|
All Just just about ClaimsElectronic Frontier Foundation and Stanford Law Clinic Sue Electronic Vote Company
by:
Student Publishers and ISP Aim to Finish Diebold's Abusive Copyright Claims
Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release
San Francisco - A non-profit-making Computer network Service Provider (ISP) and two Swarthmore College students are seeking a court order on Election Day tomorrow to finish electronic vote machine manufacturer Diebold Systems, Inc., from issue specious legal threats. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Center for Computer network and Society Cyberlaw Clinic at Stanford Law School are providing legal representation in this important case to prevent abusive copyright claims from silencing public debate just about voting, the really foundation of our democratic process.
Diebold has delivered dozens of cease-and-desist notices to website publishers and ISPs difficult that they take down corporate documents revealing flaws in the company's electronic vote systems as well as difficulties with certifying the systems for actual elections.
Swarthmore students Admiral Pavlosky and Luke Smith have promulgated an email archive of the Diebold documents, which contain descriptions of these flaws written by the company's own employees.
"Diebold's blanket cease-and-desist notices are a blatant abuse of copyright law," aforesaid EFF Staff Lawyer Wendy Seltzer. "Publication of the Diebold documents is clean fair use because of their importance to the public debate over the accuracy of electronic vote machines."
Diebold vulnerable
not only the ISPs of direct publishers of the corporate documents, but besides the ISPs of those who simply publish links to the documents. In one such instance, the ISP Online Policy Group (OPG) refused to follow with Diebold's demand that it forbid Independent Media Network (IndyMedia) from linking to Diebold documents. Neither IndyMedia nor any another publisher hosted by OPG has yet promulgated the Diebold documents directly.
"As an ISP committed to free speech, we are defensive
our users' right to link to information that's critical to the debate on the dependability of electronic vote machines," aforesaid OPG's Colocation Director David Weekly. "This case is an important step in defensive
free speech by portion protect small publishers and ISPs from air-headed legal threats by large corporations."
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed by Congress in 1998, provides a "safe harbor" provision as an incentive for ISPs to take down user-posted content once
they obtain cease-and-desist letters such as the ones sent by Diebold. By removing the content, or forcing the user to do so, for a minimum of 10 days, an ISP can take itself out of the middle of any copyright claim. As a result, few ISPs have tested whether they would-be face liability for such user work in a court of law. EFF has been exposing several of the route that the safe harbor provision can be used to silence legitimate online speech through the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse.
"Instead of paying lawyers to threaten its critics, Diebold should invest in creating electronic vote machines that include voter-verified paper ballots and another safety protections," aforesaid EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn.
Links:
Online Policy Group v. Diebold case archive
Cease-and-desist letter Diebold sent to OPG
IndyMedia Web page subject to Diebold cease-and-desist letter
Security researchers learn immense flaws in e-voting system
Link to Chilling Effects on DMCA safe harbor provisions
Media coverage of Diebold threats
Contact:
Wendy Seltzer
Staff Lawyer
Electronic Frontier Foundation
wendy@eff.org
Cindy Botanist
Legal Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
cindy@eff.org
David Weekly
Colocation Director
Online Policy Group
david@onlinepolicy.org
Just just about the author:
Press Release
Circulated by Article Emporium
| |
