and advocacy group) were among the sites blocked. The programs also blocked the library’s Health and Wellness Resource Center database and the World Book Encyclopedia online.
The Library Authority Board is scheduled to discuss the Library’s Internet Use and Access Policy at its next meeting, March 27th, 2008.
WHAT: Hearing regarding the Sacramento Public Library Internet Use & Access Policy
WHO: Michael Risher, staff attorney at the ACLU-NC
WHEN: Thursday, March 27, 2008
3:00 – 5:00 p.m.
WHERE: Board of Supervisors Chambers
700 H. Street
Sacramento
To learn more about the issue, including recent reports and San Jose’s filtering tests, visit the ACLU-NC's Library and Internet Filtering Issue Page
]]>(warning: strong language!)
]]> Sunshine WeekPanel I: The Secret Executive - What can Congress & the Public Do?
Moderator - Patrice McDermott
Panelists:
Ann Beeson, Mickey Edwards and John Podesta
How does separation and balance of powers help ensure access to information?
JP: Genius of the constitution is the checks and balances; Congress has the right to seek information from the Executive Branch (EB) regarding its activities; Congress has let down on its ability to seek information
ME: Congress is not given rights in the Constitution, but responsibilities and burdens, one of which is oversight over Exec Branch - one way, which Congress hasn't done well, is oversight hearings; Congressional subpeonas are another way to open up the workings of the Exec Branch
AB: Courts have a vital role in enforcing accountability and hold the Exec Branch responsible when it doesn't act openly; courts also protect/ensure that their own proceedings are open
PM: Nearly 3/4s of Americans believe that the federal govt is very secretive - what should be done?
JP: Openness is integral to public trust in govt - Americans has to get information on what is being down and how/why decisions are made
AB: In the last 7 years, it's been a very mixed bag for the courts stepping up to perform its role as a check on govt secrecy
Good: courts have led to release/disclosure of thousands of pages of documents
Bad: courts have been seduced by "the secrecy trump" - state secrets doctrine, national security
Ex.: Patriot Act request on Library Connection: gag orders
Khaled El-Masri case - ACLU brought his case to court; govt argued national security to dismiss - won dismissal
ME: Congress has a tendency to pass the buck, especially in oversight
Congress has done a poor job of vetting/affirming federal judicial nominees
Constitution gives courts authority over "cases & controversies" - courts have too narrowly defined controversies and tossing out important suits over lack of standing
PM: Unitary Executive theory - why has Congress failed to assert its role against the exec?
ME: War does not expand the president's power unless Congress stays silent/does nothing - problem, war tends to chill congressional dissent; also, partisan loyalty has become pre-eminent
JP: More of a willingness in the past to cross party lines to provide oversight or challenge over-reaching of authority, even though when Congress is controlled by the same party as the Prez, Cong. tends to go easier on the EB
There are secrets worth protecting - but the secret trump has been used as a political weapon against Congress to prevent them from challenging Presidential actions
Q&A
What can we do to keep the next president's feet to the fire?
ME: Members of Congress of either party must take the oath of office seriously - Congress is a equal, independent and separate branch of govt
Acquiescence must be challenged by citizens
Signing statements?
AB: signing statements should have no weight
If there is one thing the parties should be able to come together on, it's the issue of govt accountability; a bipartisan accountability commission needs to be convened to re-address oversight of national security
JP: signing statements can be useful for the president to explain what they see as what the law means or highlight ambiguities; current admin has misused signing statements to ignore laws
ME: signing statements have no weight - goes against constitutional powers given to Presidency
Q&A: "FOIA is like using a rusty bucket to drain a spring-fed lake"
Congress is also making things secret
JP: Independent review of documents are important in promoting disclosure; classification and de-classification protocols need to be re-addressed in ways that promote disclosure
ME: Two issues - keeping things from the public and keeping things from the public's reps;
How do we stop the problem of White House destroy electronic records/emails
JP: Presidential Records Act - problem: no private right of action to prevent EB from destroying records; Congress needs to revise act
Where is the sense of urgency on this issue? Where is the outrage? Where are the pressure points?
AB: There is nothing more important than to figure out how to build a coalition devoted to issues of transparency and openness; we need to convince a range of other activists that these issues are relevant to their main issues
ME: We're dealing with a very disengaged public; we can't count on the general public at the point -- it's going to take activists to continue and build on the work
JP: Media consolidation and media groups don't seem to care as much about freedom of information; we need to challenge media to do a better job on this
Sean Moulton (Dir. of Fed Info - OMBWatch)
21st Century Right to Know Project
Long term goal - develop recommendations to change the underlying policies for accessible government information
Collaborative approach
To participate: contact Sean @ OMBWatch
Panel II: Citizen Self-Help - Finding the Information You Need
Moderator - Greg Elin (Sunlight Foundation - effort to use tech/Internet/web2.0 for open up govt - is scraping and recontextualizing information from other websites with public info + making it feedable/findable)
Panelists
Daniel X. O'Neil (EveryBlock)
David Moore (OpenCongress.org)
Sean Moulton (FedSpending.org)
Sheila Krumholz (OpenSecrets.org)
Q&A
If fed, state and muni govt was transparent enough, would it put you all out of a job
DO: Yes, and that's a good thing; actually, just getting the data is the start of the process
DM: No ... people want a mix of details and the big picture; there should be a lot of different interfaces to help people find what they want in the form they want
SK: No ... a lot of room to add, mix and re-present info
SM: If govt became more transparent, it would make our jobs easier, and it would allow for more innovation
How do we engage the young population with these tools?
DO: We're interested in people in general
DM: OpenCongress.org has a variety of republishing tools that aid with dissemination; when the site added socialnetworking features, site popularity went up
SK: We've seen major upticks in hits during election days, after scandals have broken, etc ...
SM: FedSpending.org has gotten 6 million search hits;
Are there plans to apply any of your services as part of school curricula?
SK: Close relationship w/ journalism schools; need for more integrated approach
Comment - set up alerts for people to
How can we create state-based websites to make government info available?
DM: OpenCongress.org is open source - the source code can be taken and used by states, like OpenMass (?)
SM: States are starting to mirror federal govt efforts to release spending info
Challenges?
SM: Biggest challenge is avoiding information overload
What would you change?
SK: Gov needs to embrace info disclosure; we are continually hamstrung by delays in releasing data
DM: LoC needs to adopt open data policies; Open House project; Change Congress
DO: OpenBlock going to open source; biggest challenge - lack of standards, lack of acceptance that this is our data
Local Panel!
Marcia Hoffman - EFF
Carl Malamud - public.resource.org
Brewster Kahle - Internet Archive
CM: I work in the bread and butter area of access to gov data/info; courts are the most closed branch of govt, ironically
It currently costs $1 million to get one complete copy of federal law
Has gotten all of F.1 online
We work on access, not secrecy/closed vs open systems - making material available to the public ... and the public does care and does have a stake in these matters
MH: specializes in FOIA requests, getting data out of the govt regarding national security/sensitive issues
Currently working on FOIA case regarding national security letters
NSLs were around prior to the PATRIOT Act, but the Act widened the scope of persons who could be objects of a NSL and lowered the standard needed to procure one
2005 - Congress revisited NSL provision, added some strictures and directed Inspector General to investigate how NSLs were used - IG report came out finding systematic abuse of NSL
EFF filed FOIA request to FBI to get underlying data - eventually sued to get the data
BK: The Hoover Boys are back - what's going on out there is stuff we thought we left behind
The best strategy - don't keep stuff - don't keep IP addresses in logs, etc.
As you're starting to make digital services available - be careful of what information you keep on usage ...
Work really hard to protect users' privacy
Libraries are/can be a $12 billion industry ... we need to use our power and our funding
What the Archive is trying to do - make all information universally available
Let's build a digital library that's by us, for us - or we'll end up buy digital library services that aren't by us and for someone else ...
There's a vacuum that traditional organizations have left (where's ALA, ACLU, etc.?)
IA - 501(c)(3)
35 people at IA as programmers and the like
100(?)-500(?) people scanning books at 10 centers
Public snapshot of the web every 2 months
Archive-IT - subscription service for libraries to build targeted web collection: $10K a year
$0.10 a page to scan a book; 1K books a day
Project to digitize gov docs
Bulk access to gov docs is very important - only the non-profits tend to allow bulk access (and even some nons balk at bulk)
Problem with Google project: Google has put public domain material under contractually restricted access in perpetuity
Having monopolies in whole domains of knowledge/printing could really be disastrous
Public access vs. public/private partnerships
Free, bulk access needs to be built into the contracts that govt. goes into with industry - if such Ks are entered into at all
Keep the public domain public as it goes digital
Gov thinks that because there is commercial end-user value, it shouldn't have to pay for digitizing
IA examples: LoC, NASA (will launch July 2008), NARA
IA starting to digitize and loan out-of-copyright and out-of-print materials
Many libraries, many publishers, many search engines
What to do:
10 cents not that much
Raise a stink ... make these materials publicly available
Trying to put a user interface on what is already available
Support the new orgs that are trying to help libraries
EFF, Public Knowledge, Internet Archive
And just for fun:
Brewster, re Google on requests for open bulk access to Google's digitized books: "Screw you, fuck you, we're great, we're Google ..."
Carl: "They don't say that to me!"
I actually participated in this last year. I kept telling myself to put it up ... but really, I look like something the cat dragged in, then chewed up and then spit out.
Eh. My plea for sunshine ...
]]>The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) has decided to continue the economicindicators.gov website. Featuring the economic releases from ESA’s Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the site was started by this Administration in 2002 to give greater awareness to these economic statistics. ESA initially planned to discontinue the service due to cost concerns but given the feedback ESA received, the decision has been made to continue the site and improve its functionality.]]>
There's a film out that may pique your interest. Secrecy:
In a single recent year the U.S. classified about five times the number of pages added to the Library of Congress. We live in a world where the production of secret knowledge dwarfs the production of open knowledge. Depending on whom you ask, government secrecy is either the key to victory in our struggle against terrorism, or our Achilles heel. But is so much secrecy a bad thing?Secrecy saves: counter-terrorist intelligence officers recall with fury how a newspaper article describing National Security Agency abilities directly led to the loss of information that could have avoided the terrorist killing of 241 soldiers in Beirut late in October 1983. Secrecy guards against wanton nuclear proliferation, against the spread of biological and chemical weapons. Secrecy is central to our ability to wage an effective war against terrorism.
Secrecy corrupts. From extraordinary rendition to warrant-less wiretaps and Abu Ghraib, we have learned that, under the veil of classification, even our leaders can give in to dangerous impulses. Secrecy increasingly hides national policy, impedes coordination among agencies, bloats budgets and obscures foreign accords; secrecy throws into the dark our system of justice and derails the balance of power between the executive branch and the rest of government.
This film is about the vast, invisible world of government secrecy. By focusing on classified secrets, the government's ability to put information out of sight if it would harm national security, Secrecy explores the tensions between our safety as a nation, and our ability to function as a democracy.
The film screened at Sundance earlier this month. Got a few good reviews. Perhaps someone should inquire about getting the film (and its makers) for ALA Annual in Anaheim?
]]>Any recommendations? Good, reasonably-priced hotels? Places to eat? Bookstores? Things I can't miss? Thank you so much for any assistance ...
]]>The title of the article pretty much says it all: A Library Exhibit Not for the Children's Room (warning - sexual themes!).
San Francisco has renovated its famous and infamous Main Library.
]]>Sniff.
]]>One of those announcements -- CC is joining forces with public.resource.org to continue the fight to free government documents -- they are starting, as mentioned previously with federal caselaw. Legal Commons ... it's not just a concept ... it will be a norm (or, dare I say it ... a brand?). More info as it becomes available ...
]]>Carl Malamud and PublicResource.Org are doing wonderful, wonderful things. Here's something very new and very useful:
Public.Resource.Org and Fastcase, Inc. announced ... that they will release a large and free archive of federal case law, including all Courts of Appeals decisions from 1950 to the present and all Supreme Court decisions since 1754. The archive will be public domain and usable by anyone for any purpose.]]>...
The agreement calls for definitive paperwork approved by both parties within 30 days with Public.Resource.Org making developer snapshots of the archive available in early 2008. Public.Resource.Org is represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in this transaction. The cases will be marked with a new Creative Commons mark—CC-Ø—that signals that there are no copyrights or other related rights attached to the content.
But, this is the first writing I've done "in a legal context" that is being seen by more than just a single prof. So, this is a bit of a milestone for me. I think the term of art for the appropriate response is ... Woot!
]]>