LibertyVoice

Dear Lindsay,

We know that going to jail is scary. But we can assure you that your experience at the women’s facility in Lynwood, outside Los Angeles, is likely to be starkly different from the thousands of others serving time and awaiting trial in the Los Angeles jails. Based on the ACLU’s decades of experience as an official court-appointed monitor of the jails, and the stories of countless women with whom we’ve spoken, the facility where you are staying is an overcrowded detention facility where women are needlessly humiliated for so long that they come to expect sub-human treatment.

It’s a place where an eight month pregnant woman was forced to sleep on the floor because she could not access the top bunk to which she was assigned. A  place where women have said they are made to stand naked while menstruating, as they waited for jail-issued clothes.  And a place where women routinely tell us they cannot get access to the same medications they took in the community (though we doubt that you will face this same problem.)

Group punishments and degrading group strip searches are routine, as are reports of deputies calling women “bitches” and other derogatory names. And while you get private visits with your family and friends, every other woman’s visitors must wait in long lines on the weekends. 

We know from the more than 4,500 complaints we receive annually that the women’s facility is a lot nicer than the Men’s Central Jail – where rats roam the tiers, and violence is as routine as sunshine in California.  We’ve seen men with broken legs and black eyes. It‘s not uncommon for a prisoner to be thrown up against the wall or punched, simply for asking a deputy a question.  In May of this year, the ACLU’s National Prison Project and the ACLU of Southern California – which jointly serve as official jail monitors – released a joint report that documents a prisoner’s experience in which deputies severely beat him and threatened him if he should report it.  He said he was returning from meeting with his attorney, when a few deputies surrounded him and started kicking and hitting him. They bruised his nose and forehead, split his lip, and sprained his arm. And there are dozens of stories just like this one.

Lindsay, even though it’s going to be difficult for you to be incarcerated even for a few weeks, rest assured that your celebrity is something that we who frequently visit Los Angeles’s jails see as an opportunity to draw attention to conditions in the jails. You will have a window into the world of Los Angeles jails, and we hope you will use it to talk to the press about conditions here.

Today we post Part 1 of Chapter 5 of the Torture Report, titled “The Battle Lab,” which looks at the development of a systematic torture program aimed at breaking detainees in the custody of the U.S. military in Guantánamo Bay , Cuba . In this first section, “A Special Project,” we take a long look at the lab’s signature experiment—the 50-day interrogation of Mohammed al Qahtani from November 23, 2002 through January 11, 2003.

“I lack the words to express the heartsickness I experienced when I came to understand the pointless, purely gratuitous mistreatment of Mr. Jawad by my fellow soldiers.”

San Francisco – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) won three critical exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) anticircumvention provisions today, carving out new legal protections for consumers who modify their cell phones and artists who remix videos — people who, until now, could have been sued for their non-infringing or fair use activities.

“By granting all of EFF’s applications, the Copyright Office and Librarian of Congress have taken three important steps today to mitigate some of the harms caused by the DMCA,” said Jennifer Granick, EFF’s Civil Liberties Director. “We are thrilled to have helped free jailbreakers, unlockers and vidders from this law’s overbroad reach.”

The exemptions were granted as part of a statutorily prescribed rulemaking process, conducted every three years to mitigate the danger the DMCA poses to legitimate, non-infringing uses of copyrighted materials. The DMCA prohibits “circumventing” digital rights management (DRM) and “other technical protection measures” used to control access to copyrighted works. While the DMCA still chills competition, free speech, and fair use, today’s exemptions take unprecedented new strides towards protecting more consumers and artists from its extensive reach.

The first of EFF’s three successful requests clarifies the legality of cell phone “jailbreaking” — software modifications that liberate iPhones and other handsets to run applications from sources other than those approved by the phone maker. More than a million iPhone owners are said to have “jailbroken” their handsets in order to change wireless providers or use applications obtained from sources other than Apple’s own iTunes “App Store,” and many more have expressed a desire to do so. But the threat of DMCA liability had previously endangered these customers and alternate applications stores.

In its reasoning in favor of EFF’s jailbreaking exemption, the Copyright Office rejected Apple’s claim that copyright law prevents people from installing unapproved programs on iPhones: “When one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application that has not been approved by the maker of the smartphone or the maker of its operating system, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses.”

“Copyright law has long held that making programs interoperable is fair use,” confirmed Corynne McSherry, EFF’s Senior Staff Attorney. “It’s gratifying that the Copyright Office acknowledges this right and agrees that the anticircumvention laws should not interfere with interoperability.”

EFF also won a groundbreaking new protection for video remix artists currently thriving on Internet sites like YouTube. The new rule holds that amateur creators do not violate the DMCA when they use short excerpts from DVDs in order to create new, noncommercial works for purposes of criticism or comment if they believe that circumvention is necessary to fulfill that purpose. Hollywood has historically taken the view that “ripping” DVDs is always a violation of the DMCA, no matter the purpose.

“Noncommercial videos are a powerful art form online, and many use short clips from popular movies. Finally the creative people that make those videos won’t have to worry that they are breaking the law in the process, even though their works are clearly fair uses. That benefits everyone — from the artists themselves to those of us who enjoy watching the amazing works they create,” added McSherry.

On EFF’s request, the Librarian of Congress renewed a 2006 rule exempting cell phone unlocking so handsets can be used with other telecommunications carriers. Cell phone unlockers have been successfully sued under the DMCA, even though there is no copyright infringement involved in the unlocking. Digital locks on cell phones make it harder to resell, reuse, or recycle the handset, prompting EFF to ask for renewal of this rule on behalf of our clients, The Wireless Alliance, ReCellular and Flipswap. However, the 2009 rule has been modified so that it only applies to used mobile phones, not new ones.

“The Copyright Office recognizes that the primary purpose of the locks on cell phones is to bind customers to their existing networks, rather than to protect copyrights,” said Granick. “The Copyright Office agrees with EFF that the DMCA shouldn’t be used as a barrier to prevent people who purchase phones from keeping those phones when they change carriers. The DMCA also shouldn’t be used to interfere with recyclers who want to extend the useful life of a handset.”

Along with the exemptions that EFF championed, several other DMCA exemptions were expanded, granted or narrowed including one for documentary filmmakers and college-level educators, as well as some for security researchers.

For the full rulemaking order:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/dmca_2009/RM-2008-8.pdf

For more on the DMCA rulemaking:
http://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking

Contacts:

Jennifer Stisa Granick
Civil Liberties Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
jennifer@eff.org

Corynne McSherry
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
corynne@eff.org

San Francisco – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a coalition of nonprofit groups have asked a federal appeals court to protect the “safe harbor” rules for online video service providers that encourage free expression and innovation on the Internet.

In an amicus brief filed Friday in UMG v. Veoh, EFF told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that Universal Music Group’s (UMG’s) effort to hold online video service Veoh responsible for infringing content uploaded by a minority of its users would thwart federal law and Congress’s intent to stimulate electronic commerce and free speech.

“By creating a clear path for innovators like Veoh to limit their liability for the copyright violations of their users, the statutory safe harbors helped foster the innovation environment that has made YouTube, Flickr, eBay, Blogger, and myriad other hosting-based services possible,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. “UMG is trying to turn back the clock and reinstate a climate of legal uncertainty that would harm new online businesses and the free expression they foster.”

The safe harbors are part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and give sites immunity from monetary damages if they observe the DMCA’s “notice and takedown” procedures for potentially infringing content and comply with other legal requirements. In a lawsuit first filed in 2007, UMG argued that the safe harbors don’t apply to any service that “displays” or “distributes” copyrighted material, rather than simply “storing” it. Last year, a federal district court rejected that argument. UMG appealed.

“The safe harbors have proven to be a huge success in encouraging the growth of innovative platforms for free expression, hosting vibrant amateur creativity,” said McSherry. “But under UMG’s vision for the Internet, we’d get something a lot more like television, where nothing is seen until it’s approved by an army of lawyers. That’s why we’re asking the appeals court to affirm the lower court’s ruling.”

Joining EFF in the amicus brief are the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, the Association of College and Research Libraries, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Internet Archive, NetCoalition, and Public Knowledge.

For the full amicus brief:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/umg_v_veoh/UMGvVeohAmicusBrief072310.p…

For more on this case:
http://www.eff.org/cases/umg-v-veoh

Contacts:

Corynne McSherry
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
corynne@eff.org

Join EFF for a plethora of appearances in Las Vegas, NV, at Black Hat USA 2010 and DEFCON 18. There is still time to register, and EFF supporters receive a 25% discount on Black Hat registration. Remember to stop by the EFF booths to get reduced-rate EFF memberships and top drawer swag! And be on the lookout for the limited edition “Things to Hack” t-shirt available only in Las Vegas.

Check out talks presented by members of our legal and technology teams throughout the week:

Wednesday, July 28
Kevin Bankston and Kurt Opsahl will play the role of the defense attorneys for an indicted hacker in the 2010 edition of Black Hat Hacker Court from 1515-1800 in Forum 25 at Caesar’s Palace.

Thursday, July 29
EFF staffers will be at Vegas 2.0′s 6th Annual Summit Fundraiser to thank our supporters, including the DEFCON 18 Getaway contest winners and the contest sponsors, Tenable Network Security, iSec Partners, and IOActive. As a special bonus, Summit attendees can receive a complimentary EFF Advocate Level membership and an opportunity to pick up the “Things to Hack” shirt at vastly reduced rates. Many thanks to Vegas 2.0 for their generosity in organizing this amazing benefit event.

Friday, July 30
On this big day for EFF, Marcia Hofmann will teach DEFCON attendees “How to Get Your FBI File (and Other Information You Want From the Federal Government),” from 1000-1050 in Track 3 at the Riviera Conference Center.

On Friday afternoon, Peter Eckersley will talk about the Panopticlick project on the “How Unique Is Your Browser?” panel from 1200 to 1250 in Track 2, and Jennifer Granick, Kevin, Marcia, and Kurt will teach about “The Law of Laptop Search and Seizure” in Track 3 from 1300 to 1350.

In the evening, Peter will join iSEC Partners’ Jesse Burns in presenting “An Observatory for the SSLiverse” from 1700 to 1750 in Track 3. A gaggle of EFF attorneys and staff will answer your questions on the annual “Meet the EFF” panel from 1800-1850 in Track 1. From 2000 to 2050, Kevin and the ACLU’s Nicole Ozer will present “Big Brother on the Big Screen: Fact/Fiction?” in Track 3.

Saturday July 31
Jennifer and Matt Zimmerman will discuss “Legal Developments in Hardware Hacking” from 1000 to 1050 in Track 1.

FULL CONFERENCE SCHEDULES:
Black Hat
DEFCON 18

(Originally published on the Huffington Post.)

Anyone who works on reforming the criminal justice system can attest to the fact that such efforts often take years of commitment and dedication before bearing fruit. We are currently at just such a moment, as Congress is one final step away from passing major, if less than perfect, reform of one of the most deeply flawed aspects of a broken and dysfunctional criminal justice system – the 100 to 1 sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.

More than 23 years ago, at the height of public hysteria over the effects of crack cocaine and based on myths that have since been entirely debunked, Congress passed, and President Reagan signed into law, legislation that established the infamous 100 to 1 disparity. Possessing or dealing five grams of crack cocaine – the weight of two pennies – currently results in the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as dealing 500 grams of powder cocaine. Seventeen years ago, Nkechi Taifa and I, through the ACLU Washington Office, convened the first national conference on the crack/powder disparity bringing together scientists, defense attorneys, affected families, criminologists, members of Congress and civil rights groups. It was at that conference we were finally able to persuade key leaders that this issue was not just a criminal justice reform issue, but it was also civil rights, civil liberties and human rights crisis that greatly contributed to record setting rates of incarceration in the United States.

In the two decades that followed, the disparity has resulted in gross racial inequality in the African-American community and contributed to disproportionately severe sentences and prison overcrowding because low-level, often first time, nonviolent drug users were getting hard time instead of drug treatment. This diversion of government resources could have been used for far more effective prevention and treatment programs that would not have destroyed families in the process.

In March, the US Senate passed, by unanimous consent no less (meaning not one senator objected), long-overdue legislation to help reform the infamous crack sentencing disparity. The Fair Sentencing Act (S. 1789) would vastly reduce the disparity to a ratio of 18 to 1, as well as eliminate the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack. Just think about that for a second – five years for the weight of two pennies worth of crack. Is it any wonder the US has the dubious distinction of being the world’s leading incarcerator?

It is important to point out that maintaining an 18 to 1 disparity is not at all based on science showing differences between crack and powder cocaine (they are literally different forms of the exact same drug), but was instead a compromise reached to secure broad-based support from members of both political parties. This painful compromise helped to ensure that senators would not have to cast a politically difficult vote in a highly contentious election year.

The ACLU has remained steadfast in our commitment to eliminating the disparity completely. It has always been the single truly just remedy. However, now that the Senate has acted to pass a reform bill that falls short of our ideal, we must confront the reality that it will nonetheless make important improvements in the lives of many people who would have otherwise been locked away for years, or decades, on end.

The Fair Sentencing Act is currently awaiting a final vote on the House floor before being sent to President Obama for his signature. Never before have advocates for crack cocaine sentencing reform been so close to the finish line – a struggle I have been engaged in since 1993.

Thankfully, it has not been a struggle the ACLU has been engaged in alone. Among the broad and ideologically diverse coalition of organizations currently pressing for reform of the sentencing disparity includes the NAACP; Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; American Bar Association; the National District Attorneys Association; Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; National Association of Evangelicals; Prison Fellowship; the International Union of Police Associations; and dozens of former federal prosecutors and judges.

The House could vote any day now on the Fair Sentencing Act. I am very hopeful that it will successfully pass this final legislative hurdle before bringing some much needed justice to an aspect of our criminal justice system that has been sorely lacking in just that for far too long now.

We are indeed on the cusp of history. Please join with the ACLU in urging the House of Representatives to pass this much needed reform of our sentencing laws. It’s time to hold the final vote on the Fair Sentencing Act (S. 1789)!

Would you ask this man for his papers in this new ACLU video?

Why? Because of the color of his skin? Because of the language he’s speaking? Because he’s doing yard work?

The fact is there is no way to tell who is documented and who is not. If SB 1070 is allowed to go into effect, American citizens WILL be subjected to racial profiling. People in this country legally will be stopped, interrogated and harassed simply because of what they look like or the language they are speaking.

That’s not right and it’s not constitutional. Help us protect the Constitution. Help us stop SB 1070. What Happens in Arizona, Stops in Arizona.

The tide is turning toward equality and fairness for all families in Maryland. A recent poll shows that a majority of Marylanders support granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The arc of history continues to bend towards justice. Yet the National Organization for Marriage, or NOM, this week came to town to say “No.” They believe the legal partnership should only be for heterosexual couples and want to forever deny needed protections for same-sex couples and their children.

Showdowns tend to draw big crowds, and Thursday’s back-to-back hearings on SB 1070, Arizona’s new immigration law, did not disappoint.

The federal courthouse in downtown Phoenix drew a full contingent of reporters, photographers, lawyers, plaintiffs, protesters, and the just-plain-curious as Judge Susan Bolton presided over two courtroom dramas that will determine the future of this controversial law.

In the first hearing, the ACLU and other civil rights groups – including MALDEF, NILC, APALC and NDLON –asked for an injunction to stop the operative provisions of SB 1070 from taking effect on July 29, as scheduled.

MALDEF attorney Nina Perales started off by refuting the government’s assertion that the plaintiffs did not have a right to sue by describing the particular harm that the new law would have on the diverse coalition of 14 organizations and 10 individuals in the case. For example, she pointed to several of the plaintiffs who are survivors of turmoil in their home countries, religious persecution, or domestic violence, who would be subject to detention and arrest under Arizona’s law, but not by federal authorities.