Table of Contents
Egoism and Moral Scepticism ....................................................................................................................... 7
Religion, Morality and Conscience................................................................................................................ 8
Master and Slave Morality ............................................................................................................................ 8
Utilitarianism................................................................................................................................................. 9
The Debate Over Utilitarianism .................................................................................................................... 9
Categorical Imperative ................................................................................................................................ 10
The Nature of Rights and Value .................................................................................................................. 10
Taking Rights Seriously................................................................................................................................ 11
A Theory of Justice ...................................................................................................................................... 12
The Need for More than Justice ................................................................................................................. 12
23 Critiques of the Reproductive Health Bill 5043 .................................................................................... 14
Population Bogey: a scapegoat ................................................................................................................... 14
Unhealthy reproductive bill ........................................................................................................................ 16
Reckless and irresponsible .......................................................................................................................... 18
No place for reproductive health bill in our law ......................................................................................... 20
It's Satan's Semen, Stupid ........................................................................................................................... 20
Crucial questions on the RH bill .................................................................................................................. 21
No! to the Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008 .............................................. 21
Should You Support Reproductive Health Bill No. 5043? Take this Simple Test to Find Out ..................... 21
What’s Wrong with the Reproductive Health Bill ....................................................................................... 22
Contraceptives harmful to women’s health ............................................................................................... 22
Oversimplication of Economists ................................................................................................................. 23
Spending Billions for Birth Control Pills? .................................................................................................... 23
Philippines Threatened By a 2-Child Policy ................................................................................................. 24
12 Reasons Why We Oppose HB5043 ........................................................................................................ 24
Artificial Birth Control is Fascist .................................................................................................................. 24
The Filipino Front in the Culture War ......................................................................................................... 25
The Smoldering Poker ................................................................................................................................. 25
Misconceptions and Clarifications on Issues Related to Humanae Vitae and theReproductive "Health" Bill
in Philippine Congress ................................................................................................................................. 25
CEAP Statement (representing 1,256 Catholic schools including Ateneo, La Salle, UST, San Beda) .......... 26
Just Asking ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Statement on Reproductive Health Bill 5043 ............................................................................................. 27
Falsehoods in the Lagman Bill ..................................................................................................................... 27
What you can do to stop the Reproductive Health Act .............................................................................. 27
Population Bogey ........................................................................................................................................ 28
Unhealthy Reproductive Bill ....................................................................................................................... 28
No Place for RH Bill in our law .................................................................................................................... 29
FREE SPEECH ............................................................................................................................................... 30
Anonymity .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Bloggers' Rights ........................................................................................................................................... 32
CyberSLAPP ................................................................................................................................................. 33
No Downtime for Free Speech Campaign ................................................................................................... 34
The COICA Internet Censorship and Copyright Bill ..................................................................................... 35
Accessibility for the Reading Disabled ........................................................................................................ 37
Broadcast Flag ............................................................................................................................................. 38
Coders' Rights Project ................................................................................................................................. 39
Digital Rights Management......................................................................................................................... 40
Net Neutrality ............................................................................................................................................. 41
Patents ........................................................................................................................................................ 42
Trusted Computing ..................................................................................................................................... 43
https://www.eff.org/issues/trusted-computing ............................................................................................ 43
Video Games ............................................................................................................................................... 43
https://www.eff.org/issues/video-games .................................................................................................. 43
Broadcast Flag ............................................................................................................................................. 44
Copyright Trolls ........................................................................................................................................... 44
Digital Radio ................................................................................................................................................ 45
Digital Video ................................................................................................................................................ 45
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) .................................................................................................. 46
File Sharing .................................................................................................................................................. 47
No Downtime for Free Speech Campaign ................................................................................................... 48
Patents ........................................................................................................................................................ 48
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ........................................................................................................ 50
What is ACTA?....................................................................................................................................... 50
Why You Should Care About It .............................................................................................................. 51
What You Can Do................................................................................................................................... 52
Broadcasting Treaty .................................................................................................................................... 52
Development Agenda ................................................................................................................................. 52
EFF Europe .................................................................................................................................................. 54
Free Trade Agreement of the Americas...................................................................................................... 54
International Privacy Standards .................................................................................................................. 55
International Privacy Frameworks .............................................................................................................. 55
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ................................................................... 55
Council of Europe ................................................................................................................................... 56
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation ....................................................................................................... 56
European Data Protection Directive ....................................................................................................... 56
International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners ............................................. 56
Other International Instruments .............................................................................................................. 56
Mandatory Data Retention ......................................................................................................................... 57
The EU Data Retention Directive ........................................................................................................... 57
World Intellectual Property Organization................................................................................................... 58
Importing and Exporting Bad Law ......................................................................................................... 58
Towards Better IP Policy ........................................................................................................................ 58
Anonymity ................................................................................................................................................... 59
CALEA .......................................................................................................................................................... 60
Wiretapping Is Already Easy Enough ..................................................................................................... 61
Just Because It Can Be Tapped Doesn't Mean It Should ........................................................................ 61
The Cost of CALEA Will Be Passed on to Consumers .......................................................................... 62
Innovation Will Suffer ............................................................................................................................ 62
The Internet Is Not Like the Phone System ............................................................................................ 63
CALEA Could Make the Internet Less Secure ....................................................................................... 63
Cell Tracking ................................................................................................................................................ 64
Digital Books ............................................................................................................................................... 64
Locational Privacy ....................................................................................................................................... 65
National Security Letters............................................................................................................................. 65
NSA Spying .................................................................................................................................................. 66
Online Behavioral Tracking ......................................................................................................................... 67
Pen Trap ...................................................................................................................................................... 67
Printers ........................................................................................................................................................ 68
Real ID ......................................................................................................................................................... 69
RFID ............................................................................................................................................................. 70
Search Engines ............................................................................................................................................ 70
Google v. DoJ Subpoena......................................................................................................................... 71
Search Incident to Arrest ............................................................................................................................ 71
Social Networks........................................................................................................................................... 71
Travel Screening .......................................................................................................................................... 72
Border Searches ...................................................................................................................................... 72
Automated Targeting System (ATS) ...................................................................................................... 72
CAPPS II and Secure Flight.................................................................................................................... 73
E-Voting Rights ............................................................................................................................................ 73
FOIA Litigation for Accountable Government............................................................................................. 73
Test Your ISP ............................................................................................................................................... 75
EFF's Test Your ISP Software ....................................................................................................................... 77
Chapter 1: The Market at the Bottom of the Pyramid ............................................................................... 77
Chapter 2: Products and Services for the BOP............................................................................................ 78
Chapter 3: A Global Opportunity ................................................................................................................ 79
Chapter 4: The Ecosystem for Wealth Creation.......................................................................................... 80
Chapter 5: Reducing Corruption: Transaction Governance Capacity ......................................................... 81
Chapter 6: Development as Social Transformation .................................................................................... 81
Voxiva Case Study Guide Questions ........................................................................................................... 82
Jaipur Foot Case .......................................................................................................................................... 84
Casas Bahia ................................................................................................................................................. 86
Hindustan Lever Case.................................................................................................................................. 87
CEMEX Case Study ...................................................................................................................................... 89
What is the EFF concern regarding Free Speech? ...................................................................................... 94
What is the EFF concern regarding Intellectual Property? ......................................................................... 94
What is the EFF concern regarding International issues?........................................................................... 94
What is the EFF concern regarding Privacy? ............................................................................................... 95
What kind of bloggers does the EFF want on the Internet? ....................................................................... 95
What is CyberSLAPP? .................................................................................................................................. 95
How does EFF benefit those who have reading disabilities? ...................................................................... 95
What is a Broadcast Flag? ........................................................................................................................... 96
What is the Coder's Right Project? ............................................................................................................. 96
What is Digital Rights Management?.......................................................................................................... 96
What agency is in charge of making the rules of Net Neutrality? Can it be trusted? ................................ 96
What are patents designed to do? ............................................................................................................. 96
What will happen if the Broadcast Flag was fully implemented? .............................................................. 97
Is it legal to record radio programs? How so? ............................................................................................ 97
How many people in the United States have used file sharing? ................................................................ 97
What effect does the DMCA have on anonymous free speech? ................................................................ 98
How can the patent system be improved? ................................................................................................. 98
Why are Terms of Use contracts biased? ................................................................................................... 98
What concerns does the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement raise? ..................................................... 98
What concerns does the Broadcasting Treaty raise? ................................................................................. 98
What is the challenge concerning technological development in poorer countries? ................................ 99
What currently concerns EFF Europe?........................................................................................................ 99
What is the Global Network Initiative?....................................................................................................... 99
What is the WIPO? ...................................................................................................................................... 99
What is the basis for anonymity on the Internet? .................................................................................... 100
What is CALEA? ......................................................................................................................................... 100
Why is tracking people through their mobile phones controversial? ...................................................... 100
What features should digital books retain from their physical counterparts? ........................................ 100
What is the EFF doing regarding locational privacy? ................................................................................ 100
Why is NSA so controversial regarding the Internet? ............................................................................... 101
What are some Online Behavioral Tracking technologies being used? .................................................... 101
What problems are posed by the Real ID system? ................................................................................... 101
How is RFID controversial? ....................................................................................................................... 101
How are search engines controversial? .................................................................................................... 102
What is the problem regarding Search Incident to Arrest? ...................................................................... 102
What is the main problem concerning Social Networks? ......................................................................... 102
How are Travel Screenings problematic? ................................................................................................. 102
What are the problems regarding E-voting? ............................................................................................ 102
What is the aim of the FOIA Litigation for Accountable Government (FLAG) Project? ............................ 103
What are Terms of Service? ...................................................................................................................... 103
What is the problem with some ISPs? ...................................................................................................... 103
Copyright, Privacy, and Anonymity ........................................................................................................... 103
Chapter 1: Foundations of Information Ethics.......................................................................................... 104
Chapter 2: Milestones in the History of Information and Computer Ethics ............................................. 105
Chapter 3: Moral Methodology and Information Technology ................................................................. 107
Chapter 4: Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems ................................................................... 108
Chapter 5: Personality-Based, Rule-Utilitarian, and Lockean Justifications of Intellectual Property ....... 109
Chapter 6: Informational Privacy: Concepts, Theories, and Controversies .............................................. 110
Chapter 7: Online Anonymity ................................................................................................................... 111
Chapter 8: Ethical Issues Involving Computer Security: Hacking, Hacktivism, and Counter hacking ....... 112
Chapter 9: Ethical Interest in Free and Open Source Software ................................................................ 113
Chapter 10: Ethical Interest in Free and Open Source Software .............................................................. 114
Egoism and Moral Scepticism
By: James Rachels
This chapter focuses on the two kinds of egoism. These are mainly the ethical and the
psychological egoism. These two might be synonymous, but they are far different from each other when
they are properly analyzed.
Psychological egoism is the perspective wherein humans are selfish in everything they that they
do in which they only act in accordance to their self interest. If we are to analyze it, it may have some sort
of truth in it. But going deeper can give us a clue that humans are not always selfish in their acts. A very
good example is when someone foregoes his own enjoyment for the sake of helping other people. We
can't say that it is an act of selfishness but it is can be considered as an act of self-interest if it is in which
case. It's because that if the interest of that person is the welfare of others, then that is not acting selfishly.
Another thing that would support the idea of humans being unselfish is that when a person get satisfied in
helping others. We can't say that it is for his own interest because there will be no selfish person that
would become satisfied when helping others.
Ethical egoism on the other hand, tells us that humans are only obliged to act for themselves and
nothing else. If we are to find some logical error into it, then there might be none. But there are things that
it does which shouldn't be the case. It challenge our moral confidence to a demand of an explanation on
the reason of adopting policies in which other's welfare are given importance. Thus it forgets the value of
sympathy that every human has. A human without sympathy can't be considered as one. It is to say that in
these kinds of arguments, reason alone is not the solution.
Religion, Morality and Conscience
By: John Arthur
This chapter discusses the relationship between religion and morality. According to John Arthur,
morality and religion is different for the reason that morality involves our attitudes toward
various forms of behavior, typically expressed using the notions of rules, rights and obligations.
On the other hand, religion, typically involves prayer, worship, beliefs about the supernatural,
institutional forms and authoritative texts.
Morality and Religion are connected for the reason that without religion people could not do the
right thing; that religion is necessary to provide guidance to people in their search for the correct
course of action; and that religion is essential for there even to be a right or wrong.
Master and Slave Morality
By: Friedrich Nitzsche
This chapter discusses two types of morality according to what kind of person is holding it. These
are the master morality and slave morality. These two things seem to be of the opposite side but both
entail right and wrong character which teaches us to be observant on how we will act.
The first type is the master morality. This type is the one which can also be consider as the
morality of the ruler. Here, we can say that those people are the ones which they think that they are the
ones who identify what is good or evil. This leads to a synonymous term which is the noble and
despicable. A noble man considers himself distinguish from others and whatever he says will be praised
and acknowledge by the many. He always thinks that everything he has is good and what they don't have
is bad. Thus, he labels himself as the determinant of values. We may somehow see this kind of attitude in
an egoist. Both of them use morality only for self-glorification. They may be able to help those that are
unfortunate, but it is not because of kindness or pity, rather it is because of the superabundance of their
resources that they want to find some usage for it rather for it to waste. They always honor themselves in
the way that they see themselves powerful and he is the only one who has power over himself. The good
thing here is that a noble man knows the manner to speak and to keep silence. The point here is that this
type of morality considers that everything that entails them to be more powerful will always be consider
as good even it destroys other people.
Utilitarianism
By: John Stuart Mill
Based on John Stuart Mill’s article the only thing important as he said in his article, a means to an
end is happiness and anything that is the opposite of that is unhappiness and is wrong. The principle of
utility is that happiness can be achieved and anything that can make us happy are the things right and if
anything is with the absence of happiness is something wrong. The author explained what creed is, it is a
brief authoritative formula of religious belief or a set of fundamental beliefs, a guiding principle. As I
understand it. We should be able to utilize the things around to make us happy and that our belief tells us
that we need to be happy and that the absence of happiness is equivalent to something that is something
wrong
The Debate Over Utilitarianism
By: James Rachels
“There must be other countless errors of the same sort that no living man can yet detect, because
of the fog within which our type of Western culture envelops us. Cultural influences have set up the
assumptions about the mind, the body, and the universe with which we begin; pose the questions we ask;
influence the facts we seek; and direct our reaction to these interpretation and conclusions.” Rachels,
discussed the different kinds of utilitarianism and how the followers of utilitarianism refutes the idea that
Rachels suggested. First, actions are to judged right or wrong solely in virtue f their consequences.
Nothing else matters. Second is assessing those consequences. whether they produce happiness or
unhappiness. Lastly, calculating the amount of happiness it caused. Rachels quoted Mill passage “the
happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent’s own
happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism
requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.” Rachels pointed out
too that utilitarianism theory states that right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of
happiness over unhappiness, with each person’s happiness counted as equally important. Rachels pointed
out that one’s happiness is equivalent to others happiness no matter how big it is or small.
Categorical Imperative
By: Immanuel Kant
“Moral Worth of an action does not depend on the result expected from it and so too does not
depend on any principle of action that needs to borrow its motive from this expected result.” I believe in
the quoted words used by Immanuel Kant. There is a universal law that we follow to justify an action of a
person. The right of RIGHT reasoning is where you categorize the things of what you think is right and
will apply to you and to others. According to Kant, human beings occupy a special place in creation, and
morality can be summed up in one ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties
and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or
inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative compels action in a given circumstance: if I wish to
quench my thirst, I must drink something. A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an
absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and
justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:"Act only according to that maxim
whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. his argument was based on
his striking doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free in the sense of being the
author of the law that binds it. Based on the article I have learned that the only thing that a person lives
for is doing the right reasoning. There is a universal law that we follow to justify an action of a person.
The right of RIGHT reasoning is where you categorize the things of what you think is right and will apply
to you and to others.
The Nature of Rights and Value
By: Joel Feinberg
“A right is a claim and a claim is “an assertion of right”. Feinberg said every person claims that
they have their own rights and responsibility to fulfill. Every persons perception about right differs, some
maybe of same direction but end result and some may be of different direction but same end result. I have
learned that rights are important for a society to maintain its harmony. A person who value their rights do
things to their neighbor the things that they wanted to be treated as well. I think that the reason for a
harmonious relationship between people be it couple friends, neighbors, workmates and other kind of
relationship is the ability to respect each other’s right and belief. You cannot impose to someone that you
have a more reasonable belief that theirs because for them their belief is much more viable than yours.
You can talk your way through it but always remember that the only reason they will believe is the reason
they want to believe in, not yours but theirs. The article said that a person is or have to defend their rights.
Everybody has a balanced authority to defend themselves against the threats of others. Local government
units are designated to enforce the law and make they apply to everybody. These are the agencies of our
society that make sure that peace and order are maintained in the society. The author said that if ever that
you feel that someone is somewhat stepping inside your comfort zone and endangering your rights then
you have the ability to defend it and can make them be subjected to law. People should learn to respect
the rights of others as much as they wanted others to respect their rights as well. Respect is earned not just
given away.
Taking Rights Seriously
By: Ronald Dworkin
“If the government itself is not taking right seriously, then they do not take the law seriously
either”. The quote explains it all. Where do you think the rights of the people is based on? Their beliefs,
on others want? Dworkin, the author, tackled the importance of the rights of the people as person why we
should take this seriously. Ronald Dworkin in the article asserts that individuals have legal rights beyond
those openly laid down by the government and also that they have political and moral rights against the
state that are prior to the welfare of the majority. Also he argues that basic among political rights is the
right of each individual to the equal respect. Every person has the right to political issues, each individual
have the right to earn equal respect whether one person have a white collared or blue collared job. They
are all the same and though they don’t have the same status in life. They are still the same, human beings
they have both equal rights. But if the law is not applicable to other since he is poorer then there is what
you call inequality of rights. We should not decide whether a person is guilty of something just because
he is able to do it. Or have the ability to do it. Always give the person the benefit of the doubt. I’ve
learned that people should take our rights seriously because sometimes we find things funny until it
happens to us.
A Theory of Justice
By: John Rawls
“In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the
traditional theory of the social contract. This original position is not, of course, thought of as an actual
historical state of affairs, much less as a primitive condition of culture. It is understood as a purely
hypothetical situation characterized so as to lead to a certain conception of justice.” We will be having a
better place to live in. If only government play by the rule of “equal treatment” if they just take these
things seriously then it is a better place to live in. he implicitly stated that each person has the right to live
freely, without the fear of any threat and abuse. In reality, justice favors those who are in power, people
who can buy their way to the top and can twist the situation for their own benefit. Equality amongst the
people should always be upheld by the governing state because it is through equality that peace and
harmony is achieved. Defining liberty as personal freedom from servitude or coercion or cruelty. The
second principle of justice which is wealth states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged
so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings
principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity. The According to Rawls theory, these are the principles that free and rational persons would
accept in a theoretical creative position where there is a veil of ignorance hiding from the contractors all
the particular facts about themselves. Rawls think that by giving everyone an equal access to the basic
judicial services of the government and people will be treated equally.
The Need for More than Justice
By: Annette Baier
In the article, Annette Baier, the author of the reading The Need for More than Justice, points out
the importance justice towards attaining peace and harmony in society. Is Justice really relative to
fairness? What about those who said to serve justice but in reality are innocent? Is that still fairness? She
distinguishes between the justice perspective of philosophers such as Kant and Rawls and the care
perspective Gilligan found in her studies of the moral development of women. The reading discusses
about the inequalities between people, where it has an unlikely realistic view of freedom of choice, and it
ignores the importance of moral emotions such as love. She also tackled a moral theory that talked about
how justice is harmonized justice and care. Annette said that one cannot regard any version of morality
that does not ensure that caring for children gets well done as an adequate “minimal morality,” anymore
than we could so regard one that left any concern for more distant future generations an optional
extra. Justice brings forth an authoritative element to society that sets standards for the people to follow.
These standards set by the law are what help in bringing forth equality and fairness into the table because
any defiance with the law will result into just consequences.
All in all, justice is meant more for the society because it is designed to prove constantly that
people are safe within their society. Victims will be given proper justice for the damages or loses the have
suffered because criminals will be caught, who will go under trial and be convicted. In general, we may
conclude that justice is what keeps the world safe.
23 Critiques of the Reproductive Health Bill
5043
Most of the critiques of the Reproductive Health Bill 5043 share the opinions about the bill
being: Unconstitutional, Against the Church Teachings, Against the Law of God, Against the Human
Rights (because it intervenes the individual’s right to privacy), Destructive of public morals and Flawed
premise. Almost all of the 23 critiques of the Reproductive Health Bill 5043 are Catholics, which of
whom some of them are officers of the Catholic Church.
For a bill that unavoidably deals on moral issues, more specifically gender equality, responsible
parenthood, family planning and abortion, it miserably failed to include in its declaration of policy and
guiding principles any reference to our “Almighty God,” which point is clearly so emphasized in the
preamble of our Constitution. The bill also failed to explain clearly to the public the contents of the
Reproductive Health Bill. The bill is broad in its sense. The simpler, the better should be the rule.
The bill is nothing but ambitious as it seeks to envelop at the same time in such a short single
initiative a handful of differing and complicated subjects revolving around population, women’s rights,
health promotion, gender equality and human rights.
Population Bogey: a scapegoat
By Sonny Coloma, Business World
In the article Population Bogey: a scapegoat, the content of the article is that “In the fifties and up
to the time martial rule was imposed by a dictatorial President, the communist bogey was the favorite
justification for witch-hunting against advocates of progressive thought who were accused of
"destabilizing" the government and "threatening our democratic way of life." Today, the communist
bogey has been replaced by a new scapegoat: the population bogey.
House Bill 5043, otherwise known as the Population and Reproductive Health Bill, is now being
debated. Even if the bill has not been passed it has been reported that about P 2 billion has been
appropriated to fund the purchase and provision of contraceptives that will be distributed in health centers
nationwide.
I first became aware of the population bogey when, as a freshman in UP, I read the winning piece
for the Philippine Collegian editorship written by Antonio Tagamolila. (Government soldiers in the
coutnryside killed Tony Tagamolila in the early seventies, not long after his stint as Collegian editor.) His
lead sentence was quite memorable: “The ghost of the Parson Malthus once more stalks the land.”
Thomas Malthus was a Protestant minister who warned about the potentially catastrophic
consequences of “geometric” (or “exponential”) population growth far outstripping “arithmetic” growth
in food production. This view found resonance in the Club of Rome’s exposition on the Limits to Growth
in the mid-seventies.
But such gloom-and-doom scenarios have not materialized. Advances in technology have greatly
enhanced human productivity. The market economy has created such an abundance of wealth that, even if
not equitably distributed, has forestalled the dire predictions on the supposed detrimental effects of the
law of diminishing marginal returns. Poverty cannot be totally blamed on the poor themselves: it is more
clearly the outcome of human greed and bad governance. In the Real Wealth of Nations, Riane Eisler
points out that it is dominator economic systems that “artificially create and perpetuate scarcity – and with
this, pain and fear.” Such systems have spawned “heavy investment in armaments, lack of investment in
meeting human needs, ruthless exploitation of nature, and waste of natural and human resources from
wars and other forms of violence.”
In our country, the Catholic Church has often been blamed by politicians for the continuing high
population growth rate. I recall that during the Ramos regime, Cardinal Sin mobilized a huge rally in
Luneta to counteract the high-profile birth control program of the Department of Health that was then
headed by flamboyant Secretary (later Senator) Juan Flavier. During my two stints in government, I have
realized why every secretary of health is bound to support the use of contraceptives in population control
programs. Almost the entire DOH budget (up to 80%) is allocated for personnel salaries and
administrative expenses. Only official development assistance from such sources as the US Agency for
International Development (USAID) makes it possible for the DOH to pursue meaningful pubic health
programs. I am opposed to HB 5043 even if I favor planned parenthood through natural methods. My
opposition stems from the fact that, historically, the open tolerance of the use of contraceptives has
produced more harmful effects than the good that its advocates have vowed to promote.
A culture of contraception is, essentially, an anti-life –not a pro-choice—culture. It is also antifamily. Contrary to expectations, the percentage of out-of wedlock births has increased dramatically since
oral contraceptives, or birth control pills, were approved for sale in 1960. In the US, out-of-wedlock births
have increased from 6% to about 35%. In Europe, about half of the children in Denmark, Sweden, and
Norway are born to unmarried mothers. These figures give rise to the query: since birth control pills
prevent pregnancy, shouldn’t the out-of-wedlock pregnancy rates have gone down? Not so, because of the
operation of the law of unintended consequences. Since contraception has become legitimate, then
childbearing can take place outside marriage. Hence, there has been a big increase in the out-ofwedlock
pregnancies – and births – and of abortions as well. With few exceptions, abortions
always happen outside of marriage. Another consequence of the onset of the culture of contraception is
the spiral in the incidence of divorce and a corresponding decline of marriage as an institution. Let the
authors of the House Bill explain and justify to the people the rationale in terms of the foregoing
challenges: the likely increase in unwanted pregnancies and criminal abortions, out-of-wedlock births,
and the decline of marriage. Let them file a divorce law to complete their menu for the new Filipino
lifestyle. But let the silent majority of those who are opposed to abortion and the decline of the family
as an institution also speak up. (…) Not surprisingly, none of the presidential wannabees for 2010 has
spoken in favor of HB 5043, which still needs a Senate counterpart measure that is yet to be reported out
and debated on the floor.
Catholics should come out in the open and ask their senators, congressmen, and political leaders
to declare where they stand on this issue.” – The article of the first critique from the 23 Critiques of the
Reproductive Health Bill.
The author doesn’t believe that by the passing of the reproductive health bill 5043. The problem
with population growth will lessen. As a matter of fact, she even pointed out that poverty cannot be totally
blamed on the poor themselves: it is more clearly the outcome of human greed and bad governance.
Actually, there are a lot things that she pointed out that because the contraceptive pills are now available
for public consumption there was a surprisingly an increase of pregnancy out of wed-lock relationships.
She was opposing the HB 5043 even though she is in favor of planned parenthood by means of natural
methods because for her which I also believe that the tolerance for the use of contraceptives has produced
more harmful effects than the good that its advocates have vowed to promote.
Unhealthy reproductive bill
by Atty. Augusto Bundang, Business World
In the article Unhealthy reproductive bill, the content of the article is that “The "conscience"
theme has never left local advertisements. The story line in many television ads about a woman talking to
her inner voice or conscience in deciding what better soap or product to buy for her family never fails to
amuse us for decades. The conscience advises the woman what product is good for her family and what
will be beneficial to her in the long run. It teaches her to distinguish right from wrong. Her conscience
guides her and warns her to act only in accordance with her own standards of right and wrong. I guess the
current debate on House Bill 5043, or the “Reproductive Health Bill,“ involves at the very least an
exercise of conscience as well. I tried to read through its provisions, attempting somehow though
probably failing at times to momentarily set aside tenets that have been taught to me as a Roman Catholic.
Well my conscience did not stop pricking me as I look at its contents.
For a bill that unavoidably deals on moral issues, more specifically gender equality, responsible
parenthood, family planning and abortion, it miserably failed to include in its declaration of policy and
guiding principles any reference to our “Almighty God,” which point is clearly so emphasized in the
preamble of our Constitution. The bill is nothing but ambitious as it seeks to envelop at the same time in
such a short single initiative a handful of differing and complicated subjects revolving around population,
women’s rights, health promotion, gender equality and human rights. Empirically such a hodgepodge bill
will undoubtedly lead to more explanations and oversight confusion in the future. “The simpler, the
better” should be the rule.
The bill for all its good intentions made sweeping assumptions in an effort to push for what is
referred to as “responsible parenthood.” Section 5 of the bill makes the Commission on Population
(Popcom) the central planning and implementing body for the reproductive health policy. With Popcom at
the helm, the bill apparently highlights the view that curbing the population is its main thrust. In its
guiding principles (Section 3 (e)), the bill mentions “the limited resources of the country” affected by a
“burgeoning multitude” that results in grossly inadequate and meaningless allocations. In effect, it
perceives population in the country a “problem” that must be solved as it depletes its resources. But isn’t
manpower the most important resource a country can ever have? Isn’t labor, more so an intelligent and
productive one, the key to enhancing and maximizing resources, thus making resources bountiful and
limitless rather than limited? Have our representatives failed to see the obvious by ignoring the continuing
calls of developed countries for millions of migrants to work in their businesses and efforts to replace
their graying population? The bill’s proponents if they truly believe in its importance, should work on
other arguments and cease harping on the population growth. This type of reasoning has been shown to be
false, misleading, obsolete, and very far from reality. Increasingly, Section 10 of the bill treats
contraception as “essential medicines.” Categorizing contraceptives as such would imply that conception,
which contraceptives seek to present, is a disease that requires medicines.
Under Section 12 of the bill mandatory reproductive health education shall begin from Grade 3
up fourth year high school or for six continuous years from the time child is 11 years old up to the time he
or she reaches 17 years of age. What will that make of them? Sex specialists or adventurists perhaps?
Section 17 on the mandatory inclusions of free delivery by employers of a reasonable quantity of
reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all their workers under the collective bargaining
agreement, is another awkward scheme to allow government to irregularly and unduly interfere in the
relationship between employers and their employees and to violate the employer’s free exercise of
religion. Freedom to exercise one’s religion is also infringed under Section 21 which considers as
criminals the act of any health care service provider, whether public or private, to refuse to perform
voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other legal and medically safe reproductive health care services.
In the end, notwithstanding the long arguments raised by the bill’s proponents, they all would
have to contend with their own conscience and examine themselves if indeed, the bill’s provision to
which they adhere do not get entangled with their moral judgment. I’m not even talking of religion here.
For conscience, is in a way above reason and discussion. It operates without the influence of any teaching
ideology, or tradition, and comes as an automatic command whether to the young or to the old, the
educated or the uneducated. It warns and it judges.
Part II
Last Sunday was another day of sermon criticizing House Bill 5043 or the Reproductive Health
Bill. The priest who was giving a discourse on the subject kept exhorting on how the bill would violate
the laws of men and of God. The problem, though, is, like some who would condemn the bill outright, the
clergyman did not point out the specific provisions of the bill that he found objectionable.
By coming up with sweeping statements and conclusions without laying the predicate, so to
speak, he may have succeeded in convincing the devout churchgoers to disagree with the bill, but he
definitely failed to make them informed and critical faithful followers who can ably defend their position
when confronted by those who support the bill. Through this and last week’s columns, we hope to assist
those who wish to know more about the bill and some of its damaging provisions.
Stupid is as stupid does. That’s how Section 17 or the penal provision of the bill really is. It may
be likened to the state-sponsored persecution by the Romans of the Christians for simply exercising their
rights religious belief. It criminalizes acts that are morally right and fosters state initiatives that would
infringe the Bill of Rights. Penalties imposed by the bill range from one month to six months
imprisonment or a fine of P10,000.00 to P50,000.00.
Violators are also civilly liable to the so-called “offended party” upon the discretion of the court.
Under Section 17, regardless of their moral and ethical convictions, public and private health care service
providers cannot knowingly withhold or impede the dissemination of information regarding programs and
services on reproductive health., including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of
medically-safe and effective family planning methods. They also can neither fail to provide reproductive
health care services nor refuse to extend the same on account of the patient’s civil status, gender or sexual
orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. Worse, they cannot refuse to
provide such services to a DSWD-certified abused minor or abused pregnant minor on whose case no
parental consent is necessary.
True, Section 17, also mentions “that all conscientious objections of health care service providers
based on religious grounds shall be respected”. But then, why is the said proviso inserted only in one of
Section 17’s subparagraph s and not crafted separately so as to apply to all paragraphs of the section? And
yes, why is it that conscientious objections based on religious grounds are the only ones respected? What
if the objections emanate from moral, logical or philosophical underpinnings? Will they be disregarded?
One thing that well need to be reminded about this bill is the inevitable fact that all money to be
utilized to provide those reproductive health and family planning services (many of which we cannot
stomach) as well as to “urgently” promote them (Section 19 so says) will come from our very own
pockets. Taxpayers money, we call it. We, the taxpayers, will foot the “bill” even if we find the bill
repulsive and even if we know that our money would be put to better use with the building of well
equipped hospitals and health centers. If this is not dumb, I don’t know what is.
Our definite way of ending this long and costly argument on Bill 5043 is for President Arroyo to
finally and resolutely make a pronouncement that she will not support it and will veto it if and when it
reaches Malacañang. The President may have compromised her principles on many issues, but this is one
situation I hope where she will neither back down nor surrender her values for the sake of her own
redemption, political or otherwise. Remember, Madam President, we are not the only ones watching you.
He too is ---- always.” – The article of the second critique from the 23 Critiques of the Reproductive
Health Bill.
“The simpler, the better” should be the rule. That what caught my attention, Before I began
reading the comments of the critiques, I made a little research about the HB 5043. I browse through its
provisions and sections and tried hard to understand everything they wanted to incorporate in the bill. I
can see, what Atty. Bundang is trying to point, the HB is trying to tell people because of its increasing
population. In effect, it perceives population in the country a “problem” that must be solved as it depletes
its resources. Atty. Bundang said isn’t it a bigger problem that the need for people to go out of the country
because they wanted to fill up the places where it should be populated by their natives? He opposes the
bill because of many reasons, one highlighted reason was section 12 of the HB reproductive health
education shall begin from Grade 3 up fourth year high school or for six continuous years from the time
child is 11 years old up to the time he or she reaches 17 years of age. Are they trying to make them sex
specialist? Which I couldn’t agree more.
Reckless and irresponsible
By Atty. Jo Imbong, CBCP
In the article Reckless and irresponsible, the content of the article is that
"http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20080816-155092/Churchreplyto-reproductive-health-bill-facts-fallacies
REP. EDCEL LAGMAN, THE PRINCIPAL AUTHOR OF THE proposed Reproductive Health and
Population Development Act of 2008 asserts, among others, that the bill is neither antilife nor antifamily,
that contraceptives are not life-threatening and that the bill does not impose a two-child policy.
Prolife? To value human life is to respect and protect life in all its seasons. "Human life begins at
fertilization." (Records of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. IV, Sept. 18, 1986, pp. 761, 801) hence,
"the State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception."
(Constitution, Article II, Section 12). Lagman said in a House hearing that the bill would protect human
life "from implantation." By that token, the zygote not yet in the mother's womb is not protected. Pills and
the IUD hinder implantation of the embryo in the uterus, thereby precipitating the embryo's destruction.
That is abortion. And yet, "every child ... needs appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth
(UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). Not life-threatening? Records are rife of perforation of the
uterus and serious pelvic infections in women with IUDs that public midwives have refused to extract.
The Mayo Foundation found that oral contraceptives are associated with an increase risk of breast cancer.
DepoProvera increases a woman's risk for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Oral contraceptives containing
cyproterone increase risk of deep venous blood clots.
Levonorgestrel is banned in this country as the Bureau of Food and Drugs found it to be
abortifacient. Life-threatening ectopic pregnancies occur in mothers long after undergoing tubal ligation,
particularly those sterilized before age 30. Contraceptives as essential medicines? Contraceptives do not
treat any medical condition. Fertility is not a disease. It attests to health! The bill targets "the poor, needy
and marginalized." This is most unkind to them whose real needs are jobs, skills, education, lucrative
opportunities, nutrition, and essential medicines for anemia, tuberculosis, infections and childhood
diseases.
Remember, every citizen has the right to health (Art. II, Sec.15), hence, the State has a duty to
protect the citizens against dangerous substances (Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec.9), and protect women in
their maternal function (Art. XIII,Sec. 14). Family friendly? The "encouragement" to have two children is
manipulation both brazen and subtle. It can set the stage for a stronger application of the recommendation
through legislative amendments. Spouses have a basic, original, intrinsic and inviolable right "to found a
family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible
parenthood" (Art. XV, Sec. 3 [1]). This includes their right to progeny.
The bill mocks parents with fine and imprisonment in refusing to expose their children to
mandatory "age-appropriate" reproductive health education starting Grade 5 outside the loving confines
of home and family.
Vulnerable and malleable, our children will be taught "adolescent reproductive health" and "the
full range of information on family planning methods, services and facilities" for six years. This is child
abuse of the highest order. And yet, "every child has the right to be brought up in an atmosphere of
morality and rectitude for the enrichment and strengthening of his character." (Child and Youth Welfare
Code) The ... care and nurtur[ance] of the child reside first in the parents (Article II, Sec. 12,
Constitution), whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can
neither supply nor hinder. (Brantley v. Surles, 718 F. 2d. 1354,1358-59) The State did not create the
family, and "the child is not a creature of the State." (Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, 268, U.S. 510, 535.)
That is the law of nature, and no human institution has authority to amend it.
Quality of life? The bill wants to "uplift the quality of life of the people." Population control
started in 1976 "to increase the share of each Filipino in the fruits of economic progress." In other words - to eliminate poverty. Has it? The General Appropriations Act of 2008 earmarks an enormous amount for
"family planning and reproductive health services," including contraceptives. For the Department of
Health it is P3.19 billion; for Popcom -- P386.5 million, quite apart from funds for other agencies of
government and local government units for the same programs. Add $2.4 million from the United Nations
Population Fund for population and development and reproductive health for 2008, plus $2.2 million for
2009.
Today's average family has three children compared with seven in the '70s. But the billions of
pesos spent have not reduced poverty or benefited the poor. If Congress passes this bill, it wagers the
future of the country. Citizens have a right to resist misplaced and irresponsible exercise of authority
because the good of the people is the supreme law. Salus populi est suprema lex. The path of irresponsible
legislation is a dreadful path: If an act is made legal, it will be perceived as moral. If an act is perceived as
moral, it will become a norm. If it is observed by all as a norm, then it is too late. By then, you will have
changed the culture. That is not simply reckless. It is the ultimate breach of public trust.
“ – The article of the third critique from the 23 Critiques of the Reproductive Health Bill.
Atty. Imbong says and I quote: “Contraceptives do not treat any medical condition. Fertility is not
a disease. It attests to health! The bill targets "the poor, needy and marginalized." This is most unkind to
them whose real needs are jobs, skills, education, lucrative opportunities, nutrition, and essential
medicines for anemia, tuberculosis, infections and childhood diseases.” Also he is pointing out that the
bill doesn’t contribute to the fact that the government is trying to eliminate poverty which HB 5043
doesn’t fit in that category at all. I believe that there is a need for the low and lowest category in the
society needs these family planning, in fact I believe that there is a need for that in every family but it is a
matter of choice not forcing it to people, definitely not a mandatory thing.
No place for reproductive health bill in our
law
Sen. Francisco Tatad, International Right to Life Federation
According to Sen. Tatad, THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH bill in the House of Representatives
is being presented as a health bill and an antipoverty bill at the same time. He said that it is not. It is the
very opposite of they say it is. He pointed out that women needs true medicine since fertility is not a
disease, what they need is true medicines that will cure and secure the safety of women. For example of a
basic need. Maternal death could be brought down to zero just by providing adequate basic and
emergency obstetrics-care facilities and skilled medical services to women. Sen. Tatad also expressed that
the bill seeks to tell the Catholic majority not to listen to the Church and to listen to anti-Catholic
politicians instead.
It's Satan's Semen, Stupid
By Minyong Ordoñez
In this article, I was shocked by the point that RH bill is pro-abortion. It violates the rule of God
which is the right to live. Abortion is a mortal sin in the eyes of God. The abortion of a living fetus in the
womb of a mother through aborticide using abortifacients in order to reduce birthrate. This process is
insanity. I believed that this bill can’t be passed because it violates the rule of God and it also violates the
right to live. The fetus in the woman’s womb should not be aborted because it is not the fetus fault to be
inside that woman’s womb, instead it is the fault of his or her parents who don’t practice safe sex. It is
just so funny (for me, when I was reading the article, how Ordoñez, put the words into that paragraph all
in one go and to come up with all the categories of a man who are just sinners because of having inserted
his love juice to women. That is something worth reading over and over again.
Crucial questions on the RH bill
By Atty. Jose Sison, Philippine Star
Atty Sison said that there is something wrong with the Reproductive Health Bill since the bill is
implying that there is a choice for women to chose which family planning method is best for the family,
they have the power to do so because of the HB 5043. But for Atty. Sison, the power to choose freely
however must be exercised for the common good. It does not give man the right to choose and commit
something wrong. In blocking the bill, the Church is just trying to point out what is wrong with it.
Ironically, it is the bill itself that prevents the exercise of the free will by employing coercive methods in
limiting the family size. It imposes imprisonment and or fine or both on those who would violate or refuse
to carry out its program on providing access to the artificial methods of birth control.
No! to the Reproductive Health
Population Development Act of 2008
and
by Advocacy Center
The Advocacy Center believe that by this Health bill, it is said that it is evil and project all the
opposite of it to be the real agenda or will be the end result if it is to be passed by the government and
become a law. For example, the Health Bill blames poverty to over population but the truth is the real
causes of poverty and underdevelopment are graft and corruption bad governance, and uneven
distribution of wealth not overpopulation. The bill promotes sex education should be given to children
which will only lead to becoming promiscuous. They should be taught instead, the values of abstinence,
chastity, and self discipline. The Advocacy Center also said criticized that contraceptives are not real
medicines but killer medicines or deadly medicines.
Should You Support Reproductive Health
Bill No. 5043? Take this Simple Test to Find
Out
By Couples for Christ Foundation For Family and Life
The questions here are going to be answered only if you read the HB 5043. For me, it is
somewhat bias, bias in a sense that questions are formulated so that it can be answered by a negative or an
answer that will definitely favor the “question formulator”. If you will read all the questions even if you
will not answer it yet, you can see that it is favoring one side of the story. If is that is the way they ask
questions then definitely they will all get most of it are no.. or this “If you answered No to any of the
questions above, then you are not for Reproductive Health Bill No. 5043. Read the bill.”
What’s Wrong with the Reproductive Health
Bill
by Sen. Francisco Tatad
Just like his previous critique, he targeted the bill and say that it is not needed and very degrading
to women all the more, he said that it is an insult to women on our freedom of speech and our Christian
Culture as well. He said that it is not always true that the few are always richer and the many are always
poorer. The bill is said to be unnecessary except for preventing abortion. But isn’t it considered abortion
in using those pills. It is said also that oral contraceptives are considered dangerous that causes
carcinogenic to human (the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health
Organization (WHO)) I agree that a state must levy taxes, to expropriate private property for public use,
to conscript able-bodied young men for its defense. But the State may not enter the family bedroom and
tell married couples how to practice marital love.
Contraceptives harmful to women’s health
by Dr. Bernardo Villegas
According to Dr. Villegas it is proven that any reproductive contraceptive are very harmful to
women. There are numerous adverse effects of the pill on women that have been equally well
documented. They are breast cancer, cervical cancer, liver cancer, premature hypertension and coronary
artery disease leading to heart attacks and strokes, thromboembolism/pulmonary embolism. Other
negative side effects are decreased libido, infertility, leg cramps, gallstone formation, nausea, and
bloatedness. It was also emphasize in the article that IUD is something like this, it will prevent the
embryo from implanting and not just by preventing conception. I quote: “It is, therefore, an abortifacient,
not a contraceptive.” As I have understood the article, why promote something if it has a high rate of
failures and contribute to another unwanted pregnancy in the country.
Oversimplication of Economists
by Dr. Bernardo Villegas
Dr. Villegas is condemning the economists who pointed out that a rapid growth of GDP may lead
to more human misery if it is not accompanied with a more equitable distribution of income and wealth
and increasing access to education and health among the masses. He said that through this bill, it is like
allowing the state
to intervene into people’s private lives by strongly promoting contraception and
its enforced provision, state run sex education with the potential of undermining parental influence, and
denying conscientious objection. He even pointed out that internationally according to UN committee
reproductive rights is equivalent to abortion. The bill chooses words like reproductive health bill, planned
parenthood, informed choice, sexual health to cover up the truth about what this bill really wants and the
effects of it being implemented. The terms being used by the bill is like suggesting or will do selective
purification of a population based on social classes. And it is horrible just by thinking about it.
Spending Billions for Birth Control Pills?
by Fr. Cecilio Magsino
“The proponents of the Reproductive Health Bill want the national government to buy birth
control pills and make them available to the public for free or for a nominal price.”
Fr. Cecilio researched this on the internet that the cheapest price of an oral contraceptive is 30
pesos and did some math and came up with a figure around 141billion will be spent on oral contraceptive
alone. Which defeat other purposes of fund allocation. There must be some other way to channel the
money and have a more fruitful and meaningful return of investments. There must be some other ways to
spend the money not just by giving those contraceptives for free to child bearing able women. It is very
unwise of the government to do so.
Philippines Threatened By a 2-Child Policy
by Genevieve Pollock, Zenit News Agency
All in all the article talks about just like the others, silencing the parents on what to do with their
children. Freedom of speech is at stake. Parents will not be able to object. Health care workers will be
forced to refer against their conscience. Employers will have to provide family planning services. Cosby
noted the affirmation of Archbishop Pacino Aniceto, chairman of the Episcopal commission on family
and life, who stated "If you are Catholic, you should behave like a Catholic. Otherwise you are not what
you profess." Cosby said we should protect the church and our family or else everything else will start to
fall down if not together, soon after.
12 Reasons Why We Oppose HB5043
by Alliance for the Family Foundation (ALFI)
The ALFI stated its reason why there are opposing HB 5043. This statement: “HB 5043 promotes
abortion. These HORMONAL CONTRACEPTIVES ACT AS ABORTIFACIENTS. They do not prevent
ovulation 100%of the time and thus, fertilization can still occur. When the fertilized ovum is prevented
from implanting in the uterus because of the effect of the pill, this ovum is expelled. This is plain and
simple abortion. ( Note Research shows that ovulation still occurs during pill use in 6 out of 210
menstrual cycles, hence, there remains a grave risk of the abortion of undetected pregnancies that may
still be occurring,)” was to me the most interesting quotation of the article. It is true that it is like
promoting abortion. It was pointed out that contraceptives doesn’t reduce the rate of abortion but instead
it promotes all the more that abortion is something natural or ordinary thing to do.
Artificial Birth Control is Fascist
by The Varsitarian
Despite their sugarcoated names, they are not pro-women or even mildly “pro-choice.” They said
that maybe because of hoax that the world is overpopulated and that high population is anti-growth and
anti-progress. And I quote “Therefore, the bills are not only anti-life since they seek to stop women from
pregnancy and giving births through a host of questionable means — birth-control pills, abortifacients
like the IUD, and ligation; they are also anti-poor. In short, Lagman’s and Garin’s bills are antihumanist.”
Vasitarians believe that the bills is promoting the violation of the privacy of couples, their meddling with
couples on determining the size of their families is actually another flaw in the HB 5043. But Lagman et
al say their proposed laws are pro-choice” in that they leave it to couples to decide whether or not to
control their births and by what means.
The Filipino Front in the Culture War
By Rosa Linda Valenzona
“Article II, Section 12 of the 1986 Philippine Constitution states: “The State recognizes the
sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.
It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and
primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of
moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”
In fact, everyone feels entitled to criticize the church for its alleged antedeluvian views on
contraception. According to Cngr. Del Mar, the real agenda of the HB 5043 is to push the contraceptive
program and have a direct attack against the Catholoc nation in the absolute rejection of contraception,
also because the church is well aware that in UN language the term “reproductive health” the legalization
of abortion.
The Smoldering Poker
Amelia H.C. Ylagan, Business World
“At the 14th Congress of the House of Representatives, House Bill 5043 was presented, providing
for a national policy on reproductive health, responsible parenthood, and population development, among
other related reproductive and population issues. The Catholic religious hierarchy, speaking to the 72%
Catholics in the country”
Ms. Ilagan told a story about Thomas Aquinas about his virginity and being tempted by a woman
before by using wanton words and touches. So in keeping with the very clear message of Vatican II and
Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, against artificial birth control. The pro-choice faction of
Filipinos, like those in the rest of the world, are for women’s rights to "choose their own destinies" as to
bearing children or not, utilizing modern contraceptive aids, or abortion in extreme cases. She is
opposing the bill because it is a mandatory to use contraceptive and will not be choice anymore and
freedom of speech will be a problem if the bill is to be passed.
Misconceptions and Clarifications on Issues Related to
Humanae Vitae and theReproductive "Health" Bill in
Philippine Congress
By Fr. Gregory D. Gaston, STD.
This is to prove that Reproductive "Health" Bill in Philippine Congress is giving false
information just to let the people believe that it is worth to become a law. Fr. Gaston said that it is not
really an ideal to have a family of two children since there are a lot of women who chooses to have no
children or those women who cannot bear children at all. If that will happen then the fertility rate will be
much lower the 2 and if that will push through Filipino race at first extremely old, and then rare, and
finally extinct.
As opposed to what the artificial methods are saying, the modern natural methods (e.g., Billings,
Sympto-Thermal, Basal Body Temperature) can be more effective than contraceptives, if they are learned
and practiced as a way of life and not as "natural contraceptives." Hence, communication, love, respect,
self-discipline, and formation in the values are necessary for the natural methods to work—values that are
not exclusively religious, but very human and natural as well, and values that are not necessary in the use
of contraceptives.
CEAP Statement (representing 1,256 Catholic schools
including Ateneo, La Salle, UST, San Beda)
Their position is to stand by the Church teachings in the objection to the contraceptive program
the bill promotes. They are also calling the attention of lawmakers that they should know the effects and
nature of contraceptives that VIOLATES the provision in the Philippine Constitution on the protection of
the unborn from the first moment of conception or fertilization. Moreover, the Church also poses serious
objections in that this contraceptive program, while supposedly championing the cause of women, ignores
instances where women’s rights are violated. They also said that six years of value-free sex education that
the Bill proposes violates the rights of parents to keep watchful guard over the moral education of their
children. The Church also strongly opposes the use of the term “Reproductive Health” as defined in the
proposed Bill since it is made synonymous with abortion packaged as a method of family planning.
Just Asking
By Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz
“Just like the untimely resurrection of moves to amend the Constitution, the premature stir of the
Congress to push for the reproductive health bills brings to mind some practical questions that proponents
of this unnecessary legislation should answer.”
Archbishop Oscar Cruz is questioning what is the real meaning of reproductive health anyway? He said
that the bill is to promote health by making this physical attribute precisely unproductive? For this reason,
reproduction is thereby seen as inimical to health. In other words, reproduction should be avoided for
reasons of health whereas it militates against such a physical well-being, particularly on the part of
women. It is very ironic how the bill tries to deviate from the truth but the explanation is very opposite to
the one being proposed.
Statement on Reproductive Health Bill 5043
By Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, Ateneo
“Although there are points wherein the aforesaid bill and the Catholic moral tradition are in
agreement, there are certain positions and provisions in the bill which are incompatible with principles
and specific positions of moral teaching which the Catholic Church has held and continues to hold.”
Although there is one faculty who agrees with the Bill that doesn’t mean that the whole institution
of Ateneo is for the approval of the Bill, they respect their freedom of expression but it is just for one
person and not the entirety of the institution. They were just expressing their opinion and so are they. At
the same time, he wrote on October 2, they support continuing efforts on the critical study and discussion
of the bill among Church groups including the University and in civil society.
Falsehoods in the Lagman Bill
By Emil Jurado, Manila Standard
Lagman seems to put too much weight on what UP economists say. He forgets that economists
make conclusions on assumptions and other factors, which are not validated, much less proven. Show me
an economist that has become a billionaire because of assumptions and conclusions, and I’ll show you a
pig that can fly. As I understand this, It is like saying I AM HAPPY when you know and they know for a
fact that YOU ARE IN PAIN and very much SAD. It is like giving people a hope or teach them to do
wrong just like sex education for grade five to high school is like making them promiscuous.
What you can do to stop the Reproductive
Health Act
By Alliance for the Family Foundation (ALFI)
It is just a series of steps to show how you will defeat or put an end to the pushing through of
Reproductive Health Bill 5043. At first I saw that the article is saying to pray, it is not that I don’t believe
in prayers, for me, even if you pray hard and do nothing then results will be definitely not at your side.
Then as I read through the entire article, I was laughing I guess I did judge the article as a mere fact that it
is not worth reading. The article is telling the reader what he can do physically not just by reacting to the
Bill but doing something about it as well. You can either sign for a petition to stop the Bill, write a letter
to the congress. Write to an editor of a newspaper and so on.
Non – Religious Critiques on the Reproductive Health Bill 5043
Population Bogey
-
I am opposed to HB 5043 even if I favor Planned Parenthood through natural methods.
My opposition stems from the fact that, historically, the open tolerance of the use of
contraceptives has produced more harmful effects than the good that its advocates have vowed to
promote.
-
Contrary to expectations, the percentage of out-of wedlock births has increased
dramatically since oral contraceptives, or birth control pills, were approved for sale in 1960. In
the US, out-of-wedlock births have increased from 6% to about 35%. In Europe, about half of the
children in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are born to unmarried mothers.
These figures give rise to the query: since birth control pills prevent pregnancy, shouldn’t
the out-of-wedlock pregnancy rates have gone down? Not so, because of the operation of the law
of unintended consequences.
Reaction:
-
The author use facts and figures of the other countries in comparison to our country. The
percentage in the countries mentioned by the author tell that even the usage of the contraceptives
become legal or legalized, the rate of pregnancy increases.
Unhealthy Reproductive Bill
-
The General Appropriations Act of 2008 earmarks an enormous amount for "family planning and
reproductive health services," including contraceptives. For the Department of Health it is P3.19
billion; for Popcom -- P386.5 million, quite apart from funds for other agencies of government
and local government units for the same programs. Add $2.4 million from the United Nations
Population Fund for population and development and reproductive health for2008, plus $2.2
million for 2009.
-
Today's average family has three children compared with seven in the '70s. But the billions of
pesos spent have not reduced poverty or benefited the poor.
Reaction:
-
The author use facts and figures on opposing the Reproductive Health Bill 5043. These
facts and figures tell that even the government spend billions of pesos in reproductive health
services, it does not reduced the poverty in the country and the poor families or individuals did
not benefited on it as the author said in his critique about the Reproductive Health Bill 5043. And
the funds that will be allotted to the suggested agencies in the RH Bill, can be a source of
corruption in the government.
No Place for RH Bill in our law
-
Our population growth rate (National Statistics Office) is 2.04 percent, total fertility rate
(TFR) is 3.02. The CIA World Fact book has lower figures -- growth rate, 1.728 percent;
TFR, 3.00.
-
Our population density is 277 per square km. GDP per capita (PPP) is $3,400. Fifty other
countries have a much lower density, yet their per capita is also much lower. Thirty-six
countries are more densely populated, yet their GDP per capita is also much higher. Are the few
then always richer, the many always poorer? Not at all.
-
Our median age is 23 years. In 139 other countries it is as high as 45.5 years (Monaco). This
means a Filipino has more productive years ahead of him than his counterpart in the rich
countries where the graying and dying population is no longer being replaced because of negative
birth rates.
Reaction:
-
The author use statistics about the fertility rate, growth rate, median age, population
density and GDP per capita of the other countries in comparison to our country. His method of
opposing the RH Bill in non – religious view is somehow similar to the first two critiques of the
bill.
No to Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008
1.) The Health Bill relies on the International Standard of Human Rights rather than the Constitution.
Comment: Are we giving foreign countries power to change our laws?
2.) The Health Bill blames underdevelopment on overpopulation.
Comment: The real causes of poverty and underdevelopment are graft and corruption, bad
governance, and uneven distribution of wealth not overpopulation.
Reaction: The author’s reaction on the first statement discusses why the Health Bill should rely on the
International Standard of Human Rights rather than our own Constitution. The bill would let the foreign
countries have their power to change or edit our own laws.
EFF Issues
FREE SPEECH
Anonymity https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
The content of the article is that “Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with
their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or
even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to
suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way
for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot
follow.
Instead of using their true names to communicate, these people choose to speak using pseudonyms
(assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that
support them, secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme
Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment.
A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their
identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the
majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in
particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James
Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal
Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak
anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the
Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's
office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the
Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum
in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it
could from any soapbox."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been involved in the fight to protect the rights of anonymous
speakers online. As one court observed, in a case handled by EFF along with the ACLU of Washington,
"[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to
communicate anonymously."
We've challenged many efforts to impede anonymous communication, both in the courts or the
legislatures. We also previously provided financial support to the developers of Tor, an anonymous
Internet communications system. By combining legal and policy work with technical tools, we hope to
maintain the Internet's ability to serve as a vehicle for free expression.” – The Anonymity article from
www.eff.org/work
What is Anonymity? Anonymity is derived from the Greek word ἀνωνυμία, anonymia, meaning
"without a name" or "namelessness". In colloquial use, anonymous typically refers to a person, and often
means that the personal identity, or personally identifiable information of that person is not known. Since
many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. For
example if they want to criticize things be it politics, economic or other they might think as a sensitive
topic for them to discuss but they also need the urge to blurt out they feelings about the said topic. I
believe in the article saying “these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or
anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them, secure
anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.” The EFF Organization helps to protect the rights of
anonymous writers as they believe that there is always a freedom of speech here and across the globe.
There should be no one be imprisoned for what they think is right and what they believe in. They also
believe that Freedom of Expression is one way to maintain democracy. And as I quote “Anonymity is a
shield from the tyranny of the majority”. EFF organization challenged many efforts to impede anonymous
communication, both in the courts or the legislatures. They also previously provided financial support to
the developers of Tor, an anonymous Internet communications system. By combining legal and policy
work with technical tools EFF hope to be able to maintain the internet’s ability to serve as a medium for
freedom of expression.
Bloggers' Rights
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers
The content of the article is that “If you're a blogger, this page is for you. One of EFF's goals is to
give you a basic roadmap to the legal issues you may confront as a blogger, to let you know you have
rights, and to encourage you to blog freely with the knowledge that your legitimate speech is protected.
To that end, we have created the Legal Guide for Bloggers, a collection of blogger-specific FAQs
addressing everything from fair use to defamation law to workplace whistle-blowing.
In addition, EFF continues to battle for bloggers' rights in the courtroom: Bloggers can be
journalists (and journalists can be bloggers). We're battling for legal and institutional recognition that
if you engage in journalism, you're a journalist, with all of the attendant rights, privileges, and protections.
Bloggers are entitled to free speech. We're working to shield you from frivolous or abusive
threats and lawsuits. Internet bullies shouldn't use copyright, libel, or other claims to chill your legitimate
speech.
Bloggers have the right to political speech. We're working with a number of other publicinterest organizations to ensure that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) doesn't gag bloggers'
election-related speech. We argue that the FEC should adopt a presumption against the regulation of
election-related speech by individuals on the Internet, and interpret the existing media exemption to apply
to online media outlets that provide news reporting and commentary regarding an election -- including
blogs.
Bloggers have the right to stay anonymous. We're continuing our battle to protect and preserve
your constitutional right to anonymous speech online, including providing a guide to help you with
strategies for keeping your identity private when you blog.
Bloggers have freedom from liability for hosting speech the same way other web hosts
do. We're working to strengthen Section 230 liability protections under the Communications Decency Act
(CDA) while spreading the word that bloggers are entitled to them. ” – Blogger’s Rights article from
www.eff.org/work
What are the Blogger’s rights? Bloggers can be journalists (and journalists can be bloggers). They
are battling for legal and institutional recognition that if people are engaging in journalism, you're a
journalist, with all of the attendant rights, privileges, and protections. Bloggers are entitled to free speech.
They are working on some of the things that would defend you from frolicsome or obnoxious threats and
lawsuits Internet bullies shouldn’t use any copyright, libel or other claims to chill your legitimate speech.
Bloggers have the right to political speech. They are arguing that the FEC (Federal Election Commission)
should adopt a presumption against the regulation of election-related speech by individuals on the
Internet, and interpret the existing media exemption to apply to online media outlets that provide news
reporting and commentary regarding an election including blogs. Any blogger can express his or her
feelings regarding elections and other “election related speech. Bloggers have the right to stay
anonymous. Just like in anonymity any blogger can stay anonymous as long as they want if they think
that their blog might be offensive to some and might hurt some but if they think that it is the truth well so
be it. Bloggers have freedom from liability for hosting speech the same way other web hosts do. They’re
working to strengthen Section 230 liability protections under the Communications Decency Act (CDA)
while spreading the word that bloggers are entitled to them. Over all, they are protecting all the bloggers
from any threats or any life threatening because of their blogs. For them it is their right to have freedom
of expression and EFF is fighting for these rights.
CyberSLAPP
https://www.eff.org/issues/cyberslapp
The content of the article is that “These cases all involve defending people's right to remain
anonymous when they post comments on message boards, as well as making sure that anonymous
speakers' due process rights are respected. These cases, plus more, are also described at the
Cyberslapp.org website http://www.cyberslapp.org/, a joint project of Public Citizen, EFF, the American
Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Privacy Information
Center. ” – CyberSLAPP article from www.eff.org/work
What is CyberSLAPP? “These cases all involve defending people's right to remain anonymous when they
post comments on message boards, as well as making sure that anonymous speakers' due process rights
are respected. These cases, plus more, are also described at the Cyberslapp.org website
http://www.cyberslapp.org/, a joint project of Public Citizen, EFF, the American Civil Liberties Union,
the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.”
As I’ve research on what is CyberSLAPP is. The CyberSLAPP is basically a form of lawsuit
involving the right of a person to remain anonymous when they post comments on message borads, or on
their blog and that they will be given respect on what they comment on.
Cyber-critics, free speech and online anonymous web postings have become a combustable
combination. The result is cyberSLAPP law suits, which seek to force ISPs to reveal the names of those
who have posted anonymous statements critical of high profile individuals.
A new form of lawsuit called a "CyberSLAPP" suit is threatening to overturn the promise of
anonymous online speech and chill the freedom of expression that is central to the online world.
CyberSLAPP cases typically involve a person who has posted anonymous criticisms of a corporation or
public figure on the Internet. The target of the criticism then files a frivolous lawsuit just so they can issue
a subpoena to the Web site or Internet Service Provider (ISP) involved, discover the identity of their
anonymous critic, and intimidate or silence them.
No Downtime for Free Speech Campaign
https://www.eff.org/issues/ip-and-free-speech
Whether you are quoting someone on your blog, inserting clips of CNN into your own video
news report, or using a song sample in a musical parody, your free speech often depends on incorporating
and referencing other people's creations as part of your own. The courts call this "fair use", and strong
legal precedents exist to protect the limited use of copyrighted material in your work when you do so for
expressive purposes.
Unfortunately, copyright owners often object to these uses, and may look for ways to take them
offline via the legal system. A copyright cease-and-desist letter to your webhost or ISP may be all it takes
to make your online speech disappear from the Internet — even when the legal claims are transparently
bogus.
In particular, copyright claimants are increasingly misusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA) to demand that material be immediately taken down without providing any proof of
infringement. Service providers, fearful of monetary damages and legal hassles, often comply with these
requests without double-checking them, despite the cost to free speech and individual rights.
The DMCA also puts anonymous speech in jeopardy; misusing its subpoena power, copyright
holders can attempt to unmask an Internet user's identity based on a mere allegation of infringement
without filing an actual lawsuit or providing the user any constitutional due process.
And it's not just copyright law that gets misused. Trademark owners can also use their rights to
censor critics online by claiming that any domain name or website referencing their product is an
infringement. Yet, the First Amendment protects commentary and criticism using trademarks as well.
Unless IP claimants are held accountable when they go too far, the situation for online speech
will only get worse. EFF has been fighting to make sure copyright and trademark rights don't trump free
speech by litigating against inappropriate uses of the law. ” – No Downtime for Free Speech Campaign
article from www.eff.org/work
What is DMCA? It is Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA creates a haven for online
service providers against copyright liability. If they are able to receive any notification of infringement
from a copyright holder or its agent. Also it will include a counter notification that offers OSPs a haven
from all the liabilities to their users upon notice.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements
two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and
dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as
digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act
of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In
addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October
12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton
on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of
copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by
their users.
On May 22, 2001, the European Union passed the Copyright Directive or EUCD, which
addresses some of the same issues as the DMCA. The DMCA's principal innovation in the field of
copyright, the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other
intermediaries (Title II of the DMCA), was separately addressed, and largely followed, in Europe by
means of the separate Electronic Commerce Directive. (Unlike U.S. federal laws and regulations, the
execution of European Union directives usually requires separate legislation by or within each of the
Union's member states.)
The COICA
Copyright Bill
Internet
Censorship
and
https://www.eff.org/issues/coica-internet-censorship-and-copyright-bill
The content of the article is that “The "Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act" (COICA)
is an Internet censorship bill which is rapidly making its way through the Senate. Although it is ostensibly
focused on copyright infringement, an enormous amount of noninfringing content, including political and
other speech, could disappear off the Web if it passes.
The main mechanism of the bill is to interfere with the Internet's domain name system (DNS), which
translates names like "www.eff.org" or "www.nytimes.com" into the IP addresses that computers use to
communicate. The bill creates a blacklist of censored domains; the Attorney General can ask a court to
place any website on the blacklist if infringement is "central" to the purpose of the site.
If this bill passes, the list of targets could conceivably include hosting websites such
as Dropbox, MediaFire and Rapidshare;
MP3
blogs
and
mashup/remix
music
sites
like SoundCloud, MashupTown and Hype Machine ; and sites that discuss and make the controversial
political and intellectual case for piracy, like pirate-party.us, p2pnet, InfoAnarchy, Slyck and ZeroPaid .
Indeed, had this bill been passed five or ten years ago, YouTube might not exist today. In other words, the
collateral damage from this legislation would be enormous. (Why would all these sites be targets?)
There are already laws and procedures in place for taking down sites that violate the law. This act
would allow the Attorney General to censor sites even when no court has found they have infringed
copyright or any other law. ” – The COICA Internet Censorship and Copyright Bill article from
www.eff.org/work
What is Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act? This a bill that if it is able to
passed the senate and turn into a law, it will act as a combat to online infringement, and for other
purposes. This bill also define internet site as an infringing act if they are able to contribute to this kind of
activities or if they are hosting this kind of activities such as sharing copyrighted files, music labels, etc. If
this bill passes, the list of targets could conceivably include hosting websites such as Dropbox, MediaFire
and Rapidshare; MP3 blogs and mashup/remix music sites like Sound Cloud, MashupTown and
HypeMachine ; and sites that discuss and make the controversial political and intellectual case for piracy,
like pirate-party.us, p2pnet, InfoAnarchy, Slyck and Zero Paid . Indeed, had this bill been passed five or
ten years ago, YouTube might not exist today. In other words, the collateral damage from this legislation
would be enormous.
Why do they target this kind of sites? Because like dropbox, rapidshare and other. This sites
allow users to upload everything and anything and do not check if the files not unless they receive a
DMCA notice that they might some be violators over their site. That's the way the law currently works,
and although it causes problems, it at least strikes a balance between copyright enforcement and freedom
for sites to innovate. Under COICA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) could decide that there is "too
much" piracy on any of these sites and it is therefore "central" to their businesses.
INNOVATION:
Accessibility
for
the
Reading
Disabled
https://www.eff.org/issues/reading-accessibility
The content of the article is that “New technology has the potential to dramatically improve the
lives of those with reading disabilities -- including the blind and profoundly dyslexic, and those with
spinal injuries. Information in electronic formats can be made accessible using technologies like text-tospeech and refreshable Braille, opening up whole new worlds to people who have previously been unable
to access information.
EFF believes that individuals in the disabled community, as those best placed to determine their
own needs, should be free to transform copyrighted works into a form most suitable for their use, as well
as to innovate new presentation forms which they can share with other members of the community.
Unfortunately, companies are now using copyright law and DRM to prohibit the use of helpful
assistive technologies and stamp out innovative new technologies that could make copyrighted works
universally accessible. ” – Accessiblity for the Reading Disabled article from www.eff.org/work
What do you mean by accessibility for the reading disabled? There are new technologies that has
potential to drastically improve lives of those with reading disabilities which includes the blind and
dyslexic and also those with spinal injuries. Information in electronic formats can be made accessible
using technologies like text-to-speech and refreshable Braille, opening up whole new worlds to people
who have previously been unable to access information. Simply put, “effective communication” means
that whatever is written or spoken must be as clear and understandable to people with disabilities as it is
for people who do not have disabilities. This is important because some people have disabilities that
affect how they communicate.
They should be able to put up or use technology such as text to speech or refreshable Braille and
this technology will help people with reading disability and will open other opportunities for them. First,
having access to information that they cannot access before. Second, they will be able to open up
themselves to new things that normally they haven’t had the pleasure to do so. Third, they will be able to
share their knowledge to the world because of these new technologies. EFF believes that individuals in
the disabled community, as those best placed to determine their own needs, should be free to transform
copyrighted works into a form most suitable for their use, as well as to innovate new presentation forms
which they can share with other members of the community.
Unfortunately, companies are now using copyright law and DRM to prohibit the use of helpful
assistive technologies and stamp out innovative new technologies that could make copyrighted works
universally accessible.
Broadcast Flag
https://www.eff.org/issues/broadcast -flag
The content of the article is that “Today, you can use any device you like with your television:
VCR, TiVo, DVD recorder, home theater receiver, or a PC combining these functions and more. But if
the broadcast flag mandate is passed, Hollywood and federal bureaucrats will get a veto over innovative
devices and legitimate uses of recorded programming.
The mandate forces all future digital television (DTV) tuners to include "content protection" (aka DRM)
technologies. All makers of HDTV receivers will be required to build their devices to watch for a "flag"
embedded in programs by copyright holders.
When it comes to digital recording, it would be Hollywood's DRM way or the highway. Want to burn that
recording digitally to a DVD to save hard drive space? Sorry, the DRM lock-box won't allow it. How
about sending it over your home network to another TV? Not unless you rip out your existing network
and replace it with DRMd routers. And forget about using open source TV tools. Kind of defeats the
purpose of getting a high definition digital signal, doesn't it?
Responding to pressure from Hollywood, the FCC had originally mandated the flag, but thanks to our
court challenge, ALA v. FCC, it was thrown out. But that doesn't mean the danger is behind us.
Hollywood has headed to Congress to ask for the flag again. ” – Broadcast Flag article from
www.eff.org/work
What is broadcast Flag? “A broadcast flag is a set of status bits (or a "flag") sent in the data
stream of a digital television program that indicates whether or not the data stream can be recorded, or if
there are any restrictions on recorded content. Possible restrictions include the inability to save an
unencrypted digital program to a hard disk or other non-volatile storage, inability to make secondary
copies of recorded content (in order to share or archive), forceful reduction of quality when recording
(such as reducing high-definition video to the resolution of standard TVs), and inability to skip over
commercials.”
On a daily basis many of us use gadgets or equipment such as TV, plus VCR, video camera ,
home theater receiver and other things even your own personal computer and combining two three
equipment. But if the broadcast flag mandate is passed, Hollywood and federal bureaucrats will get a veto
over innovative devices and legitimate uses of recorded programming.
”Want to burn that recording digitally to a DVD to save hard drive space? Sorry, the DRM lockbox won't allow it. How about sending it over your home network to another TV? Not unless you rip out
your existing network and replace it with DRMd routers. And forget about using open source TV tools.
Kind of defeats the purpose of getting a high definition digital signal, doesn't it?“ If it is going to be a law
then there is no way that we can enjoy anymore our digital signal and what would be the purpose of
having a digital signal if you can’t fully use it to the maximum. The article said it is not yet over since
Hollywood will bring it up a notch and still fight over it. I hope that it will never be passed into a law.
Coders' Rights Project
https://www.eff.org/issues/coders
The content of the article is that “EFF's Coders' Rights Project protects programmers and
developers engaged in cutting-edge exploration of technology in our world. Security and encryption
researchers help build a safer future for all of us using digital technologies, yet too many legitimate
researchers face serious legal challenges that prevent or inhibit their work. These challenges come from
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and state computer
crime laws, among others. The Coders Rights Project builds on EFF's longstanding work protecting
researchers through education, legal defense, amicus briefs and involvement in the community with the
goal of promoting innovation and safeguarding the rights of curious tinkerers and hackers on the digital
frontier.
Reverse Engineering FAQ:
People have always explored and modified the technologies in their lives – from crystal radios to
automobiles to computer software. Reverse engineering is one expression of the human impulse to take
apart a system to see how it works. Unfortunately, legal regulation of reverse engineering can impact the
"freedom to tinker" in a variety of ways. The Reverse Engineering FAQ gives information that may help
coders reduce their legal risk.
Vulnerability Reporting FAQ:
Discovering security flaws is only half of the battle – the next step is reporting the findings such that users
can protect themselves and vendors can repair their products. Many outlets exists for publicly reporting
vulnerabilities, including mailing lists supported by universities and by the government. Unfortunately,
however, researchers using these public reporting mechanisms have received legal threats from vendors
and government agencies seeking to stop publication of vulnerability information or “proof of concept”
code demonstrating the flaw. The Vulnerability Reporting FAQ gives information that may help security
researchers reduce their legal risk when reporting vulnerabilities.
A "Grey Hat" Guide:
A computer security researcher who has inadvertently violated the law during the course of her
investigation faces a dilemma when thinking about whether to notify a company about a problem she
discovered in one of the company’s products. By reporting the security flaw, the researcher reveals that
she may have committed unlawful activity, which might invite a lawsuit or criminal investigation. On the
other hand, withholding information means a potentially serious security flaw may go unremedied. ” –
Coder’s Rights Project article from www.eff.org/work
What is Coders Right Protect? “EFF's Coders' Rights Project protects programmers and developers
engaged in cutting-edge exploration of technology in our world. Security and encryption researchers help
build a safer future for all of us using digital technologies, yet too many legitimate researchers face
serious legal challenges that prevent or inhibit their work. These challenges come from the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and state computer crime laws,
among others. The Coders Rights Project builds on EFF's longstanding work protecting researchers
through education, legal defense, amicus briefs and involvement in the community with the goal of
promoting innovation and safeguarding the rights of curious tinkerers and hackers on the digital frontier.”
This is the way of EFF way of helping those programmers, researchers from those hackers and
other people getting their years of work researchers through education, legal defense, amicus briefs and
involvement in the community with the goal of promoting innovation and safeguarding the rights of
curious tinkerers and hackers on the digital frontier.
It is a law that says that it is the right of one company to keep ideas to themselves or any person
as long as she doesn’t to release it in public. No one can or should be able to access aside from
themselves. If it being kept as a secret, then someone tried to access it and gain an access to it then release
to the public then there will laws applied to that.
Digital Rights Management
https://www.eff.org/issues/drm
The content of the article is that “Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies attempt to control
what you can and can't do with the media and hardware you've purchased.




Bought an ebook from Amazon, but can't read it on your ebook reader of choice? That's DRM.
Bought a DVD or Blu-Ray, but can't copy the video onto your portable media player? That's
DRM.
Bought a video-game, but can't play it today because the manufacturer's "authentication servers"
are off-line? That's DRM.
Bought a smart-phone, but can't use the applications or the service provider you want on it? That's
DRM.
Corporations claim that DRM is necessary to fight copyright infringement online and keep
consumers safe from viruses. But there's no evidence that DRM helps fight either of those. Instead, DRM
helps big business stifle innovation and competition, by making it easy to quash "unauthorized" uses of
media and technology.
DRM has proliferated thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), which
sought to outlaw any attempt to bypass DRM.
Fans shouldn't be treated like criminals, and companies shouldn't get an automatic veto over user
choice and innovation. EFF has led the effort to free the iPhone and other smart phones, is working
to uncover and explain the restrictions around new hardware and software, has fought for the right to
make copies of DVDs, and sued Sony-BMG for their "rootkit" CD copy protection scheme. Learn more
about our efforts through the links below, and consider donating to support our efforts. ” – Digital Rights
Management article from www.eff.org/work
What is Digital Rights Management? Ask the following questions to yourself. Have you bought
an ebook from Amazon, but can't read it on your ebook reader of choice? That's DRM. Or did you bought
a DVD or Blu-Ray, but can't copy the video onto your portable media player? That's DRM. Or may you
bought a video-game, but can't play it today because the manufacturer's "authentication servers" are offline? That's DRM. And maybe did you bought a smart-phone, but can't use the applications or the service
provider you want on it? That's DRM.
“Corporations claim that DRM is necessary to fight copyright infringement online and keep
consumers safe from viruses. But there's no evidence that DRM helps fight either of those. Instead, DRM
helps big business stifle innovation and competition, by making it easy to quash "unauthorized" uses of
media and technology”
DRM simply means you can’t copy or reproduce any of your favorites singer or artist what they
OWN. They have the right to not let you do it. They say it is one way to lessen the copyright infringement
but EFF said that one fan is not and should not be treated as criminals. They should be always treated
with care beside they are the reason why they (the copyright owners) profits right?
Net Neutrality
https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
The content of the article is that “Anyone who watched John Hodgman's famous Daily Show rant knows
what Net Neutrality means as an abstract idea. But what will it mean when it makes the transformation
from idealistic principle into real-world regulations? 2010 will be the year we start to find out, as the
Federal Communications Commission begins a Net Neutrality rulemaking process.
But how far can the FCC be trusted? Historically, the FCC has sometimes shown more concern for the
demands of corporate lobbyists and "public decency" advocates than it has for individual civil liberties.
Consider the FCC's efforts to protect Americans from "dirty words" in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, or its
much-criticized deregulation of the media industry, or its narrowly-thwarted attempt to cripple video
innovation with the Broadcast Flag.
With the FCC already promising exceptions from net neutrality for copyright-enforcement, we fear that
the FCC's idea of an "Open Internet" could prove quite different from what many have been hoping for. ”
– Net Neutrality article from www.eff.org/work
What is net neutrality? Example: Google. Google has been the leading corporate voice on the
issue of network neutrality over the past five years. No other company is working as tirelessly for an open
Internet. But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several
years now. At this time there are no enforceable protections – at the Federal Communications
Commission or anywhere else – against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet
traffic.
With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy
solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal
that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all.
(http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Neutrality)
Google together with other company demanded (if I may use the term) the following:






Newly enforceable FCC standards
Prohibitions against blocking or degrading wireline Internet traffic
Prohibition against discriminating against wireline Internet traffic in ways that harm users or
competition
Presumption against all forms of prioritizing wireline Internet traffic
Full transparency across wireline and wireless broadband platforms
Clear FCC authority to adjudicate user complaints, and impose injunctions and fines against bad
actors
Patents
https://www.eff.org/issues/patents
While patent rights were designed to promote investment, public disclosure, and most
importantly, useful innovation, the patent system is often abused. In the past decade, the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO) has been inundated with applications for so-called "inventions" that are neither
innovative nor useful. When bogus patent applications are granted, they actually discourage progress and
impede the growth of a public domain of knowledge.
There are many ways to promote better patent quality and a vibrant knowledge commons. One
approach is to advocate for good legislation in Congress and proper interpretation of that legislation by
the courts. Another is to promote enforcement efforts, such as the reexamination of bogus patents. EFF
employs both approaches to protect the public interest while supporting innovation.
Trusted Computing
https://www.eff.org/issues/trusted-computing
Computer security is undeniably important, and as new vulnerabilities are discovered and exploited, the
perceived need for new security solutions grows. "Trusted computing" initiatives propose to solve some
of today's security problems through hardware changes to the personal computer. Changing hardware
design isn't inherently suspicious, but the leading trusted computing proposals have a high cost: they
provide security to users while giving third parties the power to enforce policies on users' computers
against the users' wishes -- they let others pressure you to hand some control over your PC to someone
else. This is a "feature" ready-made for abuse by software authors who want to anticompetitively choke
off rival software.
Video Games
https://www.eff.org/issues/video-games
Gaming communities were among the very first to recognize the potential of digital technology, and the
Electronic Frontier Foundation has defended their rights from the very beginning. EFF's first case in 1990
was an unprecedented effort to regain computers unjustly seized by the Secret Service from gamesmaker
Steve Jackson Games.
Since then, EFF has continued to protect freedom and innovation in the gaming world, whether we are
arguing for the right of gamers to speak anonymously, defending video games from unconstitutional
censorship, or protecting your right to resell,modify, or copy the games you have purchased.
Gamers are facing more threats to their freedoms than ever before. Sadly, it's routine for companies to
force gamers to swallow updates that hobble their systems and routinely trap their users in restrictive,
near-incomprehensible terms of service agreements and end-user licenses. But EFF continues to fight for
the consumers who believe that if you bought it, your own it, and you should be able to put your games
and hardware to unexpected and creative uses.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:
Broadcast Flag
Today, you can use any device you like with your television: VCR, TiVo, DVD recorder, home theater
receiver, or a PC combining these functions and more. But if the broadcast flag mandate is passed,
Hollywood and federal bureaucrats will get a veto over innovative devices and legitimate uses of recorded
programming.
The mandate forces all future digital television (DTV) tuners to include "content protection" (aka DRM)
technologies. All makers of HDTV receivers will be required to build their devices to watch for a "flag"
embedded in programs by copyright holders.
When it comes to digital recording, it would be Hollywood's DRM way or the highway. Want to burn that
recording digitally to a DVD to save hard drive space? Sorry, the DRM lock-box won't allow it. How
about sending it over your home network to another TV? Not unless you rip out your existing network
and replace it with DRMd routers. And forget about using open source TV tools. Kind of defeats the
purpose of getting a high definition digital signal, doesn't it?
Responding to pressure from Hollywood, the FCC had originally mandated the flag, but thanks to our
court challenge, ALA v. FCC, it was thrown out. But that doesn't mean the danger is behind us.
Hollywood has headed to Congress to ask for the flag again.
Copyright Trolls
When the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) declared an end to its litigation
campaign against music fans who used peer-to-peer technology to share music, many people thought that
would be the end of mass copyright litigation — after all, hadn’t the RIAA demonstrated that suing
customers was no way to improve the bottom line?
Apparently, not everyone got the memo. In the past year, at least three groups have begun to experiment
with using mass copyright litigation to extract settlements from individuals. These copyright trolls try to
grow businesses out of suing Internet users — their tactics include targeting large groups of anonymous
"Doe defendants," improperly minimizing their court costs, and exploiting the massive damages in
copyright law in order to pressure defendants into settling quickly.
EFF is working hard to help victims get access to the resources they need to defend their rights, call the
court's attention to trolls' disrespect for due process, and educate the public about the harms of copyright
trolling.
U.S. Copyright Group
The U.S. Copyright Group (USCG) approaches independent film producers and offers to collect money
from people who are illegally downloading their movies on BitTorrent. USCG currently represents the
producers of several films, including The Hurt Locker and Far Cry. USCG then files predatory lawsuits
implicating thousands of unnamed John Does, subpoenas their identities from the ISP's, and then sues the
individuals themselves. Once the user's identity is known, USCG threatens a judgment of up to $150,000
per downloaded movie — the maximum penalty allowable by law in copyright suits and a very unlikely
judgment in cases arising from a single, noncommercial infringement — in order to pressure the alleged
infringers to settle quickly for $1,500 to $2,500 per person.
Righthaven
Righthaven LLC, has brought over a hundred lawsuits in a Nevada federal court claiming copyright
infringement. They find cases by searching the Internet for parts of newspaper stories posted online by
individuals, nonprofits, political organizations, and others; buying the copyright to that newspaper story;
and then suing the operator of the website for copyright infringement. Like the U.S. Copyright Group,
Righthaven relies on the threat of copyright liability (and in a unique twist, an entirely bogus threat of loss
of the target’s domain name) to scare the posters into a quick settlement. Reported settlements have fallen
between $2,000 and $3,000.
Digital Radio
RIAA's Attempt to Control Recording From the Radio
Satellite radio, like XM and Sirius, is already at your fingertips, and HD Radio may soon be ubiquitous. If
innovators are allowed to build them, so too will devices that time-shift and space-shift radio for you—
imagine something like a TiVo for radio. New digital radio technologies should set off a revolution in
other technologies that help you get more from your radio—recording music off the radio, moving it to a
portable player, streaming it to your other devices online, and much more.
But the recording industry wants to put the brakes on home recording, something American radio fans
have been doing for more than 25 years and is clearly permitted under existing copyright laws. Taking a
page from the movie business, the RIAA has been asking the FCC and Congress to force all digital radio
devices with a record button to incorporate DRM and a host of restrictions.
The music industry does not want your fair use rights to develop in the digital age. Instead, they are
asking federal bureaucrats to force innovators to hobble their products, leaving you with something no
better than the cassette decks of the 1970s. According to the RIAA, new technologies should only give
you "customary" capabilities. The RIAA says, for instance, that you shouldn't be able to record individual
songs or move content to another player. And many novel uses will simply never be invented; after all,
before you could hit record on your boombox or VCR, time-shifting broadcasted content wasn't
"customary."
Digital Video
Digital video promises a high quality picture and fresh crop of innovative technologies that will give you
new options for manipulating video. But Hollywood is scheming to put shackles on digital video, hoping
that the next generation of products will be designed to suit its desires, not yours.
Hollywood claims that scrambling, down-rezzing, HDCP, and a host of other restrictions are necessary to
stop "Internet piracy." Don't be fooled: none of the restrictions being pushed by Hollywood will stop or
even slow those who are swapping content online.
Instead, these restrictions are intended to take away your fair use rights in order to sell them back to you.
They stymie the development of new technologies that will deliver capabilities you haven't even thought
of yet (after all, Disney sued to ban the Betamax when it came out, and sued again to block the ReplayTV
DVR). At a minimum, you can look forward to unnecessary hassles, as an alphabet soup of restrictions
create compatibility nightmares for years to come.
Already, DRM (aka copy protection) on DVDs restricts legitimate uses, like making back-ups or copying
to a video iPod. Hollywood wants similar restrictions for TV as well. Today you can record your favorite
TV show on a PC, burn it to DVD, send it to another device, email a clip to a friend, and much more.
Tomorrow, government regulations and "inter-industry standards" may take away those freedoms. In fact,
Hollywood's pushing Congress to slap restrictions on anything with a record button, including digital
camcorders, TV tuner cards, and PVRs.
What about devices you already own that aren't encumbered by DRM? Get ready to replace them. You
may have invested thousands of dollars in HD displays and receivers, but restricted digital outputs will
break compatibility. Your devices might rely on component analog connections instead, but Hollywood
wants to be able to "down-rez" or disable those analog connections at their whim.
And don't even think about getting or creating tools to work around these restrictions. Doing so even for
legitimate purposes may expose you to liability.
It's not too late to reclaim control of your digital TV devices. Learn more about how EFF's fighting for
your rights and considersupporting our efforts.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
Since they were enacted in 1998, the "anti-circumvention" provisions of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act ("DMCA") have not been used as Congress envisioned. Congress meant to stop copyright
pirates from defeating DRM restrictions (aka content or copy protections) added to copyrighted works
and to ban the "black box" devices intended for that purpose.
In practice, the DMCA and DRM have done nothing to stop "Internet piracy." Yet the DMCA has
become a serious threat that jeopardizes fair use, impedes competition and innovation, chills free
expression and scientific research, and interferes with computer intrusion laws. If you circumvent DRM
locks for noninfringing fair uses or create the tools to do so, you might be on the receiving end of a
lawsuit.
EFF has fought hard against the DMCA in the courts, Congress, and other forums. Learn more through
the links below, and take action now to support DMCA reform.
File Sharing
Tired of the entertainment industry treating you like a criminal for wanting to share music and movies
online? We are too -- EFF is fighting for a constructive solution that gets artists paid while making file
sharing legal.
The irrational war against P2P by misguided content owners and their representatives is not generating a
single penny for artists. In fact, despite lawsuits and other attempts to stymie P2P providers and thousands
of music and movie fans, file sharing is more popular than ever. What's more, the entertainment industry
has threatened innovation in P2P systems and many other tools that help you get more from your media.
And it could get even worse -- the industry is pushing Congress to ratchet up civil and criminal sanctions
for file sharing and to restrict innovation.
You can help put a stop to this misguided campaign. Together, we can forge a better way forward.
Learn more about how EFF has fought to end the war on P2P












EFF is fighting to protect the due process rights of individuals caught in the most recent predatory
lawsuits.
EFF has created a list of subpoena defense resources for those targeted by file sharing suits.
EFF has proposed ways for artists to get paid without fans getting sued.
EFF helped establish legal protections for privacy online, including the privacy of P2P users.
EFF has assisted Internet users mistakenly caught in the industry's dragnet.
EFF has helped P2P users sued by the RIAA and MPAA find legal counsel.
EFF took MGM v. Grokster to the Supreme Court and defended the right of innovators to build
new technologies without begging Hollywood's permission first.
EFF helped beat back the INDUCE Act, which threatened innovation and P2P systems.
EFF debunked Audible Magic's P2P filtering solution.
EFF pushed for sensible solutions for college campuses concerned with file sharing.
EFF started a petition to Congress opposing the RIAA lawsuits.
EFF and its members helped defeat the Berman "P2P Vigilantism" Bill in 2002.
No Downtime for Free Speech Campaign
https://www.eff.org/issues/ip-and-free-speech
Whether you are quoting someone on your blog, inserting clips of CNN into your own video news
report, or using a song sample in a musical parody, your free speech often depends on incorporating
and referencing other people's creations as part of your own. The courts call this "fair use", and strong
legal precedents exist to protect the limited use of copyrighted material in your work when you do so for
expressive purposes.
Unfortunately, copyright owners often object to these uses, and may look for ways to take them offline
via the legal system. A copyright cease-and-desist letter to your webhost or ISP may be all it takes to
make your online speech disappear from the Internet — even when the legal claims are transparently
bogus.
In particular, copyright claimants are increasingly misusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA) to demand that material be immediately taken down without providing any proof of
infringement. Service providers, fearful of monetary damages and legal hassles, often comply with these
requests without double-checking them, despite the cost to free speech and individual rights.
The DMCA also puts anonymous speech in jeopardy; misusing its subpoena power, copyright holders can
attempt to unmask an Internet user's identity based on a mere allegation of infringement without filing an
actual lawsuit or providing the user any constitutional due process.
And it's not just copyright law that gets misused. Trademark owners can also use their rights to censor
critics online by claiming that any domain name or website referencing their product is an infringement.
Yet, the First Amendment protects commentary and criticism using trademarks as well.
Unless IP claimants are held accountable when they go too far, the situation for online speech will only
get worse. EFF has been fighting to make sure copyright and trademark rights don't trump free speech by
litigating against inappropriate uses of the law.
Patents
While patent rights were designed to promote investment, public disclosure, and most importantly, useful
innovation, the patent system is often abused. In the past decade, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO) has been inundated with applications for so-called "inventions" that are neither innovative nor
useful. When bogus patent applications are granted, they actually discourage progress and impede the
growth of a public domain of knowledge.
There are many ways to promote better patent quality and a vibrant knowledge commons. One approach
is to advocate for good legislation in Congress and proper interpretation of that legislation by the courts.
Another is to promote enforcement efforts, such as the reexamination of bogus patents. EFF employs both
approaches to protect the public interest while supporting innovation.
You can review EFF writing and legal work on Patents below, or check out the EFF Patent Busting
Project, which challenges the top ten most dubious software patents.
Terms Of (Ab)Use
One cannot go online today without eventually being asked to accept a set of so-called Terms of Service
(or TOS). These "terms" are actually purported legal contracts between the user and the online service
provider (websites, MMORPGs, communication services, etc.), despite the fact that users never get a
chance to negotiate their contents and can often be entirely unaware of their existence.
Using a TOS, online service providers can dictate their legal relationship with users through private
contracts, rather than rely on the law as written. In the unregulated and unpredictable world of the
Internet, such arrangements often provide the necessary ground rules for how various online services
should be used.
Yet TOS agreements also raise a number of concerns for the consumer, as they can be a vehicle for abuse
by online service providers. For starters, TOS provisions are usually written by the service providers
themselves. As a result, they tend to end up being one-sided in the service provider's favor, and are often
designed to be beyond any judicial scrutiny. Even more importantly, most users never even bother to
read, let alone understand, these agreements, filled as they are with confusing legalese.
The time has come to shed light on what these Terms of Service agreements actually say, and what it
means to users. In conjunction with our TOSBack project, EFF is working to make the contents of these
TOS more transparent for the average user.
The COICA Internet Censorship and Copyright Bill
The "Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act" (COICA) is an Internet censorship bill
which is rapidly making its way through the Senate. Although it is ostensibly focused on copyright
infringement, an enormous amount of noninfringing content, including political and other speech, could
disappear off the Web if it passes.
The main mechanism of the bill is to interfere with the Internet's domain name system (DNS), which
translates names like "www.eff.org" or "www.nytimes.com" into the IP addresses that computers use to
communicate. The bill creates a blacklist of censored domains; the Attorney General can ask a court to
place any website on the blacklist if infringement is "central" to the purpose of the site.
If this bill passes, the list of targets could conceivably include hosting websites such
as Dropbox, MediaFire and Rapidshare;
MP3
blogs
and
mashup/remix
music
sites
like SoundCloud, MashupTown and Hype Machine ; and sites that discuss and make the controversial
political and intellectual case for piracy, like pirate-party.us, p2pnet, InfoAnarchy, Slyck and ZeroPaid .
Indeed, had this bill been passed five or ten years ago, YouTube might not exist today. In other words, the
collateral damage from this legislation would be enormous. (Why would all these sites be targets?)
There are already laws and procedures in place for taking down sites that violate the law. This act would
allow the Attorney General to censor sites even when no court has found they have infringed copyright or
any other law.
INTERNATIONAL
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
What is ACTA?
In October 2007 the United States, the European Community, Switzerland and Japan simultaneously
announced that they would negotiate a new intellectual property enforcement treaty, the AntiCounterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico,
Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Canada have joined the negotiations.
Although the proposed treaty’s title might suggest that the agreement deals only with counterfeit physical
goods (such as medicines), what little information has been made available publicly by negotiating
governments about the content of the treaty makes it clear that it will have a far broader scope, and in
particular, will deal with new tools targeting “Internet distribution and information technology”.
In recent years, major U.S. and EU copyright industry rightsholder groups have sought stronger powers to
enforce their intellectual property rights across the world to preserve their business models. These efforts
have been underway in a number of international fora, including at the World Trade Organization, the
World Customs Organization, at the G8 summit, at the World Intellectual Property Organization’s
Advisory Committee on Enforcement, and at the Intellectual Property Experts’ Group at the Asia Pacific
Economic Coalition. Since the conclusion of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Issues of Intellectual
Property in 1994 (TRIPS), most new intellectual property enforcement powers have been created outside
of the traditional multilateral venues, through bilateral and regional free trade agreements entered into by
the United States and the European Community with their respective key trading partners. ACTA is the
new frontline in the global IP enforcement agenda.
To date, disturbingly little information has been released about the actual content of the agreement
However, despite that, it is clearly on a fast track; treaty proponents want it tabled at the G8 summit in
July, and completed by the end of 2008.
Why You Should Care About It
ACTA has several features that raise significant potential concerns for consumers’ privacy and civil
liberties, for innovation and the free flow of information on the Internet, legitimate commerce, and for
developing countries’ ability to choose policy options that best suit their domestic priorities and level of
economic development.
ACTA is being negotiated by a select group of industrialized countries, outside of existing international
multilateral venues for creating new IP norms such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and
(since TRIPs) the World Trade Organization. Both civil society and developing countries are intentionally
being excluded from these negotiations. While the existing international fora provide (at least to some
extent) room for a range of views to be heard and addressed, no such checks and balances will influence
the outcome of the ACTA negotiations.
The Fact Sheet published by the USTR, together with the USTR's 2008 "Special 301" report make it clear
that the goal is to create a new standard of intellectual property enforcement, above the current
internationally-agreed standards in the TRIPs Agreement, and increased international cooperation
including sharing of information between signatory countries’ law enforcement agencies. The last 10
bilateral free trade agreements entered into by the United States have required trading partners to adopt
intellectual property enforcement obligations that are above those in TRIPs. Even though developing
countries are not party to the ACTA negotiations, it is likely that accession to, and implementation of,
ACTA by developing countries will be a condition imposed in future free trade agreements, and the
subject of evaluation in content industry submissions to the annual Section 301 process and USTR report.
While little information has been made available by the governments negotiating ACTA, a document
recently leaked to the public entitled "Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-counterfeiting Trade
Agreement" from an unknown source gives an indication of what content industry rightsholder groups
appear to be asking for – including new legal regimes to "encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders
in the removal of infringing material", criminal measures, and increased border search powers. The
Discussion Paper leaves open how Internet Service Providers should be encouraged to identify and
remove allegedly infringing material from the Internet. However the same industry rightsholder groups
that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet
Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens' Internet connection on repeat
allegation of copyright infringement (the "Three Strikes" /Graduated Response), so there is reason to
believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service
Providers. While mandating copyright filtering by ISPs will not be technologically effective because it
can be defeated by use of encryption, efforts to introduce network level filtering will likely involve deep
packet inspection of citizens' Internet communications. This raises considerable concerns for citizens'
civil liberties and privacy rights, and the future of Internet innovation.
What You Can Do
Despite the potentially significant harmful impact on consumers and Internet innovation and the
expedited timeframe in which the treaty is being negotiated, the citizens that stand to be directly affected
by the treaty provisions have been given almost no information about its real contents, and very little
opportunity to express their views on it.
Broadcasting Treaty
The World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) "Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting
Organizations" is protection, all right: a protection racket for middlemen in the TV and Internet worlds.
If adopted, the WIPO treaty will give broadcasters 50 years of copyright-like control over the content of
their broadcasts, even when they have no copyright in what they show. A TV channel broadcasting your
Creative Commons-licensed movie could legally demand that no one record or redistribute it—and sue
anyone who does. And TV companies could use their new rights to go after TiVo or MythTV for daring
to let you skip advertisements or record programs in DRM-free formats.
If that wasn't bad enough, some countries at WIPO have supported expanding the treaty to cover the Net.
That means that anyone who feeds any combination of "sound and images" through a web server would
have a right to meddle with what you do with the webcast simply because they serve as the middleman
between you and the creator. If the material is already under copyright, you would be forced to clear
rights with multiple sets of rightsholders. Not only would this hurt innovation and threaten citizens' access
to information, it would change the nature of the Internet as a communication medium.
Proponents say they need this treaty to prevent "signal piracy." But the treaty goes well beyond that by
creating rights to control "fixations" of broadcasts that only apply after you've received and recorded a
signal. EFF and an international coalition of NGOs support a real treaty against signal piracy. We've
drafted a treaty that does just that, but treaty proponents have refused to adopt it.
Before creating a brand new set of exclusive rights for broadcasters, cablecasters, and webcasters, there
should be a demonstrated need for such rights, and a clear understanding of how they will impact the
public, educators, existing copyright holders, online communications, and new Internet technologies. If
you agree, tell your representative to scrutinize the treaty before it's too late.
Development Agenda
What Happened:
In October 2004, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) took the historic step of agreeing
to consider the impact of its decisions on developing nations—including assessing the impact of
intellectual property law and policy on technological innovation, access to knowledge, and even human
health. What's at stake is much more significant than the harmony or disharmony of IP regulations. WIPO
decisions affect everything from the availability and price of AIDS drugs, to the patterns of international
development, to the communications architecture of the Internet.
WIPO held three meetings in 2005 to discuss Brazil and Argentina's Proposal to Establish a Development
Agenda [PDF], which had been endorsed by hundreds of individuals and public-interest nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including EFF and the Consumer Project on Technology (CPTech),
through the Geneva Declaration on the Future of WIPO, and the subsequent thoughtful Elaboration on
Issues Raised in the Development Agenda proposal from the 15 countries in the Group of Friends of
Development. This is an extraordinary breakthrough. The Development Agenda gives WIPO the
opportunity to move beyond the narrow view that any and all IP protection is beneficial, and choose
instead to act strategically to spur economic growth, foster innovation, and help humanity.
Why It Matters:
Development issues are the international community's most daunting challenge. Despite international
agreement to ensure the transfer of technology to developing countries (recognized in Articles 7 and 8 of
the TRIPS Agreement), a significant knowledge gap and digital divide continue to separate the wealthy
nations from the poor.
These meetings are really about the future of WIPO as an international organization. As an agency of the
United Nations, WIPO has an institutional obligation to facilitate and implement the wider development
perspective of the United Nations' Millennium Declaration. In addition, as recognized in the 1974
Agreement between the United Nations and WIPO, WIPO has an institutional mandate to facilitate the
transfer of technology and the building of technical capacity in developing countries.
EFF believes that this broader perspective should infuse WIPO's norm-setting activity and the delivery of
its technical assistance to developing countries. In particular, EFF believes that WIPO's work should
move beyond securing higher levels of intellectual property protection as an end in itself and should:



(a) Reflect the traditional balance between the public interest and rightsholders' interests in IPR
systems
(b) Recognize the sovereign rights of its 182 member nations to implement intellectual property
laws that accord with their national domestic priorities and level of economic development
(c) Take account of the way that existing national laws uphold the public interest by giving the
public the right to make some uses of copyrighted work without permission. This means ensuring
that new treaties don't close off the ability of governments to use the flexibility built into existing
instruments to create appropriate new exceptions to meet their domestic needs (see Article 13 of
the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property agreement, Article 10 of the WCT, Article 16
of the WPPT, and Article 9 of the Berne Convention).
What's Happening Now?
The 2005 WIPO General Assembly voted to continue the Development Agenda talks. In February 2006
the newly formed Provisional Committee on Proposals for a Development Agenda considered proposals
from Chile, the Group of Friends of Development, the Africa Group, Colombia, and the United States.
Over 100 specific proposals on a wide range of issues are now on the table. When the next and final
PCDA meeting takes place on June 26-30, 2006, WIPO member states must produce recommendations
for the 2006 WIPO General Assembly, which will decide the future of the WIPO Development Agenda.
EFF is accredited as a WIPO permanent observer and will be attending the Development Agenda
meetings. We will continue to report on the proceedings via our Deep Links blog. The NGO Coalition's
notes of previous meetings, together with EFF's analysis of what it all means, are linked below.
EFF Europe
FF has hundreds of donors and thousands of active supporters throughout Europe. As part of our
expanded international work, EFF has been increasing its participation in European issues, providing
publicity and logistical support for combatting bad European tech policy in co-operation with the many
digital rights groups across Europe to fight effectively for consumers' and technologists' interests.
Our workload currently includes combatting the growth of invasive European intellectual property law
and policies, addressing free speech and innovation issues in Internet filtering and blocking, defending the
privacy of Europeans from international threats to the rights protected by the Data Protection Directive
(95/46/EC), and monitoring the effects of EU's introduction of data retention regime.
Free Trade Agreement of the Americas
The U.S. government is employing a new strategy to effect the global entrenchment of overly restrictive
copyright law: incorporating DMCA-like copyright provisions in its free trade agreements. Having failed
to persuade nations worldwide to adopt U.S.-style copyright regulations via the WIPO Copyright and
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaties, the government has included anti-circumvention
obligations in its bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with Jordan (Article 4(13)), Singapore (Article
16.4(7)), Chile (Article 17.7(5)), Morocco (Article 15.5(8)), Australia (Article 17.4(7)), CAFTA (Article
15.5(7)), Bahrain (Article 14.4(7)) and Oman (Article 15.4(7)). It now seeks to include similar provisions
in its current multilateral free trade negotiations with 33 countries in the Americas.
This time, however, there's a twist: the provisions will be even more restrictive. How so? Like the
DMCA, the draft of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) IP chapter contains a provision that
would require all FTAA countries to ban the circumvention of technological protection measures. It
would also similarly prohibit the manufacture and distribution of certain circumvention tools,
technologies and devices. But while the DMCA contains a few narrow exemptions to these prohibitions,
the draft FTAA IP chapter contains none. As a result, FTAA countries' national copyright law will be
entirely supplanted by "anti-circumvention" law. In effect, this allows U.S. copyright owners' rights to
trump FTAA countries' national sovereignty and domestic public policy priorities, and consumers and
technology developers in FTAA countries risk losing all of their existing rights under their own national
copyright laws.
When the FTAA negotiations stalled over the inclusion of intellectual property provisions in November
2003, the U.S. Trade Representative moved to Plan B. It announced that it would start negotiations for
bilateral FTAs with various Latin American countries: Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador (the Andean
community) and Panama. These negotiations are still under way. An FTA with 5 Central American
countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua) and the Dominican Republic
that includes DMCA-style provisions went into effect in August 2005.
Below are resources on the technological protection measure provisions in the FTAA and bilateral FTAs,
as well as information about the impact of the DMCA's provisions in the United States since 1998. Also
below are resources on Internet Service Provider provisions modeled on section 512 of the U.S. copyright
legislation in recent bilateral FTAs, together with information about how the U.S. ISP safe harbor
provisions have been used since 1998.
International Privacy Standards
Privacy is a universal human right. Here is a list of international accords related to privacy that serve as
the foundation for national laws, policy frameworks and international agreements throughout the world.
International Privacy Frameworks
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
The OECD is a forum of more than 30 countries that has developed forward-thinking guidelines on the
protection of privacy and transborder data flows. Decisions made within OECD are reached by consensus
and commitments are undertaken on a voluntary basis.

OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, 1980
Council of Europe
Like the United Nations, the 47 member states of the Council of Europe have drafted several agreements
to advance citizens' privacy rights as part of a broader commitment to cooperation and the development of
human rights and fundamental freedoms.


Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal
Data, 1980
Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic
Processing of Personal Data regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows, 2001
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
APEC is an inter governmental organization operating on the basis of non-binding commitments. Unlike
other multilateral trade bodies, APEC has no treaty obligations required of its participants. Decisions
made within APEC are reached by consensus and commitments are undertaken on a voluntary basis.
APEC has 21 members.

APEC Privacy Framework, 2004
European Data Protection Directive
The Directive has been designed to protect the collection, use and disclosure of personal information held
by the private and public sector. The Directive was adopted by the European Union, and have been
transposed into national law by the 27 members states.

Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement
of such data
International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners
Each year, the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners brings together
the highest authorities and institutions guaranteeing data protection and privacy, as well as experts in the
field from every continent.

International Standards on Privacy and Personal Data Protection adopted by the 30th International
Conference of Privacy and Data Protection Commissioners
Other International Instruments

Article 12, The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, 1948












Article 17, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
Article 16, The Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989
E/CN.4/1990/72: Guidelines for the regulation of computerized personal data files, 1990
Article 8, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950
Council of Europe: Recommendations and resolutions of the Committee of Ministers
Council of Europe: Recommendation No.R(99) 5 for the protection of privacy on the Internet,
1999
OECD Guidance on Policy and Practice: Privacy Online (book)
OECD Guidelines on Cross-Border Privacy Law Enforcement, 2006-ongoing
OECD Guidelines for the Security of Information Systems and Networks: Towards a Culture of
Security, 2002
Article 18, The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, 1990
Article 4.3, Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa, 2002
Article 5, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
Mandatory Data Retention
Law enforcement agencies throughout the world are pushing for invasive laws that force ISPs and
telecom providers to log information about how users communicate and use the Internet. This obligation
to log users' Internet use is usually paired with provisions that allow the government to obtain those
records, ultimately expanding the governments' ability to surveil its citizens, damaging privacy, and
chilling freedom of expression.
The EU Data Retention Directive
The EU Data Retention Directive, adopted by the European Parliament in 2006, is the leading example of
mandatory data retention framework. The highly controversial Directive compels all ISPs and
telecommunications service providers operating in Europe to retain a subscriber's incoming and outgoing
phone numbers, IP addresses, location data, and other key telecom and Internet traffic data for a period of
at least 6 months, to as long as 2 years of all European citizens, including those not suspected or
convicted of any crime.
Since its passage, the Data Retention Directive has faced intense criticism and now has an uncertain
future in the EU. In general, each member state of the European Union is required to implement the
provisions of a Directive into their own national laws. But the flawed Data Retention Directive has
proven to be too broken and controversial for a number of countries; the constitutional courts
of Germany and Romania ruled that their national data retention law is in violation of their constitutions;
the Irish Court has allowed the data retention law to be challenged in the European Court of Justice;
and Austria,Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, and Sweden have not yet transposed the Directive into
national law. In addition, the European Commission has decided to take a few countries
(Sweden, Austria) to the European Court of Justice for failing to implement the directive. Meanwhile, in
the countries where data retention has been implemented, European privacy officials discovereddamning
evidence of excessive tracking, illegal over-collection, and a lack of evidence to support data retention as
a means of helping law enforcement.
The indiscriminate collection of traffic data carries great potential for abuse and should be rejected as a
serious infringement upon citizens' rights and freedoms. The example of the EU's experiment in
mandatory data retention proves that pervasive surveillance will not be tolerated in countries where
freedom is valued. With EDRI, AK Vorrat, and other civil society advocates, EFF will continue to fight
for the repeal of the EU Directive, and will oppose blanket mandatory data retention proposals throughout
the world.
The Global Network Initiative
The Global Network Initiative is a coalition of information and communications companies, major human
rights organizations, academics, investors and technology leaders to produce guidance and oversight for
companies facing civil liberties challenges in the ICT industries. EFF has participated in the process since
its inception, providing technical and policy advice together with other NGO in the human rights sector.
WIPO
World Intellectual Property Organization
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the UN agency responsible for treaties involving
copyright, patent, and trademark laws. WIPO can be a force for progressive change, helping the world
take into account public interest and development needs. But all too often, governments are using
international treaties negotiated through WIPO as well as other bilateral trade agreements to ratchet up IP
rights at the behest of copyright holders. EFF defends your rights at WIPO, acting as a watchdog at its
proceedings and advising member countries. Here's a look at some current issues we're focusing on:
Importing and Exporting Bad Law
Most recently, WIPO has begun considering a treaty that would give broadcasters, cablecasters, and
potentially webcasters, broad new 50-year rights to control transmissions over the Internet, irrespective of
the copyright status of the transmitted material. It also requires countries to provide legal protection for
broadcaster technological protection measures that will require Broadcast Flag-like technology mandates,
undermining innovation, competition, and legitimate uses.
Towards Better IP Policy
Though WIPO has historically worked to create treaties that expand IP rights no matter the consequences
to its developing country members, that has started to change. For instance, Brazil and Argentina, leading
a group of 15 countries, have asked WIPO to adopt a "Development Agenda," under which new treaties
and all of WIPO's work must consider the impact on international development. For the first time, WIPO
member states are now discussing the importance of a rich public domain and the dangers of overbroad
DRM laws. EFF is part of an international NGO coalition working at WIPO to ensure that intellectual
property laws protect human rights like access to knowledge and access to medicine, even as some
developed countries try to obstruct the Development Agenda at every turn.
PRIVACY
Anonymity
Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may
be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or even threats to their lives.
Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights
workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore;
victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.
Instead of using their true names to communicate, these people choose to speak using pseudonyms
(assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that
support them, secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme
Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment.
A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their
identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the
majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in
particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James
Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal
Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak
anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the
Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's
office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the
Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum
in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it
could from any soapbox."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been involved in the fight to protect the rights of anonymous
speakers online. As one court observed, in a case handled by EFF along with the ACLU of Washington,
"[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to
communicate anonymously."
We've challenged many efforts to impede anonymous communication, both in the courts or the
legislatures. We also previously provided financial support to the developers of Tor, an anonymous
Internet communications system. By combining legal and policy work with technical tools, we hope to
maintain the Internet's ability to serve as a vehicle for free expression.
CALEA
The Perils of Wiretapping the Internet
EFF and a coalition of public interest, industry, and academic groups filed suit in 2005 challenging the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) unjustified expansion of the Communications Assistance
for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). By forcing broadband Internet and interconnected voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) services to become wiretap-friendly, the FCC ignored CALEA's plain language
and threatened privacy, security, and innovation.
Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in 1994 to make it
easier for law enforcement to wiretap digital telephone networks. CALEA forced telephone companies to
redesign their network architectures to make wiretapping easier. It expressly did not regulate data
traveling over the Internet.
But now federal law enforcement agencies want to change that. On March 10, 2004, the Department of
Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) filed a joint petition with the FCC. The petition requested that CALEA's reach be expanded to
cover communications that travel over the Internet. Thus, Broadband providers would be required to
rebuild their networks to make it easier for law enforcement to tap Internet "phone calls" that use VOIP
applications such as Vonage, as well as online "conversations" using various kinds of instant messaging
(IM) programs like AOL Instant Messenger (AIM).
EFF objected to a number of the requests in the joint petition, in conjunction with numerous other
organizations.
On August 9, 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) in response to the Law Enforcement joint petition. Applying dubious legal
reasoning, it greatly expands the reach of CALEA by redefining what constitutes a "substantial
replacement" of the telephone service, tentatively concluding that broadband Internet access providers
and managed VoIP systems substantially replace local exchanges, and therefore are subject to the
requirements of CALEA. (See CALEA Summary.)
On August 5, 2005, the FCC announced a Final Rule, expanding CALEA to Internet broadband providers
and certain Voice-over-IP (VoIP) providers.
The FCC ruling has been challenged in court by EFF and others and may end up before the Supreme
Court. After the DC Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling, the coalition of challengers filed for en banc review.
Meanwhile, the DOJ—apparently tired of our lawsuits and hoping to avoid such suits in the future—has
now proposed draft legislation to codify and expand the FCC ruling.
Wiretapping Is Already Easy Enough
Law enforcement agencies convinced the FCC that CALEA needed to be expanded in order to maintain
the status quo. Because wiretapping has gotten so much more complex in the Internet age, they argued,
it's just too hard for them to intercept all the communications that they need. Without structural changes
to the Internet, they won't be able to conduct the same quality of investigations that they did ten years ago.
It is crucial to remember that the issue here is not whether law enforcement can tap new technologies like
VoIP, but whether they can tap it easily. Existing laws already permit law enforcement to place Internet
users under surveillance, regardless of what programs or protocols they are using to communicate.
Industry already cooperates with law enforcement to give it all the information requested, and this will
continue to happen with or without a new FCC rule interpreting CALEA.
Ironically, most kinds of surveillance have gotten much easier in the digital age. Agents can tap mobile
phones, gain access to reams of electronic communications such as email, conduct DNA identification
tests, and track people's locations using cell phone signals. Surely the greater ease of surveillance in these
arenas and others more than makes up for the negligible difficulty of capturing a few VoIP calls and IM
conversations. We would be maintaining the status quo without expanding CALEA.
Just Because It Can Be Tapped Doesn't Mean It Should
The FBI used the "tappability principle" to justify the demands in its petition. This principle holds that if
something is legally searchable sometimes, it should be physically searchable all the time. But there is a
vast difference between a computer network switch created precisely to be tappable and one that can be
tapped with the right tools under the right circumstances. If we applied the FBI's logic to the phone
system, it would state that every individual phone should be designed with built-in bugs. Consumers
would simply have to trust law enforcement or the phone companies not to activate those bugs without
just cause.
The Cost of CALEA Will Be Passed on to Consumers
The NPRM's proposed expansion of CALEA would also punish broadband providers and consumers,
concluding that carriers should forced to spend millions of dollars on CALEA compliance. The FCC
explores a mechanism by which these costs will pass to their customers, including a Commission
mandated flat monthly charge. Quite literally, then, consumers would be subsidizing the surveillance
state.
Furthermore, this proposal completely restructures market incentives in the technology industry. Privacyfriendly technologies, which protect the personal information of consumers, would be pushed out of the
marketplace. Instead, companies would be forced to design and manufacture surveillance-friendly
technologies. The needs of government, not consumers, would guide the marketplace.
Innovation Will Suffer
When special interests like law enforcement commandeer the marketplace, innovation suffers. The
NPRM suggests that all devices that provide broadband connectivity will have to be CALEA-compliant,
which would severely limit the scope of high-tech research and development. Today's VoIP systems —
revolutionary software tools that allow people to make phone calls over the Internet — would likely never
have been developed in an environment where all products had to go through a CALEA-compliance test
before making it to market. While the NPRM does not extend CALEA to providers of peer-to-peer VoIP,
email and Instant Messaging, it seeks comment on whether other laws might give the FCC power over a
wider array of technologies.
If the FBI gets its way, the NPRM's tentative regulations will only be the tip of the iceberg. Soon,
software companies, under threat of an expansive definition of CALEA's requirements, will face
economic incentives to create email and IM programs that are surveillance-ready. Many computer game
consoles that people can use to play over the Internet, such as the Xbox, allow gamers to chat with each
other while they play. If any communication program running on the Internet has to be CALEAcompliant before being bought and sold, what would stop law enforcement from pushing for a tappable
Xbox?
CALEA means that innovators will always be forced to think inside the box of surveillance. Their designs
and ideas will be limited by a government mandate that requires them to build technology for the purpose
of spying rather than playing games, talking to colleagues, or collaboratively making art over the Internet.
This will stifle creativity and result in a non-competitive technology market. The only creativity will exist
off-shore, where developers outside the U.S. will develop technologies to circumvent U.S. law
enforcement capability.
The Internet Is Not Like the Phone System
The NPRM suggests that rules applied to the phone system should also be applied to the Internet. But
crucial differences between the two systems mean that what is healthy for one in terms of marketplace
incentives and technological development is unhealthy for the other. What makes the Internet powerful
are its edges: computers and other innovative technologies are located at the ends of the network wires.
The phone system works the opposite way. Telephones are dumb, inflexible machines. Whereas the
usefulness of the phone system comes from the telecommunications network itself, the Internet's
usefulness comes from its endpoints.
In addition, the phone network is a closed, insulated system, while the Internet is open and ever-changing.
End users cannot change the nature of the phone network on a whim. But on the Internet, people can
deploy new services and new devices at will — they can invent new protocols for sending data, or
connect a new kind of widget to the network. This is integral to making the Internet a vital source of
technological and scientific innovation.
EFF believes that federal agencies should not force the broadband Internet access or voice over IP
industries, and by extension, their consumers, to bear the considerable costs of purchasing and
implementing surveillance-ready network technologies simply because it suits the government's needs.
CALEA Could Make the Internet Less Secure
While law enforcement's efforts to hijack the tech market are disturbing, EFF is also concerned that
making the Internet CALEA-compliant might backfire: many of the technologies currently used to create
wiretap-friendly computer networks make the people on those networks more pregnable to attackers who
want to steal their data or personal information.
When broadband service providers are forced to make their networks or applications tappable, this
introduces more points of vulnerability into the system. Users have to place blind trust in companies and
services they may not realize they are signing up for.
The FCC's proposes to allow third parties to manage government surveillance requests: a private
company would analyze all the data from a telecommunications carrier, extract information relevant to
the court order, and send it to law enforcement.
Currently, several large corporations are already offering CALEA services that might result in a loss of
privacy for consumers. For example, VeriSign offers a legal intercept service to ISPs, which requires the
providers to pipe all their data to VeriSign. Then the company's employees analyze the data, extract
information relevant to the court order, and send it to law enforcement. This transaction leaves personal
data potentially vulnerable when it travels from the service provider's network to VeriSign's. It also places
the personal data of innocent people in the hands of a third party without customer consent. If CALEA is
applied to the Internet, it is likely that many more services like VeriSign's will spring up, introducing still
more uncertainty into the system.
Services like these support and expand what the ACLU has called the Surveillance-Industrial Complex.
Since compliance with surveillance requests is a significant cost for carriers, telecommunications
companies have acted as a check on government power, lobbying against excessive proposals. Now,
private entities that profit from surveillance will have an incentive to lobby for more government
surveillance powers.
Ultimately, all of these problems can be traced back to a single root cause: CALEA was drafted
specifically to regulate phone networks, which are designed to be closed systems. The Internet is an open,
global system that handles countless forms of data-transfer and accommodates an ever-changing array of
smart edge-devices. If CALEA is misapplied to the Internet, the results will be disastrous. The privacy of
innocent people is likely to be violated, innovation will certainly be stifled, and the current and future
functionality of the Internet will be crippled.
Cell Tracking
Can the government use your cell phone records to track your physical location without first obtaining a
warrant based on probable cause? Often with EFF input as a friend of the court, the vast majority of
judges issuing public opinions on the matter are saying “no”, and rejecting government applications for
cell site location tracking information made without showing sufficient need for this kind of sensitive
information.
This issue came to light in August 2005, when the first judge to publish a decision on the issue—
Magistrate Judge Orenstein in the Eastern District of New York—publicly denied a government request
that lacked proof of probable cause. In doing so, Judge Orenstein revealed that the Justice Department had
routinely been using a baseless legal argument to get secret authorizations from a number of courts,
probably for many years. Many more public denials followed from other judges, sharply rebuking the
government and characterizing its legal argument as as "contrived," "unsupported," "misleading,"
"perverse," and even a "Hail Mary" play. But the government continues to rely on the same argument in
front of other judges, most often in secret and sometimes successfully.
EFF has been asked to serve as a friend of the court in several of these applications, successfully showing
judges how and why the government's arguments are baseless. EFF will continue to serve as a resource to
courts and to counsel, to protect your privacy interest in your physical location, to stop the government
from turning the cellular phone system into a vast network for warrantless physical surveillance and to
ensure that Big Brother stays out of your pocket.
Digital Books
Like music and movies before them, books are going digital, and each new development is a source of
excitement and concern for avid, tech-savvy readers. Book fans should indeed be excited, because digital
books could revolutionize reading, making more books more findable and more accessible to more people
in a diversity of ways.
But readers should also be concerned, because recent events demonstrate that the forces making digital
books and digital readers a reality routinely fail to respect the kinds of rights and expectations that have
been built and defended over generations of experience with physical books. The first round of
mainstream digital book services, products, and applications -- Google Book Search, the Amazon Kindle,
the Barnes and Noble Nook -- all offer a much riskier way to own and read books compared to our
experiences with traditional books.
It will take an informed readership and entrepreneurial leadership in the field to make sure that digital
books preserve the rich heritage of intellectual freedom, free speech, and privacy that we have with
physical books today.
Locational Privacy

Modern communications mean most Americans today walk around with a beacon that transmits
their location. Mobile phones register to a nearby tower as the owner moves through space and
the phone company can collect that data in real time or retrospectively to physically place the
phone with varying degrees of accuracy. Companies can also determine the owner of every
handset within range of a particular tower. GPS enabled phones enable far more precise location
placement. Many cars now have GPS devices installed, some of which transmit the vehicle’s
location to a centralized service. As the devices get cheaper and smaller, law enforcement
agencies can more easily attach GPS trackers to cars and individuals, enabling precise round-theclock surveillance without ever leaving the precinct. Location-based services, including maps of
nearby restaurants, friend finders and other social networks collect location data as part of
providing the service, or for contextual advertising.
EFF is fighting to protect the privacy and prevent the misuse of this data that users of phones,
GPS transmitters and location-based services leak to providers and to the government. In our cell
tracking and GPS tracking cases, we advocate that the law protect this information by requiring
police to get a search warrant before obtaining this sensitive data. We also work to ensure that
location based service providers don’t abuse the information they collect on their customers, or
hand it off to other companies or the police without consent or probable cause.
National Security Letters
Of all the dangerous government surveillance powers that were expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act, the
National Security Letter (NSL) power under 18 U.S.C. § 2709 as expanded by PATRIOT Section 505 is
one of the most frightening and invasive. These letters, served on communications service providers like
phone companies and ISPs, allow the FBI to secretly demand data about ordinary American citizens'
private communications and Internet activity without any meaningful oversight or prior judicial review.
Recipients of NSLs are subject to a gag order that forbids them from ever revealing the letters' existence
to their coworkers, to their friends, or even to their family members, much less the public.
The FBI's systemic abuse of this power has been documented both by a Department Of Justice
investigation and in documents obtained by EFF through a Freedom of Information Act request.
EFF has fought for years to spread awareness of National Security Letters and add accountability and
oversight to the process.
In 2007, EFF filed Freedom of Information Act litigation seeking documentation of National Security
Letter misuse by the FBI. Thousands of pages of documents were released over a period of four years,
leading to repeated revealations of governmentabuses of power. An EFF report based on these documents
led to tough questions for the FBI before Congress. The documents also helped prompt the Senate
Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress.
In 2008, EFF defended the Internet Archive from an inappropriate National Security Letter. Because
NSLs come with a gag order, most recipients are unable to ever reveal their existence. However, with the
help
of
EFF
and
the
ACLU,
the
Internet
Archive fought back and won the right to speak publicly about the letter. As a result, it's become one of
the few well-documented and publicly-known cases of NSL use.
EFF has been fighting in Congress for legislative reform of National Security Letters since 2005. In 2009,
many hoped that President Obama, having run for office promising to reform Bush-era surveillance
abuses, would work with Congress to curb NSL abuse. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has
instead continued to block reform, and has even sought to expand NSL powers.
NSA Spying
The U.S. government, with assistance from major telecommunications carriers including AT&T, has
engaged in a massive program of illegal dragnet surveillance of domestic communications and
communications records of millions of ordinary Americans since at least 2001.
News reports in December 2005 first revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been
intercepting Americans’ phone calls and Internet communications. Those news reports, plus a USA
Today story in May 2006 and the statements of several members of Congress, revealed that the NSA is
also receiving wholesale copies of their telephone and other communications records. All of these
surveillance activities are in violation of the privacy safeguards established by Congress and the U.S.
Constitution.
The evidence also shows that the government did not act alone. EFF has obtained
whistleblower evidence [PDF] from former AT&T technician Mark Klein showing that AT&T is
cooperating with the illegal surveillance. The undisputed documents show that AT&T installed a
fiberoptic splitter at its facility at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco that makes copies of all emails, web
browsing, and other Internet traffic to and from AT&T customers, and provides those copies to the NSA.
This copying includes both domestic and international Internet activities of AT&T customers. As one
expert observed, “this isn’t a wiretap, it’s a country-tap.”
EFF is fighting these illegal activities on multiple fronts. In Hepting v. AT&T, EFF filed the first case
against a telecom for violating its customers' privacy. In addition, EFF is representing victims of the
illegal surveillance program in Jewel v. NSA, a lawsuit filed in September 2008 against the government
seeking to stop the warrantless wiretapping and hold the government officials behind the program
accountable.
EFF is not alone in this fight. There are multiple cases challenging various parts of the illegal surveillance
against both the telecoms and the government. This page collects information on EFF's cases as well as
cases brought by individuals, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and of Illinois,
the Center for Constitutional Rights, and others.
Online Behavioral Tracking
Who knows what you're doing when you browse the web?
New web technology has created many unexpected ways for corporations to track your web activity
without your knowledge. Countless advertising networks are able to secretly monitor you across multiple
websites and build detailed profiles of your behavior and interests.
New threats include "super-cookies," like Adobe's "Local Shared Objects" and Microsoft's "User Data
Persistence." They include semi-legal data-sharing agreements between Internet service providers and
data warehouses like Phorm and NebuAd. And they include social networking websites that allow
advertisers too much access to their users' behavior and data.
EFF is working with lawmakers to close legal loopholes that enable unscrupulous tracking, with
corporations to teach them how to manage data responsibly, and with the media to educate the public
about corporate behavior and user rights.
Pen Trap
In the first ruling of its kind, a federal magistrate judge held that the government must obtain a search
warrant to collect the content of a telephone call, even when that content is dialed digits like bank account
numbers, social security numbers or prescription refills. The decision from Magistrate Judge Smith in
Houston closely followed the reasoning outlined in an amicus brief from EFF and the Center for
Democracy and Technology (CDT).
The Texas judge invited EFF to file the brief in response to requests from government investigators to use
a "pen register" or "trap and trace device" to collect all numbers dialed on a phone keypad after a call has
been connected. Investigators can typically get "pen/trap" orders under a legal standard much lower than
the "probable cause" required for a typical phone-tapping warrant, because only phone numbers used to
connect the call are collected, not the content of the phone call itself.
However, the judge found that when it comes to dialed numbers that represent call content, federal
statutes require that investigators either get a probable cause warrant or use filtering technology to ensure
that only dialed phone numbers are collected. In fact, according to the court, "Congress ordered law
enforcement to do just that, 12 years ago, yet the court notes that the government's current practice is to
collect all dialed digits without using any filtering technology."
"Judge Smith correctly recognized that the privacy protections for your phone calls shouldn't depend on
whether the information you are communicating is spoken or dialed," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin
Bankston. "Whether it's your bank account number, your social security number, your prescription refill,
or even your vote for American Idol, the government has to get a search warrant to tap the numbers you
dial after your call has been connected. Allowing such taps without a warrant not only violates
longstanding statutes, as the court found here, but the Constitution itself"which makes it all the more
troubling that government investigators have been collecting such information without a warrant for
years."
In the same opinion, Judge Smith also rejected a new government request to track the location of
someone's cell phone without a warrant. EFF has briefed two other courts on the cell-tracking issue,
which has been a continuing controversy since Judge Smith and another judge in New York first
published decisions on the issue last fall. Those decisions revealed that government investigators had
routinely been tracking cell phones for years without getting warrants based on frivolous legal arguments.
Printers
Imagine that every time you printed a document, it automatically included a secret code that could be
used to identify the printer - and potentially, the person who used it. Sounds like something from an
episode of "Alias," right?
Unfortunately, the scenario isn't fictional. In a purported effort to identify counterfeiters, the US
government has succeeded in persuading some color laser printer manufacturers to encode each page with
identifying information. That means that without your knowledge or consent, an act you assume is private
could become public. A communication tool you're using in everyday life could become a tool for
government surveillance. And what's worse, there are no laws to prevent abuse.
The ACLU recently issued a report revealing that the FBI has amassed more than 1,100 pages of
documents on the organization since 2001, as well as documents concerning other non-violent groups,
including Greenpeace and United for Peace and Justice. In the current political climate, it's not hard to
imagine the government using the ability to determine who may have printed what document for purposes
other than identifying counterfeiters.
Yet there are no laws to stop the Secret Service from using printer codes to secretly trace the origin of
non-currency documents; only the privacy policy of your printer manufacturer currently protects you (if
indeed such a policy exists). And no law regulates what sort of documents the Secret Service or any other
domestic or foreign government agency is permitted to request for identification, not to mention how such
a forensics tool could be developed and implemented in printers in the first place.
With no laws on the books, there's nothing to stop the privacy violations this technology enables. For this
reason, EFF is gathering information about what printers are revealing and how - a necessary precursor to
any legal challenge or new legislation to protect your privacy. And we could use your help.
In the preliminary research paper linked below, we explain what we've observed so far, briefly explore
the privacy implications, and ask you to print and send us test sheets from your color laser printer and/or a
color laser printer at your local print shop. That way, we can watch the watchers and ensure that your
privacy isn't compromised in ways that harm your fundamental consitutional rights.
In addition to documenting what printers are revealing, EFF has filed a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request, and we will keep you updated on what we discover. In the meantime, we urge you to
participate and pass the word along about this research project. Thank you for your support!
Real ID
Threatening Your Privacy Through an Unfunded Government Mandate
The federal government is trying to force states to turn your drivers license into a national ID. Unless you
tell your state legislator to push back, the Real ID Act will create grave dangers to privacy and impose
massive financial burdens without improving national security in the least.
Signed into law in May 2005 without meaningful debate, the Real ID Act states that drivers licenses will
only be accepted for "federal purposes"—like accessing planes, trains, national parks, and court houses—
if they conform to certain uniform standards. The law also requires a vast national database linking all of
the ID records together.
Once the IDs and database are in place, their uses will inevitably expand to facilitate a wide range of
surveillance activities. Remember, the Social Security number started innocuously enough, but it has
become a prerequisite for a host of government services and been coopted by private companies to create
massive databases of personal information. A national ID poses similar dangers; for example, because
"common machine-readable technology" will be required on every ID, the government and businesses
will be able to easily read your private information off the cards in myriad contexts.
Real ID won't just cost you your privacy. The federal government didn't give the states funds to
implement the law and overcome its many administrative burdens, so the billions of dollars in costs will
be passed down to you in the form of increased DMV fees or taxes.
And what will you get in return? Not improved national security, because IDs do nothing to stop those
who haven't already been identified as threats, and wrongdoers will still be able to create fake documents.
In fact, the IDs and database will simply create an irresistible target for identity thieves.
It's not too late to fight back—state legislators can still resist implementing the Real ID Act and force
Congress' hand. Learn more about Real ID through the links below, and tell your representatives to
oppose the Real ID Act.
RFID
Radio Frequency Identification
Libraries, schools, the government, and private sector businesses are adopting radio frequency
identification tags, or RFIDs — a technology that can be used to pinpoint the physical location of
whatever item the tags are embedded in. While RFIDs are a convenient way to track items, they are also a
convenient way to do something far less benign: track people and their activities through their belongings.
EFF is working to prevent the embrace of this technology from eroding privacy and freedom.
Search Engines
Google, Yahoo, MSN, AOL and other search engines record your search queries and maintain massive
databases that reach into the most intimate details of your life. When revealed to others, these details can
be embarrassing and even cause great harm. Would you want strangers to know where you or your child
work or go to school? How about everyone seeing searches that reference your medical history, financial
information, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation?
Unfortunately, information stored with a third-party is given much weaker legal protection than that on
your own computer. It can be all too easy for the government or individual litigants to get access to your
search history and connect it with your identity.
Your search data demands more substantive legal and technical protections. Learn more about this issue
below and take action to defend your privacy.
Google v. DoJ Subpoena
In January 2006, the Justice Department asked a federal court in San Jose, California to force Google to
turn over search records for use as evidence in a case where the government is defending the
constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). On March 17, 2006, the judge rejected the
government's overreaching request for user records.
Search Incident to Arrest
The Fourth Amendment generally requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause
before searching a person, her home, or her belongings. For nearly a century, however, courts have
recognized a limited exception when the search is "incident to an arrest." The original justification for this
exception was to enable police officers to find weapons on the arrestee or prevent the destruction of
evidence, thus allowing the officers to search the arrestee's person and the area within her immediate
control. The exception has expanded over the years to allow police under some circumstances to search
the contents of containers found on or near the arrestee.
Applying this exception to laptops, cell phones, and other digital devices makes little sense. Officers can
seize these devices and then seek a warrant to search for relevant information if they have probable cause.
Yet we see an increasing number of cases where law enforcement indiscriminately rummages through
these devices without a warrant, and then seeks to justify the intrusion as a search incident to arrest.
EFF is working to help courts correctly apply the search incident to arrest doctrine to new technologies.
Smart phones such as the iPhone and Blackberry contain vast amounts of personal data like emails,
photos, contact lists, and text messages, as well as the capability to access more information over the
Internet. The mere fact that someone is carrying one of these phones when she is arrested does not justify
police access to that sensitive information without judicial supervision.
Social Networks
Sites like Facebook and Twitter provide users with a place to share personal information with friends,
family, and the public — an activity that's proven to be hugely compelling to Internet users. In response
to the demand, technology is evolving to encourage the disclosure of information that was formerly
discreet (like location), and to enable the sharing of information even when not sitting in front of a
traditional computer (like from mobile phones).
But it doesn't take much forethought to realize that there are countless privacy pitfalls in a world where a
near-endless stream of personal bits is indiscriminately posted, indefinitely stored, and quietly collected
and analyzed by marketers, identity thieves, and professional government snoops in America and abroad.
The public controversies that have erupted to date — Facebook's drastic terms of service changes and
Google Buzz's forced sharing of email contacts — are only the first snares in a rapidly growing thicket of
social networking privacy issues.
Here are some of the ways EFF is working to protect your privacy as the use of social networks grows:



EFF has gone toe-to-toe with the government to uncover hidden details about how they use social
networking sites for investigations, data collection, and surveillance.
EFF works to expose issues with social networks as soon as they emerge, from the leaking of
information to advertisersor the policies of the sites themselves.
EFF helps savvy users better understand how to strengthen their privacy online and opt out of
information sharing.
Travel Screening
Before you get on an airplane, the government wants to sift through the personal details of your life. If the
data analysis says you're a security risk, too bad -- you may have no way of challenging the error. Worse
still, that black mark could follow you for the rest of your life, and there may be little stopping the
government from using your data for purposes far outside of travel screening.
The privacy invasions don't stop there. When you cross the U.S. border to come home, you could be
singled out for a random, invasive search. A recent court decision allows border agents to search your
laptop or other digital device and copy the contents without limitation.
EFF has been fighting these schemes every step of the way -- both in court and in Congress.
Border Searches
While the Supreme Court has ruled that customs and border agents can perform "routine" searches at the
border without a warrant or even reasonable suspicion, the ongoing searches of laptops, cell phones, and
other electronic devices at America's borders are unconstitutionally invasive. Agents often confiscate the
devices, make copies of the data, and sometimes even transfer the information to other government
agencies -- violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures. EFF has
called on Congress to recognize the unique nature of electronic information stored on personal digital
devices and to restore search standards the protect the privacy of Americans in the Information Age.
Learn more about our border search work below.
Automated Targeting System (ATS)
In November 2006, the Department of Homeland Security revealed that for years it has assigned "risk
assessments" to millions of travelers as they enter or leave the country using the Automated Targeting
System. Effectively, if you travel internationally, ATS creates an instant, personal and detailed dossier on
you that Customs and Border Protection officers use to decide whether you get to enter the country, or
will be subject to an enhanced (and potentially invasive) search. Before major media reports picked up the
story, EFF sounded the alarm and submitted formal comments opposing ATS.
CAPPS II and Secure Flight
CAPPS II was a planned profiling system that would have required airlines to provide personal details
about passengers before they boarded their flights. These details would then be combined with
government and commercial databases to create a color-coded "score" indicating each person's security
risk level. In 2004, American Airlines admitted to providing 1.2 million passenger records to contractors
developing prototypes for the program, even though the Transportation Security Administration had
denied such a transfer for months.
TRANSPARENCY
E-Voting Rights
Many states are hastily implementing flawed electronic voting machines and related election procedures.
EFF is protecting your right to vote in the courts while working with legislators and election officials
across the country to ensure fair, transparent elections.
Twenty-three states still do not require a paper record of all votes, despite the demonstrated technical
failures of e-voting machines in the 2004 presidential election -- including the complete loss of thousands
of votes. In turn, voters cannot verify that the e-voting machines are recording their votes as intended, and
election officials cannot conduct recounts. Most of these machines use "black box" software that hasn't
been publicly reviewed for security. Indeed, when security researchers have inspected the devices, they've
found serious vulnerabilities all too often.
But poorly-designed machines are not the only problem. Most election workers remain woefully undertrained regarding potential e-voting problems. Vendor technicians frequently have unsupervised access to
voting equipment. Local election officials routinely deny attempts to examine e-voting audit data.
EFF provides leadership on several fronts -- litigation, legislation, regulation, independent analysis,
advocacy -- to help ensure that your vote counts.
FOIA
Litigation
Government
for
Accountable
EFF's FOIA Litigation for Accountable Government (FLAG) Project aims to expose the government's
expanding use of new technologies that invade Americans' privacy. Through Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) requests, the project helps to protect individual liberties and hold the government accountable.
National security and law enforcement demand some level of government secrecy, but too much secrecy
enables abuses of power. The Justice Department's cell phone tracking without probable cause, the NSA's
illegal spying program, and other recent privacy-invasive initiatives make this clear.
While radically enhancing its technological ability to monitor lawful activity and the details of our lives,
the government has also actively attempted to limit public scrutiny in recent years. As one study found in
2005, government secrecy "continues to expand across a broad spectrum of activities, including the
courts, new private inventions, and the scientific and technical advice the government receives."
The public deserves to know what the government is doing, so that it can keep abuses of power in check
and challenge violations of privacy. To those ends, EFF submits requests under the Freedom of
Information Act, a statute that forces the government to disclose details about its activities. Our requests
focus on government collection and use of information about Americans, the increasing cooperation
between the government and the private sector, and federal agencies' development and use of new
information technologies. EFF makes this information available to the public, the media, and
policymakers. EFF also strategically files FOIA lawsuits against government agencies to develop existing
case law that will benefit all FOIA requesters.
Terms Of (Ab)Use
One cannot go online today without eventually being asked to accept a set of so-called Terms of Service
(or TOS). These "terms" are actually purported legal contracts between the user and the online service
provider (websites, MMORPGs, communication services, etc.), despite the fact that users never get a
chance to negotiate their contents and can often be entirely unaware of their existence.
Using a TOS, online service providers can dictate their legal relationship with users through private
contracts, rather than rely on the law as written. In the unregulated and unpredictable world of the
Internet, such arrangements often provide the necessary ground rules for how various online services
should be used.
Yet TOS agreements also raise a number of concerns for the consumer, as they can be a vehicle for abuse
by online service providers. For starters, TOS provisions are usually written by the service providers
themselves. As a result, they tend to end up being one-sided in the service provider's favor, and are often
designed to be beyond any judicial scrutiny. Even more importantly, most users never even bother to
read, let alone understand, these agreements, filled as they are with confusing legalese.
The time has come to shed light on what these Terms of Service agreements actually say, and what it
means to users. In conjunction with our TOSBack project, EFF is working to make the contents of these
TOS more transparent for the average user.
Test Your ISP
In May 2007, Comcast began engaging in protocol-specific interference with the activities of its
subscribers. When confronted by users and by EFF, Comcast responded with denials and answers that
told less than the whole story. In October 2007, however, after independent testing by the Associated
Press and EFF, it became clear that Comcast was, in fact, interfering with BitTorrent, Gnutella,
and potentially other common file sharing protocols employed by millions of Internet users. In specific,
Comcast was injecting forged RST packets into TCP communications, in an effort to disrupt certain
protocols commonly used for file-sharing. The interference efforts were triggered by the protocol that the
subscriber used, not by the number of connections made or amount of bandwidth used by the subscriber.
After a wave of public outcry, lawsuits, and an FCC proceeding, Comcast eventually anounced that it was
planning to phase out discrimination against P2P protocols. We look forward to seeing them do that.
Meanwhile, the Comcast affair inspired us to launch our Test Your ISP project. Our aim is to ensure that
the Internet community has the tools and organization to quickly recognize when ISPs engage in
interference or protocol discrimination in the future.
At a minimum, consumers deserve a complete description of what they are getting when they buy
"unlimited Internet access" from an ISP. Only if they know what is going on and who is to blame for
deliberate interference can consumes make informed choices about which ISP to prefer (to the extent they
have choices among residential broadband providers) or what counter-measures they might employ.
Policy-makers, as well, need to understand what is actually being done by ISPs in order to pierce the
evasive and ambiguous rhetoric employed by some ISPs to describe their interference activities.
Accordingly, EFF is developing information and software tools intended to help subscribers test their own
broadband connections. We are also collecting information about software and tests being developed by
other groups around the world. While these tests initially will require a relatively high degree of technical
knowledge, we hope that we will be able to develop tools that will bring these testing efforts within reach
of more subscribers.
This web page will collect EFF's white papers, software tools, blog entries, and other materials relating to
this ongoing project. We are also maintaining a list of known ISP testing projects:
Known ISP Testing Software
Tool
Active
/
#
Participants
Platform
Protocols
Notes
Passive
per Test
Gemini
Active(?)
Bilateral
Bootable
CD
?
Glasnost
Active
1.5 sided
Java
applet
BitTorrent
Firewall
characteristi
cs,
HTTP
proxies,
DNS
environment
Forged
RSTs
Not code users can run
Any
A server platform for
others' active testing
software
TCP
performanc
e
A sophisticated speed
test
Real
tests
forthcoming here ;discu
ssion here
ICSI Netalyzr
Active
1.5 sided
Java
applet +
some
javascrip
t
ICSI IDS
Passive
0 sided (on the
network)
IDS
2 sided
PlanetLa
b
(server),
Any
(client)
Google/New
AmericaMeasu
rementLab
Active
NDT
Active
1.5 sided
Java
applet
native
app
Network
Neutrality
Check
Active
1.5 sided
Java
applet
No real tests
yet
Unilateral
(currentl
y)
Windows
app
Any
NNMA
pcapdiff / tpcat
Passive
Either
Bilateral
Python
app
/
Any
Uses pcapdiff
A tool to make manual
tests easier. EFF is no
longer
working
on
pcapdiff,
but
development continues
with the tpcat project.
Switzerland
Passive
Multilateral
Portable
Python
app
Web Tripwires
Passive
1.5 sided
Javascrip
t embed
Any
Sneak preview release
just
spots
forged/modified packets
HTTP
Must be deployed by
webmasters
EFF's Test Your ISP Software
EFF has released Version Zero of Switzerland, our sophisticated ISP testing software. Switzerland uses a
semi-P2P, server-and-many-clients architecture to detect modified or spoofed traffic between multiple
clients. You can learn more about Switzerland here.
The Test Your ISP project previously released a much simpler piece of software called pcapdiff. Pcapdiff
is a simple command line tool that lets you compare "pcap" packet captures from either end of an Internet
communication; it reports when packets are dropped and spoofed between the endpoints ("pcap" packet
captures can be recorded with standard packet sniffing tools like tcpdump and wireshark). Running tests
with pcapdiff is a technically involved process; we have a whitepaper outlining the steps involved.
Chapter 1: The Market at the Bottom of the
Pyramid
Quote:
“However, to participate in these markets, the private sector must learn to innovate. Traditional
products, services, and management processes will not work.”
Review:
We are all familiar with social classification based on income. We all know that the very rich constitute
only a small percentage of our population while the poor constitute a significantly larger percentage. And
we also know that this classification can be accurately portrayed as a pyramid, the very same pyramid that
we have been familiar with since high school Economics. And since high school, a lot of us have thought
that those at the bottom of the economic pyramid are the ones who can hardly to spend for anything save
for basic necessities like food and drinking water, which may not always be clean as compared to our
standards. When you and your family are only earning $2.00 on a typical day, then you’re not supposed to
enjoy some, if not all, luxuries, right?
Wrong. Every market has special characteristics that defines it and makes it unique. If we view the poor at
the bottom of the pyramid as a potential market, then we can see that they have certain qualities that
differentiate them from other markets. We can be quick to agree that our tried and tested products,
services, and management styles that we’ve used for the other markets will not work for the BOP market.
But should be just as quick to dismiss them as a viable market to sell products and services in? Of course
not, because when you take a look at the sheer size of the market, you can easily have an idea of the value
that they can offer. So, why not tap them? A lot of private corporations are still too caught up in their own
worlds and are not looking to innovate their products, services, and even themselves in order to address
the needs of the BOP market. What they should do is to realize that the poor are a viable market and then
offer themselves and their products and services to the BOP market in such a way that entices them to
spend.
The BOP market has different characteristics that cannot be satisfied by current methods of doing
business, thus there is a need for innovation.
Chapter 2: Products and Services for the
BOP
Quote:
“Regardless, the goal is to reach the entire population base, including the BOP.”
Review:
The BOP market has a different outlook on products and services mainly because of their low average
income. With only a $2.00 a day budget, companies should expect that the BOP market would be choosy
on the things that they want to buy. The poor are more interested in smaller packaging with a higher price
per volume if they were to buy it in bulk. Why the seemingly bad judgment on spending? It’s because
they have no other choice. They just can’t sacrifice necessities like food and drinking water to buy
commodities in bulk. Unlike those at the middle or top of the pyramid who don’t sacrifice necessities
even if they do buy in bulk, the poor just don’t have that financial flexibility.
What companies need to do is innovate not only their products and services but also their other
operational processes as well. Products and services that are well‐suited for the BOP market should be
complemented with a business model that is specifically designed for them. There should be a Global
standard on how to do business for BOP markets but companies should further tweak their operations to
suit their local markets. This is because solutions should be transportable and scalable across different
areas, which entails difference in the culture and languages of the local BOP market.
When we think about it, most of the regular products are made more expensive because of the value
added to them aside from the specific purpose they were created for. For example, toothpaste is primarily
used to keep the teeth clean but many companies add mouthwash to cleanse the mouth of bacteria and
fluoride to keep teeth white. But for a BOP market, a product’s function defines the product itself. It
doesn’t need to have a lot of horns and whistles; if it does the job it was designed to do, then it good
enough. This kind of goes against conventional ways of doing business, because companies are used to
markets that want to get the best value out of their money, which results to more expensive products but
with better form and functionalities. However, the same cannot be said about the BOP markets.
Chapter 3: A Global Opportunity
Quote:
“MNCs and large firms have to start from a deep understanding of the nature and the
requirements of the BOP... and then architect the business models and the management processes around
these requirements.”
Review:
With a 4 billion strong market base, you would think that companies are competing against one another,
trying to be the first to tap the BOP market. But you would be surprised to find that companies are
actually semi‐ignoring this market for ones that are less than half its size. This is because the other
markets, which are comprised of people from the other levels of the economic pyramid, have been in
constant business with the companies. Over the years, companies have developed tried and tested
products and systems of operations that perfectly suit these other markets. Companies are just used to
dealing with these other consumers.
But what about the BOP markets? The thought of tapping the poor as a potential market base is a
relatively new and radical idea. This would entail stepping out of the companies’ comfort zones and try
something new. Something that is not only a way of portraying social responsibility but also of getting
rewards (read: profit) out of doing it. The BOP market can be found in all of the nations of the world, and
compromise about two‐thirds of our entire population. Their sheer size and diversity is enough in order
for companies to get reasonable returns on their operations but why aren’t they doing it?
Companies aren’t doing it because they’re used to other markets and already have methods suited
for their existing operations. Why fix something that isn’t broken, right? But what about progress? Should
they remain stagnant just because they’re doing just fine at present? What would be better is for them to
realize the opportunity that BOP markets are offering. Since BOP markets are similar throughout different
regions, a local innovation could have global applications, and even have uses in other markets. One thing
is for sure, BOP markets entail various opportunities and companies are just to reluctant to make changes
in order to seize them.
Chapter 4: The Ecosystem for Wealth
Creation
Quote:
“A market‐based ecosystem is a framework that allows private sector and social actors, often with
different traditions and motivations, and of different sizes and areas of influence, to act together and
create wealth in a symbiotic relationship.”
Review:
The title of the chapter reminds me of a previous article that we’ve covered in class. It had to do with the
creation of wealth. Yes, wealth can be created, unlike how some people believe that there is a fixed
amount of wealth. They believe that we are all apportioned a part of that wealth and that is basically how
much we have for the rest of our lives, unless some random circumstance, like winning the lottery, comes
along. But the contrary is true. Wealth can be created and destroyed like almost everything else. Wealth
can be created when one creates something that is of value to others. Something that is of that great value
that they are willing to pay you an amount of money in exchange for it. And this is something that C.K.
Prahalad understands very well and is trying as a basis for his proposition that the poor can be a viable
market that companies can tap.
An ecosystem, in a biological sense, is the set of living and non‐living things that interact with one
another in such ways that benefit the entire community and not just one part of it. This is the kind of
relationship that Prahalad wants the private companies, the BOP markets, and other concerned parties to
have. He not only wants to empower the poor, to give them another shot at having a decent life, he also
predicts that private corporations would benefit from their relationship. He gave an example with an
Indian company named HLL, wherein they were able to reach 200 to 300 million more potential
customers belonging to the BOP market thanks to their partnerships with more than one million partners
who also belong to the BOP market themselves. Wealth is created not only on the side of the poor who
benefit from the employment and access to world class products and services, but also on the side of the
private companies who gain access to a very large market base, with a combined spending power
probably in the range of a few hundred million dollars. But these aren’t the only two parties that will
experience an increase in wealth. In an ecosystem, predators and prey aren’t the only ones involved. In
the business perspective, every party involved in the supply chain benefits from the BOP market. From
the raw materials suppliers, to the manufacturers, and even up to the distributors. When the BOP market
is tapped, the creation of wealth isn’t limited to one party. It’s distributed to all.
Chapter
5:
Reducing
Corruption:
Transaction Governance Capacity
Quote:
“Corruption in various forms adds to this cost burden and business uncertainty.”
Review:
Coming from a country that is labeled as the most corrupt in the world, I should already know how
corruption negatively affects the economy. But Prahalad is mostly talking about corporations, while the
Philippines is famous for its corrupt government and its officials. Although there are similarities in both
of the organizations, corporations usually have very strict system of punishment for corrupt employees
while the Philippine government is riddled with officials who refuse to police their own ranks because
they themselves are involved in corrupt practices or can benefit from it. Regardless of the difference, the
effect is clear. I guess spending isn’t the only one with a multiplier effect in economics; corruption also
has a multiplier effect, which is to say that if there is an increase in corruption, there is also an increase in
its negative effects. Corruption not only has negative economic effects, where only a small group of
people own a large amount of the total wealth, but also social ones. For example, families that cannot
afford to send their children to school will produce a vastly uneducated workforce in the coming years.
When you examine some of the “poor” countries in world, you’ll find that a lot are actually rich in natural
resources, what Prahalad calls “trapped resources”. These sources of unrealized wealth are actually a
result of inadequate rules and regulatory institutions. Again, the multiplier effect comes in. Laws and
government agencies may actually already exist but any enforcement is limited to those who aren’t in the
corruption circle. The main goal in tapping the poor as a market is providing a win‐win situation for them
and private corporations: poverty alleviation while the corporations benefit both in a social and economic
perspective. But before these benefits can be reaped, the private sector must be developed to the level
where they can innovate themselves to the point that they can successfully satisfy the needs of the BOP
market. Corruption is a hindrance to private sector development, another application of the multiplier
effect.
We can never truly know all of the negative effects of corruption. The various effects could branch out
and indirectly produce other problems. But the opposite can be said of its reduction. A case in point was
when an e‐Governance system was adopted in one state in India. It reduced corruption substantially while
transactions were being completed at only a fraction of the original time. This too has a multiplier effect.
People can now spend more time in doing productive work, which in itself also has multiple effects. The
opportunities for development are endless. But before any of the benefits can be reaped, corruption must
be reduced greatly if not eliminated altogether.
Chapter 6: Development
Transformation
as
Social
Quote:
“When the poor at the BOP are treated as consumers, they can reap the benefits of respect,
choice, and self‐esteem and have an opportunity to climb out of the poverty trap.”
Review:
I had stated in my analysis of the previous chapter that development, like its counterpart corruption, has
positive multiplier effects not only to the parties involved but also those that are involved with the parties
themselves. The economic benefits are obvious. For example, if a family has a higher purchasing power,
it can afford better products and services for its members and improve its standing in factors like health
and educational attainment. But are there other benefits aside from the obvious economic ones?
One of the other benefits is a sense identity among the poor. Being poor, they originally didn’t have the
resources to avail of certain services like birth certification, voter registration, and the like. They, thus,
didn’t exist in a legal sense. This loss of legal identity kinds of separate them from the rest of society that
have the privilege of owning property and having employment because they were able to avail of basic
government services. Having no legal identity, they can’t benefit from what modern society can offer.
Also, knowledge and education come into play. Having better access to information, usually through
digital means, helps the poor acquire knowledge or skills that they would have only gotten from formal
training but were too poor to do so. This effect, like many others, also has multiple effects. This could
result in a more knowledgeable and more literate population and workforce that could produce better
products and services for the society.
Whatever the effects are, whether they are economic, social, political, or individual in nature, they are all
geared towards a social remodeling. The pyramid we have all become used to should be transformed into
a diamond, with a large part of the population comprising the middle class instead of the poor. The goal
of BOP tapping is poverty alleviation and other economic benefits, which ultimately leads to social
transformation. But do our governments and private sector have the vision and motivation to bring this
about?
Voxiva Case Study Guide Questions
1. What is the innovation of Voxiva?
Voxiva has a flexible solution that can be used by any user, regardless of technological expertise or
communication device available.
2. What are the 3 ingredients of an effective system of disease surveillance and response?
Early detection, urgent reaction, and a basic yet effective communications system are Voxiva's three
ingredients of an effective disease surveillance and response system.
3. According to Meyer, what are his findings regarding ICT projects?
First off, he finds that many of the projects are non-scalable. Secondly, he finds that many donors suffer
from "dot-com fever." And lastly, the internet is viewed as the ultimate solution despite other factors like
literacy and hardware costs.
4. What is Meyer's observations regarding the use of telephones worldwide?
He finds that telephones are more accessible and are thus a more viable tool for the system.
5. What was the problem that Voxiva was originally designed to solve?
It was originally designed to combine the usability of telephones and the internet to help people without
internet access to access their system.
6. What are Alerta Pilot's benefits?
a. allows for 2-way communication among users of the disease surveillance system.
b. facilitates and simplifies the coordination among the different management and operation levelsw that
are concerned w/ the disease surveillance.
c. provides a unique DB for all users, to make a technical and specialized analysis in near-real-time or
historical trend analysis.
d. reduce errors in the DB since the person who enters data is the same reporter.
e. permits exporting the data to DBF, excel and others.
f. conforms to use any DB format w/n specialized or legacy software.
7. How can Voxiva help eradicate diseases?
Voxiva piloted a system which connected approx. 204000 individuals in 2 sparsely populated districts
south of Lima to the national health surveillance system: Chilca-Mala wth 15 residents per sq. km. and
Canete w/ 24 inhabitants per sq. km.
8. How can Voxiva be used for bioterrorism preparedness?
Early detection and communication can be the key to preparedness in case of a bioterrorist attack.
9. What are some of the lessons learned in Voxiva's deployment in other countries?
a. the environment and deployable resources will dictate the type of communication device used.
b. decreasing the cycle time in the date input and aggregation process to provide a near-real-time
assessment of the situation in the field will likely help prevent or decrease the duration of outbreaks.
c. the system increases the quality and quantity of adata available to facilitate decision making.
d. the system must be cost-effective.
e. the technology must be intuitive to facilitate adoption and use.
f. collaboration among custoemrs, partners and users drives problem solving.
g. remote locations w/ no access to the phone use the radio to contact a health post w/ a phone to report to
the closest health post or clinic w/ a telephone.
h. industry-wide standard best pratices must be adhered to including those associated w/ security,
flexibility to inter-operate w/ other systems and versatility of input devices and exportability.
10. What are some of Voxiva's challenges?
Voxiva's challenge is to become a viable business seeking public-sector funds.
11. What is Meyer's beliefs regarding diversity? What is its connection to innovation?
Meyer's beliefs regarding diversity rests on scalability, where one system can be applicable in different
societies. It is connected to innovation by virtue of its scalability.
12. Can this system be implemented in the Philippines? What target disease would you recommend?
Yes, the target disease would be something widespread in the Philippines, such as dengue or even the
common flu.
Jaipur Foot Case
1. It is specially made for the actions of the poor and it only costs $30 dollars as opposed to $6000 to
$8000 dollars prosthetic limbs in the United States.
2. A handmade prosthetic lower leg and limb.
3. Poor people who have lost their lower limbs.
4. There are a lot of landmines in Afghanistan and many of those who survive landmine accidents lose
their lower limbs.
5. It only costs $30 while Western lower limb prosthetics can cost around $6000 to $8000 or even higher.
6. The Gait Cycle is the rhythmic alternating movements of the two lower limbs which results in a
forward movement of the human body.
7. By experimenting with the development of an artificial limb using locally available natural materials.
8. The Jaipur Foot should be able to accommodate movements for squatting, sitting crossed-legged,
walking on uneven ground, and walking on barefoot.
9. The constraints include: poverty of the intended market, a closed economy, limited trained manpower,
and the kind of work lifestyle of the intended market.
10. The raw materials used are naturally available materials like willow, and sponge and aluminum
molds, unlike in other materials that make use of expensive materials like steel, synthetic molds, and
others.
11. A typical fitting would take up most of the day but only one or two fittings would be enough. In the
West however, there would be a lot of fitting sessions.
12. BMVSS stands for Bhagan Mahaveer Viklang Sahayata Samiti .The Jaipur Foot conducts community
outreach projects that are focused on the financial and social needs of India's poor.
13. The Jaipur Foot is more competitive because it has lower operating costs.
14. Yes, because the fitting sites are set up in a predetermined and easy-to-set-up location, called camps.
15. The cooperation with ISRO is expected to reduce the manufacturing costs of the Jaipur Foot. The cost
of the Jaipur Foot would be reduced by 40% and the Foot itself would become lighter by around 350
grams.
Casas Bahia
1. What is the center of Casas Bahia’s business model?
The center of its business model is credit financing.
2. What is one of the most noteworthy issue that Casas Bahia faces?
It faces the issue of a long-term plan of succession.
3. What important growth factor does Casas Bahia’s competition not invest in?
Casas Bahia’s competition doesn’t invest heavily in technology.
4. What challenges does expansion pose for Casas Bahia?
Casas Bahia needs to conduct further studies on the behavior of the new customer base, and on new
distribution demands and controlling of the default level.
5. Who was the founder of Casas Bahia?
Samuel Klein founded Casas Bahia.
6. What is Casas Bahia’s distinction in Brazil?
It is the largest retail chain in the country.
7. How are the sales on installment basis called in the Casas Bahia business model?
They are called Credit sales.
8. When was Casas Bahia founded?
1958
9. What percentage of Casas Bahia’s revenue is ploughed back into technology?
8 percent is invested in technology.
10. Where does Casas Bahia get information about the credit history of their customers?
From the Service of Credit Protection
11. Why does Casas Bahia prefer to get local employees for their stores?
They mainly want their employees to feel a sense of pride and ownership. Aside from this, other factors
include familiarity and a lesser impact of bus and train strikes.
12. What has the company applied so as to allow them to quickly respond to unforeseen problems that
may arise?
They have a Unique Network Infrastructure to allow them to respond quickly to such problems.
13. How many levels or categories of economic status does Brazil have?
Brazil has five levels or categories of economic status among its citizens.
14. What are the high income classes of these five?
Classes A and B are the high income classes.
15. What are the low income classes of the five?
Classes C, D, and E are the high income classes.
16. What role does technology have in the company?
Technology enables Casas Bahia to increase productivity, lower the cost of operations, and increase client
satisfaction.
17. As of 2004, what percentage of the Brazilian population belongs to the lower income classes?
84% belongs to the lower income classes of C, D, and E.
18. Where is work primarily focused in the company?
To maximize their customer experience.
19. What is the number of initiatives that Casas Bahia handles?
It has four initiatives.
20. On average, what are the number of contracts every month that Casas Bahia handles?
It handles 800,000 contracts per month.
Hindustan Lever Case
1. They made the health issue of diarrheal disease an integral part of their operations.
2. Handwashing is proven to be effective against diarrheal disease, cutting the amount of cases by 42% to
46%.
3. It is very familiar with the people being affected by the disease and it also has vast distribution
networks to accommodate most of the affected population.
4. Seeing as HLL is the biggest manufacturer of soap and that handwashing cuts the amount of diarrhea
cases by almost half, there is a very meaningful and profitable connection between the company and the
disease.
5. Because he believes that good health can lead to long-term savings, which also equates to a higher
spending budget for the people.
6. It was very well-aligned with HLL's corporate goals of improving the overall health of the population.
7. It is because Kerala has the highest access to clean water, highest knowledge of diarrhea prevention,
and use of local health practices. Kerala doesn't need the World Bank funding; in fact it should be the one
that should export cleanliness and hygiene practices and products.
8. As long as what I'm doing is right, I will continue what I am doing despite any opposition.
9. It decided to revisit it's mission. Yes, I do agree since it advocates new opportunities for the use of
soap, especially when it comes to answering health issues.
10. Lifebuoy's cost is made to be affordable for the masses. Yes, I do agree because it makes affordable
health care accessible to the masses.
11. The keys to sustained community behavioral change are education, involvement, shock, reiteration,
and reward.
12. Yes, as long as partner organizations would be as willing to contribute.
13. There are three "exposure" processes, which are:
Exposure 1: Initiation and information,
Eposure 2: Large scale propogation, and
Exposure 3: Reinforcement and preparing for sustainability
14. I think that the tactics are sufficient. Yes, I think they would work in the Philippines as long as partner
organizations are also willing to contribute to the success of the tactics.
15. The demonstration basically shows that being visually clean does not necessarily equate to being
safely clean. Yes, I think it was effective since it didn't require any higher level of knowledge just to
understand the concept.
16. It impacted HLL with a long-term approach to answering India's health concerns.
17. Wealthier Indian populations can become advocates of cheap health care practices for poorer
populations, thus making funding easier and more accessible.
18. Yes and Yes.
19. Yes.
20. Swathsya Cheetna seems to have a more effective program because they have done more research
than PPP.
CEMEX Case Study
1. How did CEMEX fundamentally change the way it conducted its business?
- CEMEX did not only focus its business operations on their high-income customers (rich individuals
and corporations) but they focus also on their low-income customers (poor families). They figured that
the low revenue that they got per low-income customer would equate to a very high inflow of cash when
multiplied with the size of the low-income customer base.
- CEMEX also created a subsidiary that focused on transferring remittance money (money transferring
system) from Mexicans working in the United States to their families in Mexico. Seeing as the remittance
money is mostly used in building homes in Mexico, CEMEX provides an option to use the money to buy
building materials which is sent to the family instead of money.
2. How does information systems contribute to CEMEX' competitive advantage?
Information systems contribute to CEMEX in a way that it helped them make their production and
distribution processes more efficient, thus reducing costs. Also, with the use of information systems,
CEMEX has been able to avoid price wars by complementing it with their influence on the market.
3. What is social capital? How does CEMEX build social capital?
Social capital refers to the connection within and between members of a social group
(http://wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital, accessed: November 23, 2010). Social capital can also be
described as the value that these connections give businesses, both tangible and intangible. CEMEX built
on both the tangible and intangible values by providing a very personal service in their rural housing
program, Patrimonio Hoy. They built very personal working relationships with those involved in the
program, thus making the people trust them more.
4. How are the low-income savings characteristics of Mexican society characterized?
Low-income families are those that have no regular means of income and earn less than $15 a day, on
the average. These families save by means of the "tanda system" where they put in money into a
collective pool and they can bid for the pool or win it through lottery. This system is not very effective
because it is very hard to monitor the people involved because of the large number of people involved and
that a lot of the men use their money instead for drinking and gambling.
5. How are the entrepreneurial characteristics of the women in Mexican society tied to the CEMEX BOP
strategy?
Women in the Mexican society, they are usually the ones responsible of budgeting the money in their
family that their husband earn and they are also the ones responsible for the allocation of a portion of the
earnings for savings, which would be used for their children's education, housing, or some other project.
6. What did the CEMEX initial market research in Guadalajara discover?
It discovered that the main problem that hindered the construction of houses was financing. Not a lot
of families could afford to buy the materials needed to build a house.
7. What is the role of socios in the Patrimonio Hoy system? How important are they in the making the
system successful?
Socios are both the main beneficiaries and drivers of the Patrimonio Hoy System. They are the ones
who pool in money every week. Three socios form one group and each group gives money which is used
to purchase materials which are to be delivered at a predetermined time. Socios are the lifeblood of the
system, seeing as most (if not all) of the money used in the system comes from them.
8. Why do you think it was important fo CEMEX to position itself as a complete solutions provider vs.
just another product provider?
It was important for CEMEX to position itself as such because their customers would now see it as a
better company than its competitors based on the value-for-money that they get from their complete
solutions.
9. How is the social capital of Patrimonio Hoy promoters related to economic capital?
The promoters are the ones who encourage and convince other people to join the Patrimonio Hoy
program. They are also the most visible members of the program. They are important because the more
socios they invite, the more money it brings in to the program. Thus, they are compensated on a
commission basis; they get payed in proportion to the number of socios they invite and how long they
stay in the program.
10. What, in brief, is the value of Patrimonio Hoy to a) it's promoter b) its socios & partners c) its
suppliers and d) its distributors?
a) The program enables the promoter to earn money solely based on performance.
b) Socios get to build better quality houses in a shorter amount of time.
c) Suppliers benefit from the steady demand of raw materials for the construction of houses.
d) Distributors also benefit from the steady demand of raw materials and thus will have a continuous
demand for pfraw materials transportation.
11. What is patrimonio? Why is this important for the marketing efforts for the Patrimonio Hoy system?
Patrimonio literally translates to "heritage" and in context is understood as leaving something that is
immovable and of value to the next generation. In Mexican society, it is very important for the parents to
leave something of value for their children to use and benefit from. Low-income families are not exempt
from this and this motivates the Mexican people to join the program.
12. How can Patrimonio Hoy offer a slightly higher price than its competitors and maintain a competitive
edge?
The program offers a complete solution to the rural housing problem of Mexican society. Also, it
promises to have a house built within a relatively faster time time and with good quality materials. This is
where the trust of the customers come into play, benefiting CEMEX.
13. How does the concept of freezing prices encourage socios to do more business for Patrimonio Hoy?
This ensures that prices would not go up suddenly and they will still be able to afford the ongoing
construction of their homes. Having fixed prices also gives the socios peace of mind that they will be able
to have their homes built in due time despite inflation and other economic factors.
14. Intuitively, doing with business with a low income group would be riskier than traditional lending
models but it is profitable for Patrimonio Hoy. Why?
This is because low-income groups aren't a very stable customer base. They may want to do business
at present, but this isn't assured over a long period of time. Also, seeing as they have limited resources to
spend, they might not want to follow through with spending money even if it is for their own benefit.
15. What is the role of peer/community pressure in the Patrimonio Hoy lending model?
Mexican society generally wants to leave something of value behind for the coming generations. This
means that a lot of people would want to be part of a program that would help bring this vision into
reality. If it works for some people, then a lot would follow suit because of the benefits it would bring and
the assurance that it will bear fruit thanks to the previous success of their neighbors.
16. How has Patrimonio Hoy changed the consumer behavior in Mexico?
Low-income groups now are spending more on things that are of benefit for them, specifically
housing, instead of gambling or using the money for buying alcoholic drinks. It also provides a means of
income for the promoters, which gives their families added income for other expenses, like education for
their children.
17. What are the challenges of the Patrimonio Hoy program?
Since their customers belong to low-income groups, the program is faced with the problem of retaining
the socios for a longer period of time and convincing them to build additional rooms to their houses,
seeing as some of them settle for even just a one-roomed house.
18. What does Construmex take advantage of the existing remittance market between U.S.A and Mexico?
There are a lot of Mexican workers in the United States that send remittances to their families every
week, which amounts to a cumulative $10 Billion. 10% of this ($1 Billion) is used for building houses.
This $1 Billion in remittances is what spurred the birth of Construmex.
19. CEMEX Philippines is exploring the possibility of replicating the Patrimonio Hoy system in the
Philippines. What are the parallels between the Mexican and the Philippine market?
There are a lot of low-income Filipino families that do not have proper homes. Also, Filipino parents
also want to leave something for their children. Usually, this is in the form of education, but a home that
provides security and is a symbol of family is a good complementary thing to be left behind.
Filipino women are also very entrepreneurial and are generally very interactive with their neighbors in
the community.
20. As an IT practitioner looking at the Construmex business model, what IT-driven systems can you
propose to make CEMEX more competitive? (name 10-15)
a) Supply Chain Management system
b) Distribution Tracking system
c) Inventory or Warehouse Management System
d) Electronic Ordering System
e) Customer Service and Support System
f) Enterprise Resource Planning System (includes remittances from Mexican workers in the US)
g) Customer Relationship Management System
h) Transaction Processing System
i) Decision Support System (to help CEMEX better adapt to hypothetical changes in the market)
j) Management Information System (for the General Manager and Supply Manager)
k) Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing Systems (wikis, intranet-/internet-based)
l) Executive Support System (for CEMEX higher management make better decisions)
m) Mobile Transaction Ordering
n) Accounting or Finance System
o) Payroll System (for promoters and office employees)
What is the EFF concern regarding Free
Speech?
The internet is supposed to have a free and open architecture which supports absolutely no restrictions to
free speech. Governments have time and again resorted to measures to enact censorship laws that restrict
free speech on the internet which the EFF had and has been fighting.
What is the EFF concern regarding Innovation?
The EFF seeks to protect people and organizations that create new ideas and tools from established
businesses that seek only to kill the new competition.
What is the EFF
Intellectual Property?
concern
regarding
The EFF seeks to preserve balance in the use of trademarks and ensure that the Internet and other digital
technologies are used to empower the user as a consumer, creator, innovator, scholar, and citizen.
What is the EFF
International issues?
concern
regarding
The threats to online freedom are as global as the Internet. The EFF seeks to put a stop to these
international threats by encouraging users to join their cause by either donating or becoming a member.
What is the EFF concern regarding Privacy?
The EFF seeks to extend our privacy rights into the digital world and supports the development of
privacy-protecting technologies.
What is the EFF concern regarding Transparency?
The EFF seeks to allow the general public to more closely examine governments and corporate entities,
and to hold them accountable for any deception, censorship, or corruption.
What are people's concerns regarding anonymity on the Internet?
Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may
be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or even threats to their lives.
What kind of bloggers does the EFF want on
the Internet?
Bloggers that are/have:
1. Journalists
2. Free speech
3. Political speech
4. Anonymous
5. Free from liability
What is CyberSLAPP?
A joint effort to preserve anonymity on the Internet.
What is the "No Downtime for Free Speech Campaign"?
It's an effort to eliminate the misuse of existing laws to curb free speech on the Internet.
How does EFF benefit those who have
reading disabilities?
It encourages the transformation of content (copyrighted or not) into a form (ex. refreshable Braille) that
is more accessible for the user.
What is a Broadcast Flag?
It is a technology that "flags" or marks a TV broadcast as unrecordable, thus TiVo and other content
recording devices cannot function.
What is the Coder's Right Project?
It is an effort to protect tinkerers and hackers as they research new and more innovative developments in
technologies.
What is Digital Rights Management?
It is a technology used by media and entertainment companies to try to protect copyrighted media from
illegal use.
What agency is in charge of making the rules
of Net Neutrality? Can it be trusted?
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC). No, because it has a history of taking the side of big
corporations when it comes to public issues.
What are patents designed to do?
They are used to promote investment, public disclosure, and most importantly, useful innovation.
What does Trusted Computing propose to resolve?
It proposes to solve some of today's security problems through hardware changes to the personal
computer.
What will happen if the Broadcast Flag was
fully implemented?
Hollywood and federal bureaucrats will get a veto over innovative devices and legitimate uses of recorded
programming.
Is it legal to record radio programs? How so?
Yes, through the fair use right that we have.
Will restrictions on Digital Video use curb Internet piracy?
No, it will only make ordinary users' lives harder when trying to use digital video.
What does the Digital Millennium Copyright Act do instead of curbing piracy and other illegal use of
digital media?
It jeopardizes fair use, impedes competition and innovation, chills free expression and scientific research,
and interferes with computer intrusion laws.
How many people in the United States have
used file sharing?
Over 60 million people, which is actually greater than the number of people who voted for Obama during
the Presidential elections.
What effect does the DMCA have on
anonymous free speech?
The DMCA puts anonymous speech in jeopardy; misusing its subpoena power, copyright holders can
attempt to unmask an Internet user's identity based on a mere allegation of infringement without filing an
actual lawsuit or providing the user any constitutional due process.
How can the patent system be improved?
One approach is to advocate for good legislation in Congress and proper interpretation of that legislation
by the courts. Another is to promote enforcement efforts, such as the reexamination of bogus patents.
Why are Terms of Use contracts biased?
They are written by the service providers themselves and users cannot negotiate the terms.
What concerns does the Anti-Counterfeiting
Trade Agreement raise?
It raises concerns about consumers’ privacy and civil liberties, for innovation and the free flow of
information on the Internet, legitimate commerce, and for developing countries’ ability to choose policy
options that best suit their domestic priorities and level of economic development.
What concerns does the Broadcasting Treaty
raise?
Not only would this hurt innovation and threaten citizens' access to information, it would change the
nature of the Internet as a communication medium.
What
is
the
challenge
technological
development
countries?
concerning
in
poorer
There is a significant knowledge gap and digital divide continue to separate the wealthy nations from the
poor.
What currently concerns EFF Europe?
Concerns include combatting the growth of invasive European intellectual property law and policies,
addressing free speech and innovation issues in Internet filtering and blocking, defending the privacy of
Europeans from international threats to the rights protected by the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC),
and monitoring the effects of EU's introduction of data retention regime.
What problems does the Free Trade Act of the Americas raise?
It allows U.S. copyright owners' rights to trump FTAA countries' national sovereignty and domestic
public policy priorities, and consumers and technology developers in FTAA countries risk losing all of
their existing rights under their own national copyright laws.
What is the Global Network Initiative?
The Global Network Initiative is a coalition of information and communications companies, major human
rights organizations, academics, investors and technology leaders to produce guidance and oversight for
companies facing civil liberties challenges in the ICT industries.
What is the WIPO?
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the UN agency responsible for treaties involving
copyright, patent, and trademark laws.
What is the basis for anonymity on the
Internet?
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme
Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment.
What is CALEA?
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a law that makes it easier for law
enforcement to wiretap digital networks including the Internet.
Why is tracking people through their mobile
phones controversial?
Because the government doesn't need a warrant based on a just cause in order to legally do it.
What features should digital books retain
from their physical counterparts?
Digital books should preserve the rich heritage of intellectual freedom, free speech, and privacy that we
have with physical books today.
What is the EFF doing regarding locational
privacy?
EFF is fighting to protect the privacy and prevent the misuse of this data that users of phones, GPS
transmitters and location-based services leak to providers and to the government.
Why is NSA so controversial regarding the
Internet?
The National Security Agency (NSA) has been intercepting Americans’ phone calls and Internet
communications.
What are some Online Behavioral Tracking
technologies being used?
Technologies like Adobe's "Local Shared Objects" and Microsoft's "User Data Persistence."
In a federal ruling concerning Pen Traps, what must the government do before collecting information
from communication done through telephone?
-
The government must first obtain a search warrant even if the information to be collected
is dialed.
What problems are posed by the Real ID
system?
Threats to privacy and the possibility of increased DMV fees and/or taxes.
How is RFID controversial?
It can help track people through RFID tags on their belongings, thus costing the person his/her privacy.
How are search engines controversial?
They collect lots of information about your search queries which can tell a lot about you and what you've
been doing on the Internet.
What is the problem regarding Search
Incident to Arrest?
Law enforcement officials don't need warrants to search a person's cellphone when that person is arrested.
What is the main problem concerning Social
Networks?
The loss of privacy thanks to advertising and immediate sharing of contacts through services offered by
the same company.
How are Travel Screenings problematic?
Customs and border officials can invasively search your laptop or cellphone even without a warrant.
What are the problems regarding E-voting?
Under-trained election workers, vulnerable equipment, and technicians having unsupervised control over
the systems.
What is the aim of the FOIA Litigation for
Accountable Government (FLAG) Project?
It aims to expose the government's expanding use of new technologies that invade Americans' privacy.
Through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the project helps to protect individual liberties and
hold the government accountable.
What are Terms of Service?
These "terms" are actually purported legal contracts between the user and the online service provider
(websites, MMORPGs, communication services, etc.), despite the fact that users never get a chance to
negotiate their contents and can often be entirely unaware of their existence.
What is the problem with some ISPs?
They have been known to interfere with users' access to file sharing technologies like BitTorrent and
GnuTella.
Copyright, Privacy, and Anonymity
1. What is the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation)?
-EFF is the leading civil liberties group defending your rights in the digital world.
2. Who is Lawrence Lessig?
-Lawrence "Larry" Lessig (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic and political activist. He is best
known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark, and radio frequency
spectrum, particularly in technology applications.
3. What is Creative Commons?
-Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization that works to increase the amount of creativity (cultural,
educational, and scientific content) in “the commons” — the body of work that is available to the public
for free and legal sharing, use, repurposing, and remixing.
4. Who is Bruce Schneier?
-Bruce Schneier (born January 15, 1963) is an American cryptographer, computer security specialist, and
writer. He is the author of several books on computer security and cryptography, and is the founder and
chief technology officer of BT Counterpane, formerly Counterpane Internet Security, Inc. He received his
master's degree in computer science from the American University in Washington, DC in 1988.
5. What is the Advanced Encryption Standard?
-Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) is an encryption standard adopted by the U.S. government.
6. What is PGP?
-Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) is a computer program that provides cryptographic privacy and
authentication. PGP is often used for signing, encrypting and decrypting e-mails to increase the security
of e-mail communications. It was created by Philip Zimmermann in 1991.
7. Who is Phil Zimmerman?
-Philip R. "Phil" Zimmermann Jr. (born February 12, 1954) is the creator of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP),
the most widely used email encryption software in the world. He is also known for his work in VoIP
encryption protocols, notably ZRTP and Zfone.
Chapter 1: Foundations of Information
Ethics
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook‐Information‐Computer‐Ethics/dp/0471799599
Quote:
“Moral life is a highly information‐intensive activity, and ICTs not only add interesting new
dimensions to old problems, but may lead us to rethink, methodologically, the very grounds on which our
ethical positions are based.”
Review:
The rise of information and communications technology brought with it not only new developments for
the benefit of our communities, but also problems regarding morality on their application. Rapid
advancements and acceptance of society in general to information technology (in the years after the
1980s, up to the present day) widened its reach to other people who otherwise would have only had
access to computers in universities and research organizations. This led a lot of people to be exposed to
information technology and its effects, which consequently posed a dilemma: what was right or wrong
when it came to this new technology?
Information ethics is part of macroethics, which basically defines ethical principles based on a
large group of similar people or even a society. Information ethics came to be developed around the 1990s
when developments in information and communications technology were being widely accepted in
mainstream society. The problem with initial information ethics principles was that they were borrowed
from other professional fields, like corporate ethics and common professional ethics, which didn’t give
absolute definitions on right and wrong when it came to the new technology. What was introduced were
new technologies and processes that nobody had experienced before. Not everything about IT was
answered by these old ethical principles. Another problem that besieged early forms of Information ethics
was that it didn’t really conform to earlier ethical theories. For example, privacy restrictions and
copyright rules could be violated more easily and perpetrators could do so without being caught. Hence,
the advent of Information technology in the recent decades not only spawned the great benefits that we
see now, but also ethical problems that we must confront on a daily basis.
Chapter 2: Milestones in the History of
Information and Computer Ethics
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook‐Information‐Computer‐Ethics/dp/0471799599
Quote:
“He predicted that, after the war, the new information technology would dramatically change the
world just as much as the Industrial Revolution had done in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.”
What I expect to learn:
I expect to learn about the big developments in the field of information and computer ethics and
the situations surrounding them.
Review:
Information ethics, like any other ethical principle, has been shaped by people and events either
intentionally or by accident. As is with most other things, information ethics is not immune to change.
The changes that have been enforced were born out of necessity; people saw that the current information
ethics principles were inadequate so they added new principles or changed old ones altogether. Whether
intentional or not, change can never be avoided especially when concerning something that is as
ever‐changing as developments in information technology.
The very first proponent of information ethics was mathematician and scientist Norbert Wiener. He was
working with other scientists and engineers during World War II to a new kind of anti‐aircraft cannon that
could detect and take out an enemy airplane virtually instantaneously. He predicted that they were
pioneering a new age that would produce never before seen technologies that would impact all of society,
much like how the Industrial Revolution impacted societies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He
had also perceived that such a technology could be put to great use not only for good purposes, but also
for evil. In a few years after World War II, Wiener published two books that talked of the new technology
that he and his colleagues had developed (cybernetics) and the moral and societal issues that could be
raised from the new science. These two books paved the way for information and computer ethics by
laying down foundations that future ethicists and professionals would follow and mold.
What I learned:
The foundations of information and computer ethics.
The situations surrounding the start of information and computer ethics.
The possible implications brought about by the new technology developed by Wiener and his
colleagues.
.
Integrative Questions:
1. Who laid down the foundations of information and computer ethics?
2. What was the first application of information‐cybernetics technology developed by Wiener and his
colleagues?
3. What were the circumstances surrounding that development?
4. What were the implications of such a technological advancement?
5. Why was it important for Wiener to have laid down the foundations of information and computer
ethics?
Chapter 3: Moral Methodology
Information Technology
and
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook‐Information‐Computer‐Ethics/dp/0471799599
Quote:
“I think the way we ought to proceed in the ethics of IT is not very different from the way we
ought to proceed in other departments of ethics of technology and engineering...”
What I expect to learn:
I expect to learn about how ethical principles are made to co‐exist with each other in IT.
Review:
Information and computer ethics implies something that should be applied and does not remain as just a
set of theories on ethical principles. Practical ethics, like information and computer ethics, implies that the
set of principles should be made applicable in real life situations. With the very fast pace of development
of new technologies, the possibilities of encountering new ethical issues rises with each new
advancement. Sound ethical principles in IT should also be developed as quickly as the technologies that
they are based on. The use of computers and related technology, produces new ethical issues that have
never been faced before. For the best part of the last 2,000 or so years, ancient Greek philosophy and
ethics have been the basis for many ethical principles. Ethical principles relatively remained unchanged
until the time of the French and Industrial Revolutions when many philosophers and ethicists provided
new theories for the changing times. But even those changes were relatively gradual, the Industrial
Revolution even stretched for more than a century. This new age of information technology however,
represents a change that is unprecedented in human history.
Information and computer ethics, as an ethical theory, is similar as to the ethics concerning other sciences
or engineering principles. These fields also represent fields of knowledge that concern quick changes and
the need for answering the issues that arise from these changes. Although IT is unique from the other
fields, they are relatively the same in essence, they only differ in the type of developments they are
advancing and how they develop them.
What I learned:
The need for philosophical coherence of ethical principles in information ethics.
The similarities and differences between the ethical principles involved in IT and other fields of
science and engineering.
That the use of computers and related technology increases the possibility of having new ethical
issues arising.
Integrative Questions:
1. Why is there a need for philosophical coherence in ethical principles when it comes to information
ethics?
2. What is the classification of information and computer ethics as an ethical theory?
3. What are the similarities between the ethical study of IT with that of other sciences?
4. What are the differences between the ethical study of IT with that of other sciences?
5. Why does IT need its own branch of ethics?
Chapter 4: Value Sensitive Design and
Information Systems
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook‐Information‐Computer‐Ethics/dp/0471799599
Quote:
“There is a longstanding interest in designing information and computational systems that support
enduring human values.”
What I expect to learn:
I expect to learn about how developments in IT are used in a way that accounts for human values.
Review:
Value sensitive design calls for technology that is designed in a way that accounts for human values in a
principled and comprehensive manner. This means that technology should not only be designed to carry
out the purpose for which it was built but also take into account human values, i.e. what a person or
groups of persons consider important in life. Seeing as there is a human element in value sensitive design,
there are very significant differences in what people consider as valuable and those that they can live
without. The variety in what people consider as valuable could produce new ethical issues that could be
completely different from the one that was originally considered.
I believe that the development of value sensitive design is a very innovative idea that caters not only to
the technological needs of society but also its ethical needs. The rise of information technology have
provided us with technology that have made doing tasks easier, faster, and at more accessible areas. But
aside from these, Information technology has also brought about issues concerning piracy, privacy,
copyright infringement, and many more. What value sensitive design takes into account is not only the
output of technology but also by achieving such outputs in a way that is acceptable to people, i.e. it
doesn’t go against things that they value. But seeing as the human factor in value sensitive design creates
varying things that people consider as important, it still has a long way to go, which is why the writer in
this chapter chose to describe it in so much detail so as to have other people build on the idea.
What I learned:
The principle of Value sensitive design.
Its effect to IT when it comes to ethical issues.
The implications of technology without value sensitive design to end‐users
Integrative Questions:
1. What is value sensitive design?
2. How is value defined in this context?
3. Why is value sensitive design important?
4. What are the implications of the application of technology that wasn’t developed using value
sensitive design?
5. Why is there no definite set of values in IT?
Chapter
5:
Personality-Based,
RuleUtilitarian, and Lockean Justifications of
Intellectual Property
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Information-Computer-Ethics/dp/0471799599
Quote:
“Care is needed so that we do not confuse moral claims with legal ones.”
What I expect to learn:
I expect to learn about how moral claims on intellectual property are defined using personality ethics,
utilitarianism, and Lockean principles.
Review:
Intellectual property is generally defined as any non-physical property that is produced by the
application of cognitive processes and whose value is based on an idea or in a collection of similar ideas.
But our common notion of intellectual property ownership is governed by legal principles, i.e. those laws
formulated by our governments, instead of those that are based on moral and ethical principles. This
chapter seeks to find ethical and moral justifications on intellectual property ownership rights and any
supporting ethical theories, most notably: personality ethics, utilitarianism, and Lockean ethics.
Personality-based definitions of ethics defines intellectual property as an extension of the
maker’s individual personality. Thus, there is a natural affinity of the maker and the product, so there is
no need for legal intellectual ownership statutes. The problem with this theory is that it is not very definite
on what constitutes intellectual property. For example, feelings and thoughts are part of our intellectual
property due to the very loose definition. Rule-utilitarianism entails the production of many intellectual
work which means that there is an optimal amount of good works produced. The problem with ruleutilitarianism in information ethics is that it can produce contradictions. Lockean principles, on the other
hand, basically say that the maker of the intellectual property should control the fruits of his labor, thus
justifying intellectual property ownership. The problem with Lockean principles is that it doesn’t take into
account unscrupulous work, such as pirated software. Thus, the Lockean ethical principles also justify
those intellectual property that is regarded as unethical.
What I learned:
 The problems affecting the three kinds of principles when it comes to intellectual property
ownership justification
Integrative Questions:
1. What is intellectual property?
2. Why should moral claims on intellectual property be considered higher than legal claims?
3. What are three ethical principles that can be used to justify intellectual property ownership?
4. How do the three principles justify intellectual property ownership?
5. What are the problems encountered by the three ethical principles in justifying intellectual
property ownership?
Chapter 6: Informational Privacy: Concepts,
Theories, and Controversies
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook‐Information‐Computer‐Ethics/dp/0471799599
Quote:
“… Privacy is an evolving concept and that its content is often influenced by the political and
technological features of the society’s environment.”
What I expect to learn:
I expect to learn about the concept of privacy and some controversies surrounding it.
Review:
Privacy is a very common term in the English language. We are very quick to use the term regarding
many things; it is not just limited to our use of the Internet or any other technology that requires access to
our personal information. But the problem with this is that we do cannot easily give a definition for
privacy, especially in its use in information technology. Privacy is too broad a term that we apply in a
specific field.
The reason why we talk of privacy very often is that we attach some value to it. As was discussed to a
small extent in the previous chapter, people attach value to something which they consider important.
With a wide range of people however, there is also a varying degree of value that these people attach to
their privacy. Thus, this in itself can present a controversy. People value their privacy differently, thus IT
solution providers have a dilemma on what kind of privacy protection feature that they should offer. What
is acceptable for some people may not be for others. This begs the question: why do people value privacy
in the first place? Many people believe that privacy is needed in order to have freedom. Predominantly,
people who value their privacy very highly come from Western or Westernized countries or are citizens
of a Democratic state. These people value their freedom very highly and they believe that protecting their
privacy is needed to preserve this freedom. In contrast, people from communist societies, whose privacy
is very limited thanks to an authoritative government, are not as volatile as their democratic counterparts
when it comes to privacy protection. This, again, creates another controversy as to the extent of privacy
protection measures.
What I learned:
The concept of privacy.
The value that people attach to privacy.
Some controversies surrounding issues on privacy.
Integrative Questions:
1. What is privacy?
2. Why do people attach value to privacy?
3. Why do people have varying degrees of value to their privacy?
4. What are some controversies surrounding privacy?
5. Why is privacy considered to be an evolving concept?
Chapter 7: Online Anonymity
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook‐Information‐Computer‐Ethics/dp/0471799599
Quote:
“Anonymity can also be brought about in a variety of ways and there are many purposes, both
positive and negative....”
What I expect to learn:
I expect to learn about the concept of online anonymity and the ethical issues surrounding it.
Review:
Anonymity is one of the main reasons why the certain technologies, most notably the Internet, boomed.
Being able to do virtually anything without being explicitly identified gives us a sense of freedom that we
may not be able exercise if we were limited to the physical world. For example, say we have a certain
college student who has his own views on a certain topic. For the sake of this example, we shall say that
that certain topic is politics, specifically he has managed to get evidence concerning the corrupt practices
of a high‐profile government official. Seeing as he is only your average college student, he doesn’t have
the means to be able to voice out his views through readily available media, e.g. newspapers, TV, radio,
etc. He could join his school newspaper, but that doesn’t assure him that he can write about his preferred
topic immediately, that would depend on his editor. Also, if he did join the school paper, then that would
limit his audience to his peers and mentors at school. What if he wanted a wider audience to hear him
out? And couldn’t all of these methods require him to give out personal information, e.g. meet personally
with TV/radio producers, if his story were to be treated seriously?
This is where the Internet comes in. The said student could publish his own blog under a reputable blog
site, i.e. one where he is sure that personal information will not be divulged. But even if he were required
to give out personal information (e.g. name and location), he could put in false data and he would truly be
untraceable. This is the presumed beauty of the Internet, where one can do almost anything (legal and
illegal acts) and not be identified. But in reality, many websites actually make use of audit logs which
track a person’s actions while on their website. This gives information on the type of activities this person
does, which can be interpreted to the type of preferences they have, their interests, and even their age
group. Google actually employs such a tactic where it gathers information about a user’s preferences so
that it can provide search results that it thinks is what the user prefers. Many other technologies make use
of similar tactics where activities of people are monitored and analyzed to produce a desired result. This is
an issue because anonymity doesn’t only entail that one’s personal information remains unknown; one
can be identified not only by name but also through what one does. This practice can have both positive
and negative manifestations. As with Google, it helps their users find what they want based on their
preferences, while on the extreme side, identity theft and spying could be result of such a practice. There
are many sides to anonymity, and there should be answers to each instead of having just one general
though inadequate policy.
Chapter 8: Ethical Issues Involving
Computer Security: Hacking, Hacktivism,
and Counter hacking
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook‐Information‐Computer‐Ethics/dp/0471799599
Quote:
“…all [hacking] are wrong because they constitute a digital trespass onto the property of another
person.”
Review:
The concept of hacking is closely linked to that of the right to property and privacy. If we were to think of
a file or a set of information as property, which is in fact true, then any person gaining unauthorized
access to such is violating our right of maintaining ownership. Also, if that piece of information is
supposed to be kept for the owner only, then any unauthorized access is not only an infringement on
property rights but also on privacy. Although hacking is fundamentally seen as “unauthorized access”, it
can also be an infringement on other rights depending on the situation.
Although hacking generally connotes a negative meaning, many actually defend the practice depending
on the scenario. Hacktivism, for example, is defined as the commission of an unauthorized digital
intrusion for the purpose of expressing a political or moral position. It is bent upon stimulating discussion
in a nonviolent way. Hacktivism generally involves changing the target organization’s website in a
sometimes comical way so as to incite attention and then discussion. It is generally used to express
dissatisfaction of the target’s actions, be it social injustice, over‐commercialism, and others.
Some organizations sometimes answer back when they themselves are hacked. This is called active
response or “counterhacking”. Counterhacking can have two forms: benign and aggressive. Benign
counterhacking generally involves non‐damaging action in confronting the hackers, an example of which
is tracing back the digital route of the hacking agent for the purpose of identifying the hacker involved.
The aggressive form on the other hand an intended action wherein the original hacker might view the
action as harmful or damaging. An example of this would be to redirect the packets of a Denial‐of
‐Service (DoS) attack to the original sender.
Hacking is generally thought of as something wrong. It violates certain people’s rights and allows the
hackers to access something that they are not supposed to. But can there be instances where hacking can
be justifiable? This puts us in a moral tight spot. But also, when it comes to measures against hacking, we
are again faced with another moral dilemma. Doesn’t counterhacking involve the violation of the hacker’s
privacy and other rights? Doesn’t counterhacking generally entail the same meaning as the “an eye for an
eye” system which is generally deemed to be ineffective? Hacking, it seems, is not as black and white as
we originally thought.
Chapter 9: Ethical Interest in Free and Open
Source Software
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook‐Information‐Computer‐Ethics/dp/0471799599
Quote:
“…more and more software was not free – not free in a financial sense, but free in a way that
allowed for its inspection, running, and modification.”
Review:
Software, since it was first used on a massive scale, has always been proprietary, i.e. it has been sold to
serve the needs of others. Software development therefore does not only occupy an important niche in
today’s information technology world but it has become a business as well. One of the reasons why
software originally became proprietary was so that the developer or team of developers could make
money out of what they made; which in another sense can be described as their “property.” Seeing as
software is considered as someone’s property, that original developer would like to keep the knowledge
of how the software works to himself, but that is the exact opposite of the free and open source software
movement.
The free and open source software movement seeks to combine the best aspects of two separate groups:
free software and open source software. Free software is exactly what it name suggests while open source
software allows other developers to make improvements on the original developer’s code to better suit it
for the needs of other people. Bring both together and a big group of heads definitely is better than just
one in producing effective software.
Although I have nothing totally against free and open source software, I believe that certain lines need to
be drawn. First off is accountability which is present in most proprietary software but only to some in free
and open source. Also, one of the problems that many free and open source software face is that they
aren’t always as easy to use than their proprietary counterparts. Another point is that software can be
considered as the property of the original developer, thus he reserves the right to make his own
modifications unless he chooses otherwise. All in all, I see nothing wrong with free and open source
software; I think that it actually gives us more choices on what we can use.
The ethical issues surrounding free and open source software.
Chapter 10: Ethical Interest in Free and
Open Source Software
Amazon Reference:
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook‐Information‐Computer‐Ethics/dp/0471799599
Quote:
“…more and more software was not free – not free in a financial sense, but free in a way that
allowed for its inspection, running, and modification.”
Review:
Software, since it was first used on a massive scale, has always been proprietary, i.e. it has been sold to
serve the needs of others. Software development therefore does not only occupy an important niche in
today’s information technology world but it has become a business as well. One of the reasons why
software originally became proprietary was so that the developer or team of developers could make
money out of what they made; which in another sense can be described as their “property.” Seeing as
software is considered as someone’s property, that original developer would like to keep the knowledge
of how the software works to himself, but that is the exact opposite of the free and open source software
movement.
The free and open source software movement seeks to combine the best aspects of two separate groups:
free software and open source software. Free software is exactly what it name suggests while open source
software allows other developers to make improvements on the original developer’s code to better suit it
for the needs of other people. Bring both together and a big group of heads definitely is better than just
one in producing effective software.
Although I have nothing totally against free and open source software, I believe that certain lines need to
be drawn. First off is accountability which is present in most proprietary software but only to some in free
and open source. Also, one of the problems that many free and open source software face is that they
aren’t always as easy to use than their proprietary counterparts. Another point is that software can be
considered as the property of the original developer, thus he reserves the right to make his own
modifications unless he chooses otherwise. All in all, I see nothing wrong with free and open source
software; I think that it actually gives us more choices on what we can use.