CDT Launches ITU Resource Center for Advocates

In Dubai this December, the world's governments will decide whether the International Telecommunication Union – a UN agency – should expand its authority to cover Internet policy and technical standards, a move that could pose grave risks to the exercise of human rights online.

But that path is not a given. Today CDT is announcing the launch of its ITU Resource Center aimed at providing a set of key resources for advocates, activists, and anyone interested in learning about and taking action on the ITU's upcoming conference. These resources were developed by CDT's international team in partnership with several of our civil society peers.

Open Internet advocates around the world can play a key role in the debate leading up to the conference by urging their governments to support proposals that will protect the open Internet. However, many of the issues at stake are technically complex, and the ITU process itself is non-transparent and difficult for individuals to follow and participate in.

The goal of the ITU Resource Center is to help open Internet advocates learn about the process, the proposals on the table, and ways that they can make their voices heard. The Resource Center includes all of CDT's analyses of treaty proposals and the ITU process; a toolkit with key messages, an ITU timeline, and other resources for advocates; and an ever-growing list of op-eds and expert commentary on the ITU.

Materials developed by CDT are under a Creative Commons license. We encourage advocates to reuse, remix, and distribute (non-commercially) these materials in their work on the issue.

We also encourage our readers to spread the word about our new resources on social media. We'll be tweeting about it @CenDemTech using the #OpenITU hashtag.

View the original article here

House Extends Warrantless Surveillance Law

Over the objections of an array of privacy groups, the House voted to extend the law permitting the government to eavesdrop on international communications--such as email and phone calls--between U.S. citizens and individuals "reasonably believed to be" foreigners living outside the U.S.

The law in question is the FISA Amendments Act, which gives the government broad surveillance powers that are "conducted without meaningful judicial authorization and without probable cause," the letter says.

CDT opposes reauthorization because safeguards to protect the privacy of Americans' communications have not been included in the House legislation.  The Senate is expected to take up the legislation, and some safeguards, this fall.  

View the original article here

ECPA Amendment Adopted Despite Flurry of Law Enforcement Letters

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment that would require law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant in order to access the contents of email and other personal and proprietary electronic communications. The warrant-for-content amendment to the Senate version of H.R. 2471 would update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which currently extends the warrant requirement only to email 180 days old or less, and does not protect documents stored “in the cloud” by remote computing services. The Committee is expected to take up the bill again when it returns after the November elections.

The vote is particularly significant because it comes in face of a flurry of letters from law enforcement entities [states and locals, FLEOA, FBIAA] that raised concerns about the warrant-for-content amendment that Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) championed and that the companies and privacy organizations who signed this letter supported as well as civil rights organizations. Law enforcement officers do critically important work to fight crime, and electronic evidence is important to their investigations.  Their views carry great weight. But, some of the concerns raised in their letters are simply not raised by the legislation.

For example, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association speculated that legislation requiring a warrant for content in criminal investigations could effect the standard for pen registers, trap and trace devices, and National Security Letters in intelligence investigations, none of which can even be used to obtain content. Six state and local law enforcement agencies argued that the bill should be amended to give law enforcement the power to “freeze” electronic evidence in place while a warrant for the evidence is sought. But they ignored the provision of ECPA that already gives law enforcement this authority, without meeting any standard and without judicial authorization - 18 USC 2704. We responded to this, and to other concerns raised by state and local law enforcement, in this letter.

Understanding the concerns of law enforcement is absolutely critical to advancing the goals of privacy, security, and business innovation. We are committed to continuing to work with law enforcement entities, former law enforcement officials, providers of communication service and congressional staff to understand and address law enforcement concerns as ECPA reform legislation moves forward.

View the original article here

Why Was PTO Filtering Its WiFi - and Blocking cdt.org?

Why on earth would a government agency blacklist the websites of advocacy groups like CDT, ACLU, EFF, and PK from the WiFi network it offers to visitors?  Yesterday, Jamie Love caught the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office blocking access to the website of his organization (KEI) and a variety of others.  The agency quickly ceased blocking the sites when Love's discovery became public, but the episode raises a number of troubling questions.

What's the rationale for trying to block "political/activist groups" sites from this network in the first place?  The network in question is a WiFi system made available to attendees of PTO's Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA) and other visitors to the PTO's building (not PTO employees, apparently).  GIPA provides training programs to foreign government officials on intellectual property issues.  So, the United States - the world's leading proponent of global Internet freedom, having made this a core element of its foreign policy - invites foreign officials from around the globe to come for an educational program . . . and then actively censors the Internet access it offers them, screening out pesky groups who insist on speaking out about political issues?  Seriously?  What kind of message does that send to our foreign visitors - that the U.S. Government, for all its lip service about the virtues of unfettered and uncensored Internet access, recognizes the need for censorship when it comes to the systems it runs itself?

PTO now points the finger at a contractor.  But surely the contractor didn't spontaneously decide to filter web access for PTO's guests.  The question is, what kind of instructions did PTO give to its contractor regarding filtering?  What kind of supervision did it provide?  And how long has this blocking been going on?

The other interesting question is, who was tasked with deciding what websites to block, and what criteria did they use?  Is it just coincidence that many of the advocacy groups blocked by the filter have been critics of some aspects of current intellectual property policy, and often take positions that are at odds with some of the large intellectual property trade associations and companies?  As CDT recently explained in comments to the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, copyright policymakers need to start showing that they understand and are sensitive to the broad range of interests involved in copyright policy.  If policymakers are perceived as catering only to a narrow set of corporate interests, it will further erode respect for copyright in general.  Blocking websites of dissenting voices is not a good way to start.

View the original article here

Review: Samsung Galaxy S3 4G

Months after the original 3G version of the amazing Samsung Galaxy S3 launched in Australia, Samsung has updated the handset to 4G to take advantage of the super fast speeds of the Optus and Telstra 4G networks.

Read TechRadar's comprehensive Samsung Galaxy S3 review!

Aside from the different colour options and the 4G, there's very little difference between this 4G model and the original.

The LTE version does come with Jelly Bean pre-istalled, although it's hardly noticeable after Samsung adds its Android skin to the user interface.

Because both Telstra and Optus use the 1800MHz LTE spectrum, there's no difference between handsets on Telstra and Optus, aside from the pre-installed bloatware apps that come from each carrier.

The key difference between this 4G handset and something like the One XL from HTC is that Samsung has managed to keep the quad-core Exonysis processor on board, while HTC dropped back to a dual-core processor. Samsung has also increased the amount of RAM in the 4G version to 2GB.

With those additional specs on board, you know that battery life is going to take a hit. And it does, as we'll discuss below.

There's a reason Optus decided to use this handset as its flagship 4G phone. It's an absolute powerhouse, and the addition of LTE connectivity only pushes that even further.

We tested the handset with an Optus SIM card, and while Optus' 4G network doesn't have the greatest coverage area, the advantages were still self-evident.

In our offices in North Sydney the SGS3 regularly managed to pull down speeds of 20Mbps, with upload speeds averaging around the 8Mbps range. And that's with a half-strength signal.

At various times and places around the city, we managed to pull down in excess of 30Mbps.

Browsing the web on LTE is also noticeably faster than the 3G version of the handset, and while it's far from a scientific result, we noticed that emails appeared on the 4G SGS3 before our iPhone 5 and our computer.

Of course, once you veer outside of the limited LTE coverage area, you end up on either network's HSPA+ network.

This isn't a bad speed experience by any stretch of the imagination, but is only on par with the 3G version of the phone.

This raises the question - how much time do you spend in an LTE coverage area? Because if you don't get LTE in the areas you most frequently use your phone, the benefits of the faster speed are quickly outweighed by the battery issue.

With that 4G chipset and a quad-core processor combining to power this super-phone, there has to be sacrifices made. And that sacrifice is battery life.

With moderate use, we couldn't get the handset to last a full work day, let alone a full day.

This can't be understated. With regular use - we're talking email, some web browsing, a spot of Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja and browsing the Play Store, the phone started crying for a power point.

While the SGS3's battery life was pretty good, which makes this really feels like a step backwards for Samsung, despite the fact the phone is essentially identical.

The replaceable battery aspect of the GS3 comes in handy here, but that seems like an inelegant solution to a pretty big issue.

Ultimately, we would have preferred a slightly larger battery in the 4G version of the handset, even if it required fattening the phone up a little bit to accomplish.

The choice between a 3G Samsung Galaxy S3 and a 4G version is actually quite a simple one. It all comes down to how you answer the question, "Do I need speed or staying power from my smartphone?"

If having access to information immediately at any cost is your desire, than the 4G SGS3 is a great option.

But if you spend your day away from a power source and need your smartphone to stay awake as long as you do, forget about the 4G version. Or at the very least, invest in a couple of extra batteries

Of course, that same situation applies to pretty much every 4G handset, so don't think of this as a Samsung problem.

The truth is that battery technology hasn't kept pace with the advances of mobile network technology, and the current range of handsets all rely on sacrificing longevity for speed.

View the original article here

Hands-on review: iPad 4

The new iPad 4 looks nearly the same as the third-gen iPad that it's totally replacing in the lineup - it has the Lightning connector that debuted with the iPhone 5, and it's of course faster.

Apple CEO Tim Cook introduces the iPad 4

Apple is keeping the iPad 2 around as the $399 get-em-in-the-door option, and that's a smarter move than putting the iPad 3 on sale in its place. It will be a lot easier to upsell customers from the iPad 2's non-Retina display to the new iPad, whereas the iPad 4 isn't a must-have compared to the iPad 3 - unless you have a million Lightning cables around, and who does?

Are you wondering what the iPad rival to the Nexus 7 or Kindle Fire HD is like? Check our hands on: iPad mini review to find out!

In our hands-on, the 9.7-inch screen looked just as bright and bold as always, because it's ... well ... the same screen.

Apple loves to tout display tech improvements, since having top-notch screens is one of the key benefits of all of Apple's gear, from the iPod touch all the way up to the Retina MacBook Pros. So it's safe to bet the new iPad 4 screen is the same on the third-gen iPad that came out in March of this year.

It's got a 2048x1536 resolution, at 264 pixels per inch, and IPS technology makes it easy to see from wide angles. You can hold this new iPad nearly flat before the display becomes hard to see.

Apple also upgraded the new iPad with a dual-core A6X system-on-a-chip with quad core graphics - it claims the iPad 4 delivers twice the performance and twice the graphics power as the A5X in the third-gen iPad.

That A5X, upon teardown, turned out to have a 1GHz clock speed and 1GB of RAM. We weren't allowed to run proper benchmarking tools on the demo unit (like Geekbench) to try to determine clock speed and RAM for the new iPad. But apps opened quickly on the new iPad, and switching between them with four-finger multi-touch swipes seemed even more responsive and effortless than the already-speedy iPad 3.

The front and rear cameras on the new iPad are the same as before, but the A6X chip has improved the image signal processing, adding support for facial recognition and image stabilization. We couldn't test this camera side-by-side against an iPad 3's, but the facial recognition worked as it should on the iPad 4, automatically finding faces as we composed our shots and keeping them in focus.

The Lightning port, if you haven't seen it on the iPhone 5 yet, is laughingly slim compared to the honking 30-pin port it replaces. A Lightning connector is tiny but feels sturdy, and can be inserted either way. So you never find yourself trying to shove it in the wrong way, and you never feel the metal-on-metal crunch of pins when connecting.

It clicks into place smoothly and is held by tiny clips, strong enough to support the new iPad's weight.

Apple also rolled out Lightning versions of the popular iPad adapters and accessories. Lightning to VGA adapter for projectors is $49, and so is the Lightning Digital AV Adapter, which has an HDMI port.

For connecting cameras, the Lightning to USB Camera Adapter and Lightning to SD Card Camera Reader are sold separately for $29 each - you used to get both in one $29 package for 30-pin iPads, the iPad Camera Connection Kit. Finally, if you want to use your old 30-pin cables to charge and sync your iPad 4, the Lightning to 30-pin adapter is $29.

The other upgrade is the wireless connectivity, and it seems minor but should make a considerable difference. All the iPads get dual-band 802.11n Wi-Fi, using the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands for less interference for other devices without losing any range.

Plus, since the new iPad 4 can use both channels at once, you can get theoretical speeds of up to 150Mbps - faster than most Wi-Fi networks you'll encounter anyway.

Apple has previously rolled this out to the iPhone 5 and fifth generation iPod touch. In our hands-on with a Wi-Fi-only iPad 4, we noticed zippy page loads, and videos streamed on Vimeo.com played smoothly with no buffering. But we didn't get to test exact speeds.

Optional LTE networking was added in the last generation, and it's still available in this iPad, and supported by more carriers, especially outside the U.S.

The full list includes AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Duetsche Telekom, EE, Rogers, Fido, Bell, Telus, Telstra, Koodo Mobile, SingTel, SmarTone, KT, SK Telecom, KDDI, StarHub, SoftBank, Optus, Virgin Mobile, and Hong Kong Telecom.

Since the iPad 4 didn't change size or shape - only the Lightning connector is different - it should have the same 42.5 watt-hour battery as the previous iPad, and Apple says it'll get the same 10 hours of battery life.

The iPad 4's connector is like the iPad mini's, pictured here

The fourth-gen new iPad was probably the least-popular item in the demo room - it's hard to compete with an all-new iPad mini and super-thin iMacs and MacBook Pros. If you've used an iPad, it's already totally familiar - same shape, same size, same svelte 1.44 pound weight (652 grams, or 1.46 pounds/662 grams for the cellular version).

Like the iPad mini, the new iPad 4 can be ordered on Oct 26 for delivery on Nov 2. And, 4G-enabled models will ship a few weeks later at the end of November.

If you just upgraded your iPad in the spring, don't worry that you're missing much with this bump in the new iPad 4. We know a lot of people will feel betrayed, having thought they were getting the best Apple has to offer for at least a year - but that shouldn't cause that much consternation.

However, if you're still using an iPad 2 or an original iPad, it's a significant step up, and still brings all the same Apple bells, whistles and whizzbangwhoosh that most have come to expect from the Cupertino's most popular tablet.

View the original article here

Shielding the Messengers: (Court-Ordered) Notice-and-Takedown, the Chilean Approach

This post is part of our ‘Shielding the Messengers’ series, which examines issues related to intermediary liability protections, both in the U.S. and globally. Without these protections, the Internet as we know it today–a platform where diverse content and free expression thrive–would not exist.

In 2010, Chile updated its copyright law with a novel approach for protecting Internet intermediaries from liability for their users’ copyright infringement.  Though modeled on the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the law differs in one crucial respect: While a cornerstone of the US law is its private notice-and-takedown system, the Chilean law requires that rightsholders secure a court order before content must be taken down.

Today, CDT released a short report on the Chilean law, examining the balance the law strikes among the rights of copyright-holders, intermediaries, and Internet users.  As we explain in the paper, the law offers greater certainty to intermediaries as to when content should be removed, and court oversight may well prevent some of the mistakes we have seen under the US system.

On the other hand, some rightsholders have expressed dissatisfaction with the law, since having to go to court significantly raises the burden on them when requesting takedowns.  Despite these objections, the Chilean Congress repeatedly rejected amendments that would have allowed for DMCA-style private takedowns, believing that the approach of relying on court orders was best for ensuring Internet users’ constitutional rights were protected.

CDT believes the balance struck by the DMCA remains viable in many respects. (We do, however, caution against extending the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown regime beyond copyright.)  Nonetheless, the Chilean law has provided an important and interesting new model worth considering.  It remains to be seen as courts implement the law whether it does in practice provide reasonable protection for rightsholders, intermediaries, and users.  Anecdotally, we have heard from colleagues in Chile that no one has sought a court order.  Instead, it seems rightsholders may be taking advantage of notice-forwarding requirements (see below) in the law to communicate directly with users to request the removal of infringing content.

Notice-forwarding requirements, whereby ISPs and content hosts are required to pass along notices of apparent or alleged infringement to subscribers, present yet a third model for dealing with online copyright infringement.  As CDT commented when US ISPs announced the Copyright Alert System, notice-forwarding can serve an important educational function and has the potential to deter a significant portion of online infringement.  Canada’s copyright reform act, passed earlier this summer, followed this approach.  We’re currently reviewing the law, and it will be the subject of a future report.

View the original article here