[Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia vs. NSA

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia vs. NSA

Katherine Maher
Hi all,

I’d like to share an update and next steps in our lawsuit against the U.S.
National Security Agency (NSA), Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA.[1] As you’ll
recall, in March 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation joined eight other
plaintiffs in filing a suit in United States Federal District Court against
the NSA[2] and the Department of Justice,[3] among others. We have been
represented pro bono[4] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[5] and
the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.[6] The law
firm Cooley LLP[7] has also been serving as pro bono co-counsel for the
Foundation.

Since we’re coming on the three-year anniversary, I wanted to offer a
reminder of why we filed this suit. Our challenge supports the foundational
values of our movement: the right to freedom of expression and access to
information. Free knowledge requires freedom of inquiry, particularly in
the case of challenging and unpopular truths. Each day people around the
world engage with difficult and controversial subjects on Wikipedia and
other Wikimedia projects. Pervasive mass surveillance brings the threat of
reprisal, creates a chilling effect, and undermines the freedoms upon which
our projects and communities are founded. In bringing this suit, we joined
a tradition of knowledge stewards who have fought to preserve the integrity
of intellectual inquiry.

Our lawsuit challenges dragnet surveillance by the NSA, specifically the
large-scale seizing and searching of Internet communications frequently
referred to as “Upstream” surveillance.[8] The U.S. government is tapping
directly into the internet’s “backbone”[9]—the network of high-capacity
cables, switches, and routers that carry domestic and international
communications—and seizing and searching virtually all text-based internet
communications flowing into and out of the United States. It’s this
backbone that connects the global Wikimedia community to our projects.
These communications are being seized and searched without any requirement
that there be suspicion, for example, that the communications have a
connection to terrorism or national security threats.

Last May, we reached an important milestone: a Federal Court of Appeals[10]
in the United States ruled[11] that the Foundation alone had plausibly
alleged “standing”[12] to proceed with our claims that Upstream mass
surveillance seizes and searches of the online communications of Wikimedia
users, contributors and Foundation staff in violation of the U.S.
Constitution and other laws. The Court of Appeals’ ruling means that we are
the sole remaining plaintiff among the nine original co-plaintiffs. There
is still a long road ahead, but this intermediate victory makes this case
one of the most important vehicles for challenging the legality of this
particular NSA surveillance practice.

As a result of our win in the appellate court, we are now proceeding to the
next stage of the case: discovery.[13] In the U.S. court system, parties
use the discovery stage to exchange evidence and ask each other questions
about their claims. We have requested information and documents from the
government, and they have made similar requests from us. The entire phase,
which will also involve research and reports from experts, is expected to
last the next few months.

As part of our commitment to privacy, I want you to know about what this
stage of the case means for our data retention practices. Our goal in
bringing this lawsuit was to protect user information. In this case, like
other litigation in which we engage, we may sometimes be legally required
to preserve some information longer than the standard 90-day period in our
data retention guidelines. These special cases are acknowledged and
permitted by our privacy and data retention policies.[14]

As always, however, we remain committed to keeping user data no longer than
legally necessary. We never publish the exact details of litigation-related
data retention, as part of our legal strategy to keep personal data safe.
And we defend any personal data from disclosure to the maximum extent,
taking both legal and technical measures to do so. We are keeping sensitive
material encrypted and offline, and we have the support of the experienced
legal teams at the ACLU and Cooley in ensuring its safety and integrity.
Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA is currently one of the only freedom of
expression and access to knowledge cases being prosecuted against
government surveillance overreach. Unfortunately, the recent extension of
these surveillance practices by the U.S. Congress[15] demonstrates that the
courts may well be the only venue to stop or restrict these practices.

The nature of litigation means that we will not always be able to discuss
certain details of any case in public. For example, deliberations about
tactical or strategic decisions will need to remain confidential in order
to preserve the attorney-client privilege.[16] In such situations,
particularly in a sensitive and important case like this, we are always
balancing the need for confidentiality with our commitment to transparency.
So while some information will not be public, we want to be available to
address your questions, should you have any. Please direct them to Greg
Varnum [hidden email], who can help provide answers.

We will continue keeping you updated on our progress and anything that
might affect our communities and visitors to the Wikimedia sites.[17]

I would like to thank Tilman Bayer, Nuria Ruiz, Faidon Liambotis, Andrew
Otto, James Alexander, Brandon Black, Byron Bogaert, Dan Foy, Grace
Gellerman, Aeryn Palmer and Jim Buatti for their extensive dedication to
this case.  And thanks to the C-levels supporting this work, Eileen
Hershenov, Victoria Coleman, and Toby Negrin.

Yours,
Katherine

[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
[6] https://knightcolumbia.org/
[7] https://www.cooley.com/
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals
[11] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
[14] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines
[15]
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-surveillance/trump-signs-bill-renewing-nsas-internet-surveillance-program-idUSKBN1F82MK

[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege
[17] https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/

*Previous updates for your review:*

June 23 2017
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
June 16 2017
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/
May 23 2017
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
December 9 2016
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/09/wikimedia-v-nsa-hearing-fourth-circuit/
October 17 2016
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/10/17/wikimedia-v-nsa-appeal-hearing/
May 9 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/09/wikimedia-nsa-appeal/
April 11 2016
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/11/new-resource-wikimedia-nsa/
February 17 2016
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/17/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-filed/
December 15 2015
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/15/wikimedia-nsa-notice-of-appeal/
October 23 2015
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-lawsuit-dismissal/
September 28 2015
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/28/wikimedia-nsa-first-hearing/
September 4 2015
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/04/motion-to-dismiss-wikimedia-v-nsa/
March 10 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/

--
Katherine Maher

Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
[hidden email]
https://annual.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia vs. NSA

Philippe Beaudette-4
Great update, thank you.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Katherine Maher <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I’d like to share an update and next steps in our lawsuit against the U.S.
> National Security Agency (NSA), Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA.[1] As you’ll
> recall, in March 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation joined eight other
> plaintiffs in filing a suit in United States Federal District Court against
> the NSA[2] and the Department of Justice,[3] among others. We have been
> represented pro bono[4] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[5] and
> the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.[6] The law
> firm Cooley LLP[7] has also been serving as pro bono co-counsel for the
> Foundation.
>
> Since we’re coming on the three-year anniversary, I wanted to offer a
> reminder of why we filed this suit. Our challenge supports the foundational
> values of our movement: the right to freedom of expression and access to
> information. Free knowledge requires freedom of inquiry, particularly in
> the case of challenging and unpopular truths. Each day people around the
> world engage with difficult and controversial subjects on Wikipedia and
> other Wikimedia projects. Pervasive mass surveillance brings the threat of
> reprisal, creates a chilling effect, and undermines the freedoms upon which
> our projects and communities are founded. In bringing this suit, we joined
> a tradition of knowledge stewards who have fought to preserve the integrity
> of intellectual inquiry.
>
> Our lawsuit challenges dragnet surveillance by the NSA, specifically the
> large-scale seizing and searching of Internet communications frequently
> referred to as “Upstream” surveillance.[8] The U.S. government is tapping
> directly into the internet’s “backbone”[9]—the network of high-capacity
> cables, switches, and routers that carry domestic and international
> communications—and seizing and searching virtually all text-based internet
> communications flowing into and out of the United States. It’s this
> backbone that connects the global Wikimedia community to our projects.
> These communications are being seized and searched without any requirement
> that there be suspicion, for example, that the communications have a
> connection to terrorism or national security threats.
>
> Last May, we reached an important milestone: a Federal Court of Appeals[10]
> in the United States ruled[11] that the Foundation alone had plausibly
> alleged “standing”[12] to proceed with our claims that Upstream mass
> surveillance seizes and searches of the online communications of Wikimedia
> users, contributors and Foundation staff in violation of the U.S.
> Constitution and other laws. The Court of Appeals’ ruling means that we are
> the sole remaining plaintiff among the nine original co-plaintiffs. There
> is still a long road ahead, but this intermediate victory makes this case
> one of the most important vehicles for challenging the legality of this
> particular NSA surveillance practice.
>
> As a result of our win in the appellate court, we are now proceeding to the
> next stage of the case: discovery.[13] In the U.S. court system, parties
> use the discovery stage to exchange evidence and ask each other questions
> about their claims. We have requested information and documents from the
> government, and they have made similar requests from us. The entire phase,
> which will also involve research and reports from experts, is expected to
> last the next few months.
>
> As part of our commitment to privacy, I want you to know about what this
> stage of the case means for our data retention practices. Our goal in
> bringing this lawsuit was to protect user information. In this case, like
> other litigation in which we engage, we may sometimes be legally required
> to preserve some information longer than the standard 90-day period in our
> data retention guidelines. These special cases are acknowledged and
> permitted by our privacy and data retention policies.[14]
>
> As always, however, we remain committed to keeping user data no longer than
> legally necessary. We never publish the exact details of litigation-related
> data retention, as part of our legal strategy to keep personal data safe.
> And we defend any personal data from disclosure to the maximum extent,
> taking both legal and technical measures to do so. We are keeping sensitive
> material encrypted and offline, and we have the support of the experienced
> legal teams at the ACLU and Cooley in ensuring its safety and integrity.
> Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA is currently one of the only freedom of
> expression and access to knowledge cases being prosecuted against
> government surveillance overreach. Unfortunately, the recent extension of
> these surveillance practices by the U.S. Congress[15] demonstrates that the
> courts may well be the only venue to stop or restrict these practices.
>
> The nature of litigation means that we will not always be able to discuss
> certain details of any case in public. For example, deliberations about
> tactical or strategic decisions will need to remain confidential in order
> to preserve the attorney-client privilege.[16] In such situations,
> particularly in a sensitive and important case like this, we are always
> balancing the need for confidentiality with our commitment to transparency.
> So while some information will not be public, we want to be available to
> address your questions, should you have any. Please direct them to Greg
> Varnum [hidden email], who can help provide answers.
>
> We will continue keeping you updated on our progress and anything that
> might affect our communities and visitors to the Wikimedia sites.[17]
>
> I would like to thank Tilman Bayer, Nuria Ruiz, Faidon Liambotis, Andrew
> Otto, James Alexander, Brandon Black, Byron Bogaert, Dan Foy, Grace
> Gellerman, Aeryn Palmer and Jim Buatti for their extensive dedication to
> this case.  And thanks to the C-levels supporting this work, Eileen
> Hershenov, Victoria Coleman, and Toby Negrin.
>
> Yours,
> Katherine
>
> [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice
> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
> [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
> [6] https://knightcolumbia.org/
> [7] https://www.cooley.com/
> [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection
> [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone
> [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals
> [11] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
> [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
> [13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
> [14] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines
> [15]
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-
> surveillance/trump-signs-bill-renewing-nsas-internet-surveillance-program-
> idUSKBN1F82MK
>
> [16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege
> [17] https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/
>
> *Previous updates for your review:*
>
> June 23 2017
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
> June 16 2017
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/
> May 23 2017
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
> December 9 2016
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/09/wikimedia-v-nsa-
> hearing-fourth-circuit/
> October 17 2016
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/10/17/wikimedia-v-nsa-appeal-hearing/
> May 9 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/09/wikimedia-nsa-appeal/
> April 11 2016
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/11/new-resource-wikimedia-nsa/
> February 17 2016
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/17/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-filed/
> December 15 2015
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/15/wikimedia-nsa-notice-of-appeal/
> October 23 2015
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-lawsuit-dismissal/
> September 28 2015
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/28/wikimedia-nsa-first-hearing/
> September 4 2015
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/04/motion-to-dismiss-wikimedia-v-nsa/
> March 10 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> San Francisco, CA 94104
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> [hidden email]
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--


Philippe Beaudette

[hidden email]
415-275-1424
415-889-9614
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia vs. NSA

Nadine Le Lirzin
Thank you, Katherine. At once for such a precise update and for going
ahead.
Also many thanks to all who dedicate time and work to this case.

Nadine Le Lirzin
Wikimédia France


On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 at 01:42, Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Great update, thank you.
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Katherine Maher <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I’d like to share an update and next steps in our lawsuit against the
> U.S.
> > National Security Agency (NSA), Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA.[1] As you’ll
> > recall, in March 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation joined eight other
> > plaintiffs in filing a suit in United States Federal District Court
> against
> > the NSA[2] and the Department of Justice,[3] among others. We have been
> > represented pro bono[4] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[5]
> and
> > the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.[6] The law
> > firm Cooley LLP[7] has also been serving as pro bono co-counsel for the
> > Foundation.
> >
> > Since we’re coming on the three-year anniversary, I wanted to offer a
> > reminder of why we filed this suit. Our challenge supports the
> foundational
> > values of our movement: the right to freedom of expression and access to
> > information. Free knowledge requires freedom of inquiry, particularly in
> > the case of challenging and unpopular truths. Each day people around the
> > world engage with difficult and controversial subjects on Wikipedia and
> > other Wikimedia projects. Pervasive mass surveillance brings the threat
> of
> > reprisal, creates a chilling effect, and undermines the freedoms upon
> which
> > our projects and communities are founded. In bringing this suit, we
> joined
> > a tradition of knowledge stewards who have fought to preserve the
> integrity
> > of intellectual inquiry.
> >
> > Our lawsuit challenges dragnet surveillance by the NSA, specifically the
> > large-scale seizing and searching of Internet communications frequently
> > referred to as “Upstream” surveillance.[8] The U.S. government is tapping
> > directly into the internet’s “backbone”[9]—the network of high-capacity
> > cables, switches, and routers that carry domestic and international
> > communications—and seizing and searching virtually all text-based
> internet
> > communications flowing into and out of the United States. It’s this
> > backbone that connects the global Wikimedia community to our projects.
> > These communications are being seized and searched without any
> requirement
> > that there be suspicion, for example, that the communications have a
> > connection to terrorism or national security threats.
> >
> > Last May, we reached an important milestone: a Federal Court of
> Appeals[10]
> > in the United States ruled[11] that the Foundation alone had plausibly
> > alleged “standing”[12] to proceed with our claims that Upstream mass
> > surveillance seizes and searches of the online communications of
> Wikimedia
> > users, contributors and Foundation staff in violation of the U.S.
> > Constitution and other laws. The Court of Appeals’ ruling means that we
> are
> > the sole remaining plaintiff among the nine original co-plaintiffs. There
> > is still a long road ahead, but this intermediate victory makes this case
> > one of the most important vehicles for challenging the legality of this
> > particular NSA surveillance practice.
> >
> > As a result of our win in the appellate court, we are now proceeding to
> the
> > next stage of the case: discovery.[13] In the U.S. court system, parties
> > use the discovery stage to exchange evidence and ask each other questions
> > about their claims. We have requested information and documents from the
> > government, and they have made similar requests from us. The entire
> phase,
> > which will also involve research and reports from experts, is expected to
> > last the next few months.
> >
> > As part of our commitment to privacy, I want you to know about what this
> > stage of the case means for our data retention practices. Our goal in
> > bringing this lawsuit was to protect user information. In this case, like
> > other litigation in which we engage, we may sometimes be legally required
> > to preserve some information longer than the standard 90-day period in
> our
> > data retention guidelines. These special cases are acknowledged and
> > permitted by our privacy and data retention policies.[14]
> >
> > As always, however, we remain committed to keeping user data no longer
> than
> > legally necessary. We never publish the exact details of
> litigation-related
> > data retention, as part of our legal strategy to keep personal data safe.
> > And we defend any personal data from disclosure to the maximum extent,
> > taking both legal and technical measures to do so. We are keeping
> sensitive
> > material encrypted and offline, and we have the support of the
> experienced
> > legal teams at the ACLU and Cooley in ensuring its safety and integrity.
> > Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA is currently one of the only freedom of
> > expression and access to knowledge cases being prosecuted against
> > government surveillance overreach. Unfortunately, the recent extension of
> > these surveillance practices by the U.S. Congress[15] demonstrates that
> the
> > courts may well be the only venue to stop or restrict these practices.
> >
> > The nature of litigation means that we will not always be able to discuss
> > certain details of any case in public. For example, deliberations about
> > tactical or strategic decisions will need to remain confidential in order
> > to preserve the attorney-client privilege.[16] In such situations,
> > particularly in a sensitive and important case like this, we are always
> > balancing the need for confidentiality with our commitment to
> transparency.
> > So while some information will not be public, we want to be available to
> > address your questions, should you have any. Please direct them to Greg
> > Varnum [hidden email], who can help provide answers.
> >
> > We will continue keeping you updated on our progress and anything that
> > might affect our communities and visitors to the Wikimedia sites.[17]
> >
> > I would like to thank Tilman Bayer, Nuria Ruiz, Faidon Liambotis, Andrew
> > Otto, James Alexander, Brandon Black, Byron Bogaert, Dan Foy, Grace
> > Gellerman, Aeryn Palmer and Jim Buatti for their extensive dedication to
> > this case.  And thanks to the C-levels supporting this work, Eileen
> > Hershenov, Victoria Coleman, and Toby Negrin.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Katherine
> >
> > [1]
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
> > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
> > [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice
> > [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
> > [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
> > [6] https://knightcolumbia.org/
> > [7] https://www.cooley.com/
> > [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection
> > [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone
> > [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals
> > [11]
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
> > [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
> > [13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
> > [14] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines
> > [15]
> > https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-
> >
> surveillance/trump-signs-bill-renewing-nsas-internet-surveillance-program-
> > idUSKBN1F82MK
> >
> > [16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege
> > [17] https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/
> >
> > *Previous updates for your review:*
> >
> > June 23 2017
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
> > June 16 2017
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/
> > May 23 2017
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
> > December 9 2016
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/09/wikimedia-v-nsa-
> > hearing-fourth-circuit/
> > October 17 2016
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/10/17/wikimedia-v-nsa-appeal-hearing/
> > May 9 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/09/wikimedia-nsa-appeal/
> > April 11 2016
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/11/new-resource-wikimedia-nsa/
> > February 17 2016
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/17/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-filed/
> > December 15 2015
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/15/wikimedia-nsa-notice-of-appeal/
> > October 23 2015
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-lawsuit-dismissal/
> > September 28 2015
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/28/wikimedia-nsa-first-hearing/
> > September 4 2015
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/04/motion-to-dismiss-wikimedia-v-nsa/
> > March 10 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/
> >
> > --
> > Katherine Maher
> >
> > Executive Director
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> > San Francisco, CA 94104
> >
> > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> > +1 (415) 712 4873
> > [hidden email]
> > https://annual.wikimedia.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Philippe Beaudette
>
> [hidden email]
> 415-275-1424
> 415-889-9614
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia vs. NSA

Dumisani Ndubane
Thanks for the update

This is a good stand to take, seeing that our vision and mission demands it
of us.

*Dumisani Ndubane*
Monitoring & Evaluation Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation

✆ | +27 74 587 8616
✉ | [hidden email]  <[hidden email]>

https://donate.wikimedia.org/

*"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge."*

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Nadine Le Lirzin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Thank you, Katherine. At once for such a precise update and for going
> ahead.
> Also many thanks to all who dedicate time and work to this case.
>
> Nadine Le Lirzin
> Wikimédia France
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 at 01:42, Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Great update, thank you.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Katherine Maher <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I’d like to share an update and next steps in our lawsuit against the
> > U.S.
> > > National Security Agency (NSA), Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA.[1] As
> you’ll
> > > recall, in March 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation joined eight other
> > > plaintiffs in filing a suit in United States Federal District Court
> > against
> > > the NSA[2] and the Department of Justice,[3] among others. We have been
> > > represented pro bono[4] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[5]
> > and
> > > the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.[6] The law
> > > firm Cooley LLP[7] has also been serving as pro bono co-counsel for the
> > > Foundation.
> > >
> > > Since we’re coming on the three-year anniversary, I wanted to offer a
> > > reminder of why we filed this suit. Our challenge supports the
> > foundational
> > > values of our movement: the right to freedom of expression and access
> to
> > > information. Free knowledge requires freedom of inquiry, particularly
> in
> > > the case of challenging and unpopular truths. Each day people around
> the
> > > world engage with difficult and controversial subjects on Wikipedia and
> > > other Wikimedia projects. Pervasive mass surveillance brings the threat
> > of
> > > reprisal, creates a chilling effect, and undermines the freedoms upon
> > which
> > > our projects and communities are founded. In bringing this suit, we
> > joined
> > > a tradition of knowledge stewards who have fought to preserve the
> > integrity
> > > of intellectual inquiry.
> > >
> > > Our lawsuit challenges dragnet surveillance by the NSA, specifically
> the
> > > large-scale seizing and searching of Internet communications frequently
> > > referred to as “Upstream” surveillance.[8] The U.S. government is
> tapping
> > > directly into the internet’s “backbone”[9]—the network of high-capacity
> > > cables, switches, and routers that carry domestic and international
> > > communications—and seizing and searching virtually all text-based
> > internet
> > > communications flowing into and out of the United States. It’s this
> > > backbone that connects the global Wikimedia community to our projects.
> > > These communications are being seized and searched without any
> > requirement
> > > that there be suspicion, for example, that the communications have a
> > > connection to terrorism or national security threats.
> > >
> > > Last May, we reached an important milestone: a Federal Court of
> > Appeals[10]
> > > in the United States ruled[11] that the Foundation alone had plausibly
> > > alleged “standing”[12] to proceed with our claims that Upstream mass
> > > surveillance seizes and searches of the online communications of
> > Wikimedia
> > > users, contributors and Foundation staff in violation of the U.S.
> > > Constitution and other laws. The Court of Appeals’ ruling means that we
> > are
> > > the sole remaining plaintiff among the nine original co-plaintiffs.
> There
> > > is still a long road ahead, but this intermediate victory makes this
> case
> > > one of the most important vehicles for challenging the legality of this
> > > particular NSA surveillance practice.
> > >
> > > As a result of our win in the appellate court, we are now proceeding to
> > the
> > > next stage of the case: discovery.[13] In the U.S. court system,
> parties
> > > use the discovery stage to exchange evidence and ask each other
> questions
> > > about their claims. We have requested information and documents from
> the
> > > government, and they have made similar requests from us. The entire
> > phase,
> > > which will also involve research and reports from experts, is expected
> to
> > > last the next few months.
> > >
> > > As part of our commitment to privacy, I want you to know about what
> this
> > > stage of the case means for our data retention practices. Our goal in
> > > bringing this lawsuit was to protect user information. In this case,
> like
> > > other litigation in which we engage, we may sometimes be legally
> required
> > > to preserve some information longer than the standard 90-day period in
> > our
> > > data retention guidelines. These special cases are acknowledged and
> > > permitted by our privacy and data retention policies.[14]
> > >
> > > As always, however, we remain committed to keeping user data no longer
> > than
> > > legally necessary. We never publish the exact details of
> > litigation-related
> > > data retention, as part of our legal strategy to keep personal data
> safe.
> > > And we defend any personal data from disclosure to the maximum extent,
> > > taking both legal and technical measures to do so. We are keeping
> > sensitive
> > > material encrypted and offline, and we have the support of the
> > experienced
> > > legal teams at the ACLU and Cooley in ensuring its safety and
> integrity.
> > > Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA is currently one of the only freedom of
> > > expression and access to knowledge cases being prosecuted against
> > > government surveillance overreach. Unfortunately, the recent extension
> of
> > > these surveillance practices by the U.S. Congress[15] demonstrates that
> > the
> > > courts may well be the only venue to stop or restrict these practices.
> > >
> > > The nature of litigation means that we will not always be able to
> discuss
> > > certain details of any case in public. For example, deliberations about
> > > tactical or strategic decisions will need to remain confidential in
> order
> > > to preserve the attorney-client privilege.[16] In such situations,
> > > particularly in a sensitive and important case like this, we are always
> > > balancing the need for confidentiality with our commitment to
> > transparency.
> > > So while some information will not be public, we want to be available
> to
> > > address your questions, should you have any. Please direct them to Greg
> > > Varnum [hidden email], who can help provide answers.
> > >
> > > We will continue keeping you updated on our progress and anything that
> > > might affect our communities and visitors to the Wikimedia sites.[17]
> > >
> > > I would like to thank Tilman Bayer, Nuria Ruiz, Faidon Liambotis,
> Andrew
> > > Otto, James Alexander, Brandon Black, Byron Bogaert, Dan Foy, Grace
> > > Gellerman, Aeryn Palmer and Jim Buatti for their extensive dedication
> to
> > > this case.  And thanks to the C-levels supporting this work, Eileen
> > > Hershenov, Victoria Coleman, and Toby Negrin.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Katherine
> > >
> > > [1]
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
> > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
> > > [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice
> > > [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
> > > [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
> > > [6] https://knightcolumbia.org/
> > > [7] https://www.cooley.com/
> > > [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection
> > > [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone
> > > [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals
> > > [11]
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
> > > [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
> > > [13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
> > > [14] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines
> > > [15]
> > > https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-
> > >
> > surveillance/trump-signs-bill-renewing-nsas-internet-
> surveillance-program-
> > > idUSKBN1F82MK
> > >
> > > [16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege
> > > [17] https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/
> > >
> > > *Previous updates for your review:*
> > >
> > > June 23 2017
> > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
> > > June 16 2017
> > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/
> > > May 23 2017
> > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
> > > December 9 2016
> > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/09/wikimedia-v-nsa-
> > > hearing-fourth-circuit/
> > > October 17 2016
> > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/10/17/wikimedia-v-nsa-appeal-hearing/
> > > May 9 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/09/wikimedia-nsa-appeal/
> > > April 11 2016
> > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/11/new-resource-wikimedia-nsa/
> > > February 17 2016
> > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/17/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-filed/
> > > December 15 2015
> > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/15/wikimedia-nsa-notice-of-appeal/
> > > October 23 2015
> > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-
> lawsuit-dismissal/
> > > September 28 2015
> > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/28/wikimedia-nsa-first-hearing/
> > > September 4 2015
> > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/04/motion-to-dismiss-
> wikimedia-v-nsa/
> > > March 10 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/
> > >
> > > --
> > > Katherine Maher
> > >
> > > Executive Director
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > >
> > > 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> > > San Francisco, CA 94104
> > >
> > > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> > > +1 (415) 712 4873
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://annual.wikimedia.org
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Philippe Beaudette
> >
> > [hidden email]
> > 415-275-1424
> > 415-889-9614
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia vs. NSA

Mathieu Stumpf Guntz
In reply to this post by Katherine Maher
Thank you Katherine for the update.

For Greg, I would like to know if there are some international courts in
which this could also lead to a lawsuit. I'm thinking to the
International Court of Justice, or the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, as I guess something like European Court of Human Rights would
be out of scope, although the global spying practice might suggest
otherwise.

If any lawsuit is possible in an international court, had this been
attempted by anyone, or had this been avoided for some specific reasons?

Cheers


Le 30/01/2018 à 01:14, Katherine Maher a écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> I’d like to share an update and next steps in our lawsuit against the U.S.
> National Security Agency (NSA), Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA.[1] As you’ll
> recall, in March 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation joined eight other
> plaintiffs in filing a suit in United States Federal District Court against
> the NSA[2] and the Department of Justice,[3] among others. We have been
> represented pro bono[4] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[5] and
> the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.[6] The law
> firm Cooley LLP[7] has also been serving as pro bono co-counsel for the
> Foundation.
>
> Since we’re coming on the three-year anniversary, I wanted to offer a
> reminder of why we filed this suit. Our challenge supports the foundational
> values of our movement: the right to freedom of expression and access to
> information. Free knowledge requires freedom of inquiry, particularly in
> the case of challenging and unpopular truths. Each day people around the
> world engage with difficult and controversial subjects on Wikipedia and
> other Wikimedia projects. Pervasive mass surveillance brings the threat of
> reprisal, creates a chilling effect, and undermines the freedoms upon which
> our projects and communities are founded. In bringing this suit, we joined
> a tradition of knowledge stewards who have fought to preserve the integrity
> of intellectual inquiry.
>
> Our lawsuit challenges dragnet surveillance by the NSA, specifically the
> large-scale seizing and searching of Internet communications frequently
> referred to as “Upstream” surveillance.[8] The U.S. government is tapping
> directly into the internet’s “backbone”[9]—the network of high-capacity
> cables, switches, and routers that carry domestic and international
> communications—and seizing and searching virtually all text-based internet
> communications flowing into and out of the United States. It’s this
> backbone that connects the global Wikimedia community to our projects.
> These communications are being seized and searched without any requirement
> that there be suspicion, for example, that the communications have a
> connection to terrorism or national security threats.
>
> Last May, we reached an important milestone: a Federal Court of Appeals[10]
> in the United States ruled[11] that the Foundation alone had plausibly
> alleged “standing”[12] to proceed with our claims that Upstream mass
> surveillance seizes and searches of the online communications of Wikimedia
> users, contributors and Foundation staff in violation of the U.S.
> Constitution and other laws. The Court of Appeals’ ruling means that we are
> the sole remaining plaintiff among the nine original co-plaintiffs. There
> is still a long road ahead, but this intermediate victory makes this case
> one of the most important vehicles for challenging the legality of this
> particular NSA surveillance practice.
>
> As a result of our win in the appellate court, we are now proceeding to the
> next stage of the case: discovery.[13] In the U.S. court system, parties
> use the discovery stage to exchange evidence and ask each other questions
> about their claims. We have requested information and documents from the
> government, and they have made similar requests from us. The entire phase,
> which will also involve research and reports from experts, is expected to
> last the next few months.
>
> As part of our commitment to privacy, I want you to know about what this
> stage of the case means for our data retention practices. Our goal in
> bringing this lawsuit was to protect user information. In this case, like
> other litigation in which we engage, we may sometimes be legally required
> to preserve some information longer than the standard 90-day period in our
> data retention guidelines. These special cases are acknowledged and
> permitted by our privacy and data retention policies.[14]
>
> As always, however, we remain committed to keeping user data no longer than
> legally necessary. We never publish the exact details of litigation-related
> data retention, as part of our legal strategy to keep personal data safe.
> And we defend any personal data from disclosure to the maximum extent,
> taking both legal and technical measures to do so. We are keeping sensitive
> material encrypted and offline, and we have the support of the experienced
> legal teams at the ACLU and Cooley in ensuring its safety and integrity.
> Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA is currently one of the only freedom of
> expression and access to knowledge cases being prosecuted against
> government surveillance overreach. Unfortunately, the recent extension of
> these surveillance practices by the U.S. Congress[15] demonstrates that the
> courts may well be the only venue to stop or restrict these practices.
>
> The nature of litigation means that we will not always be able to discuss
> certain details of any case in public. For example, deliberations about
> tactical or strategic decisions will need to remain confidential in order
> to preserve the attorney-client privilege.[16] In such situations,
> particularly in a sensitive and important case like this, we are always
> balancing the need for confidentiality with our commitment to transparency.
> So while some information will not be public, we want to be available to
> address your questions, should you have any. Please direct them to Greg
> Varnum [hidden email], who can help provide answers.
>
> We will continue keeping you updated on our progress and anything that
> might affect our communities and visitors to the Wikimedia sites.[17]
>
> I would like to thank Tilman Bayer, Nuria Ruiz, Faidon Liambotis, Andrew
> Otto, James Alexander, Brandon Black, Byron Bogaert, Dan Foy, Grace
> Gellerman, Aeryn Palmer and Jim Buatti for their extensive dedication to
> this case.  And thanks to the C-levels supporting this work, Eileen
> Hershenov, Victoria Coleman, and Toby Negrin.
>
> Yours,
> Katherine
>
> [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice
> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
> [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
> [6] https://knightcolumbia.org/
> [7] https://www.cooley.com/
> [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection
> [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone
> [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals
> [11] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
> [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
> [13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
> [14] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines
> [15]
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-surveillance/trump-signs-bill-renewing-nsas-internet-surveillance-program-idUSKBN1F82MK
>
> [16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege
> [17] https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/
>
> *Previous updates for your review:*
>
> June 23 2017
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
> June 16 2017
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/
> May 23 2017
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
> December 9 2016
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/09/wikimedia-v-nsa-hearing-fourth-circuit/
> October 17 2016
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/10/17/wikimedia-v-nsa-appeal-hearing/
> May 9 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/09/wikimedia-nsa-appeal/
> April 11 2016
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/11/new-resource-wikimedia-nsa/
> February 17 2016
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/17/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-filed/
> December 15 2015
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/15/wikimedia-nsa-notice-of-appeal/
> October 23 2015
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-lawsuit-dismissal/
> September 28 2015
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/28/wikimedia-nsa-first-hearing/
> September 4 2015
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/04/motion-to-dismiss-wikimedia-v-nsa/
> March 10 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia vs. NSA

Yaroslav Blanter
I though the United Stated, being the most democratic country of the world,
does not recognize decisions of international courts (and, specifically, it
withdrew from the International Court of Justice after a decision was taken
it did not like, and it never ratified the convention about the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights).

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:34 PM, mathieu stumpf guntz <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thank you Katherine for the update.
>
> For Greg, I would like to know if there are some international courts in
> which this could also lead to a lawsuit. I'm thinking to the International
> Court of Justice, or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as I guess
> something like European Court of Human Rights would be out of scope,
> although the global spying practice might suggest otherwise.
>
> If any lawsuit is possible in an international court, had this been
> attempted by anyone, or had this been avoided for some specific reasons?
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Le 30/01/2018 à 01:14, Katherine Maher a écrit :
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I’d like to share an update and next steps in our lawsuit against the U.S.
>> National Security Agency (NSA), Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA.[1] As you’ll
>> recall, in March 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation joined eight other
>> plaintiffs in filing a suit in United States Federal District Court
>> against
>> the NSA[2] and the Department of Justice,[3] among others. We have been
>> represented pro bono[4] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[5]
>> and
>> the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.[6] The law
>> firm Cooley LLP[7] has also been serving as pro bono co-counsel for the
>> Foundation.
>>
>> Since we’re coming on the three-year anniversary, I wanted to offer a
>> reminder of why we filed this suit. Our challenge supports the
>> foundational
>> values of our movement: the right to freedom of expression and access to
>> information. Free knowledge requires freedom of inquiry, particularly in
>> the case of challenging and unpopular truths. Each day people around the
>> world engage with difficult and controversial subjects on Wikipedia and
>> other Wikimedia projects. Pervasive mass surveillance brings the threat of
>> reprisal, creates a chilling effect, and undermines the freedoms upon
>> which
>> our projects and communities are founded. In bringing this suit, we joined
>> a tradition of knowledge stewards who have fought to preserve the
>> integrity
>> of intellectual inquiry.
>>
>> Our lawsuit challenges dragnet surveillance by the NSA, specifically the
>> large-scale seizing and searching of Internet communications frequently
>> referred to as “Upstream” surveillance.[8] The U.S. government is tapping
>> directly into the internet’s “backbone”[9]—the network of high-capacity
>> cables, switches, and routers that carry domestic and international
>> communications—and seizing and searching virtually all text-based internet
>> communications flowing into and out of the United States. It’s this
>> backbone that connects the global Wikimedia community to our projects.
>> These communications are being seized and searched without any requirement
>> that there be suspicion, for example, that the communications have a
>> connection to terrorism or national security threats.
>>
>> Last May, we reached an important milestone: a Federal Court of
>> Appeals[10]
>> in the United States ruled[11] that the Foundation alone had plausibly
>> alleged “standing”[12] to proceed with our claims that Upstream mass
>> surveillance seizes and searches of the online communications of Wikimedia
>> users, contributors and Foundation staff in violation of the U.S.
>> Constitution and other laws. The Court of Appeals’ ruling means that we
>> are
>> the sole remaining plaintiff among the nine original co-plaintiffs. There
>> is still a long road ahead, but this intermediate victory makes this case
>> one of the most important vehicles for challenging the legality of this
>> particular NSA surveillance practice.
>>
>> As a result of our win in the appellate court, we are now proceeding to
>> the
>> next stage of the case: discovery.[13] In the U.S. court system, parties
>> use the discovery stage to exchange evidence and ask each other questions
>> about their claims. We have requested information and documents from the
>> government, and they have made similar requests from us. The entire phase,
>> which will also involve research and reports from experts, is expected to
>> last the next few months.
>>
>> As part of our commitment to privacy, I want you to know about what this
>> stage of the case means for our data retention practices. Our goal in
>> bringing this lawsuit was to protect user information. In this case, like
>> other litigation in which we engage, we may sometimes be legally required
>> to preserve some information longer than the standard 90-day period in our
>> data retention guidelines. These special cases are acknowledged and
>> permitted by our privacy and data retention policies.[14]
>>
>> As always, however, we remain committed to keeping user data no longer
>> than
>> legally necessary. We never publish the exact details of
>> litigation-related
>> data retention, as part of our legal strategy to keep personal data safe.
>> And we defend any personal data from disclosure to the maximum extent,
>> taking both legal and technical measures to do so. We are keeping
>> sensitive
>> material encrypted and offline, and we have the support of the experienced
>> legal teams at the ACLU and Cooley in ensuring its safety and integrity.
>> Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA is currently one of the only freedom of
>> expression and access to knowledge cases being prosecuted against
>> government surveillance overreach. Unfortunately, the recent extension of
>> these surveillance practices by the U.S. Congress[15] demonstrates that
>> the
>> courts may well be the only venue to stop or restrict these practices.
>>
>> The nature of litigation means that we will not always be able to discuss
>> certain details of any case in public. For example, deliberations about
>> tactical or strategic decisions will need to remain confidential in order
>> to preserve the attorney-client privilege.[16] In such situations,
>> particularly in a sensitive and important case like this, we are always
>> balancing the need for confidentiality with our commitment to
>> transparency.
>> So while some information will not be public, we want to be available to
>> address your questions, should you have any. Please direct them to Greg
>> Varnum [hidden email], who can help provide answers.
>>
>> We will continue keeping you updated on our progress and anything that
>> might affect our communities and visitors to the Wikimedia sites.[17]
>>
>> I would like to thank Tilman Bayer, Nuria Ruiz, Faidon Liambotis, Andrew
>> Otto, James Alexander, Brandon Black, Byron Bogaert, Dan Foy, Grace
>> Gellerman, Aeryn Palmer and Jim Buatti for their extensive dedication to
>> this case.  And thanks to the C-levels supporting this work, Eileen
>> Hershenov, Victoria Coleman, and Toby Negrin.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Katherine
>>
>> [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
>> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice
>> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
>> [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
>> [6] https://knightcolumbia.org/
>> [7] https://www.cooley.com/
>> [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection
>> [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone
>> [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals
>> [11] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
>> [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
>> [13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
>> [14] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines
>> [15]
>> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-surveilla
>> nce/trump-signs-bill-renewing-nsas-internet-surveillance-
>> program-idUSKBN1F82MK
>>
>> [16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege
>> [17] https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/
>>
>> *Previous updates for your review:*
>>
>> June 23 2017
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
>> June 16 2017
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/
>> May 23 2017
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
>> December 9 2016
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/09/wikimedia-v-nsa-hearin
>> g-fourth-circuit/
>> October 17 2016
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/10/17/wikimedia-v-nsa-appeal-hearing/
>> May 9 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/09/wikimedia-nsa-appeal/
>> April 11 2016
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/11/new-resource-wikimedia-nsa/
>> February 17 2016
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/17/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-filed/
>> December 15 2015
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/15/wikimedia-nsa-notice-of-appeal/
>> October 23 2015
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-lawsuit-dismissal/
>> September 28 2015
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/28/wikimedia-nsa-first-hearing/
>> September 4 2015
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/04/motion-to-dismiss-wikimedia-v-nsa/
>> March 10 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia vs. NSA

Gregory Varnum-4
In reply to this post by Mathieu Stumpf Guntz
Hello and thank you for the interesting question! While the Wikimedia Foundation does see mass surveillance as a violation of international free expression and privacy rights, we do not yet see many options for an international claim. Additionally given the requirement of many international courts to exhaust national remedies before filling an appeal, we believe it makes the most sense to first focus our challenge of a nation's surveillance practices in that nation's courts.

-greg

PS. Apologies for the delay! I meant to send this last week, but got distracted.

-------
Gregory Varnum
Communications Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
[hidden email]
Pronouns: He/Him/His

> On Feb 7, 2018, at 3:34 AM, mathieu stumpf guntz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thank you Katherine for the update.
>
> For Greg, I would like to know if there are some international courts in which this could also lead to a lawsuit. I'm thinking to the International Court of Justice, or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as I guess something like European Court of Human Rights would be out of scope, although the global spying practice might suggest otherwise.
>
> If any lawsuit is possible in an international court, had this been attempted by anyone, or had this been avoided for some specific reasons?
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Le 30/01/2018 à 01:14, Katherine Maher a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I’d like to share an update and next steps in our lawsuit against the U.S.
>> National Security Agency (NSA), Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA.[1] As you’ll
>> recall, in March 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation joined eight other
>> plaintiffs in filing a suit in United States Federal District Court against
>> the NSA[2] and the Department of Justice,[3] among others. We have been
>> represented pro bono[4] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[5] and
>> the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.[6] The law
>> firm Cooley LLP[7] has also been serving as pro bono co-counsel for the
>> Foundation.
>>
>> Since we’re coming on the three-year anniversary, I wanted to offer a
>> reminder of why we filed this suit. Our challenge supports the foundational
>> values of our movement: the right to freedom of expression and access to
>> information. Free knowledge requires freedom of inquiry, particularly in
>> the case of challenging and unpopular truths. Each day people around the
>> world engage with difficult and controversial subjects on Wikipedia and
>> other Wikimedia projects. Pervasive mass surveillance brings the threat of
>> reprisal, creates a chilling effect, and undermines the freedoms upon which
>> our projects and communities are founded. In bringing this suit, we joined
>> a tradition of knowledge stewards who have fought to preserve the integrity
>> of intellectual inquiry.
>>
>> Our lawsuit challenges dragnet surveillance by the NSA, specifically the
>> large-scale seizing and searching of Internet communications frequently
>> referred to as “Upstream” surveillance.[8] The U.S. government is tapping
>> directly into the internet’s “backbone”[9]—the network of high-capacity
>> cables, switches, and routers that carry domestic and international
>> communications—and seizing and searching virtually all text-based internet
>> communications flowing into and out of the United States. It’s this
>> backbone that connects the global Wikimedia community to our projects.
>> These communications are being seized and searched without any requirement
>> that there be suspicion, for example, that the communications have a
>> connection to terrorism or national security threats.
>>
>> Last May, we reached an important milestone: a Federal Court of Appeals[10]
>> in the United States ruled[11] that the Foundation alone had plausibly
>> alleged “standing”[12] to proceed with our claims that Upstream mass
>> surveillance seizes and searches of the online communications of Wikimedia
>> users, contributors and Foundation staff in violation of the U.S.
>> Constitution and other laws. The Court of Appeals’ ruling means that we are
>> the sole remaining plaintiff among the nine original co-plaintiffs. There
>> is still a long road ahead, but this intermediate victory makes this case
>> one of the most important vehicles for challenging the legality of this
>> particular NSA surveillance practice.
>>
>> As a result of our win in the appellate court, we are now proceeding to the
>> next stage of the case: discovery.[13] In the U.S. court system, parties
>> use the discovery stage to exchange evidence and ask each other questions
>> about their claims. We have requested information and documents from the
>> government, and they have made similar requests from us. The entire phase,
>> which will also involve research and reports from experts, is expected to
>> last the next few months.
>>
>> As part of our commitment to privacy, I want you to know about what this
>> stage of the case means for our data retention practices. Our goal in
>> bringing this lawsuit was to protect user information. In this case, like
>> other litigation in which we engage, we may sometimes be legally required
>> to preserve some information longer than the standard 90-day period in our
>> data retention guidelines. These special cases are acknowledged and
>> permitted by our privacy and data retention policies.[14]
>>
>> As always, however, we remain committed to keeping user data no longer than
>> legally necessary. We never publish the exact details of litigation-related
>> data retention, as part of our legal strategy to keep personal data safe.
>> And we defend any personal data from disclosure to the maximum extent,
>> taking both legal and technical measures to do so. We are keeping sensitive
>> material encrypted and offline, and we have the support of the experienced
>> legal teams at the ACLU and Cooley in ensuring its safety and integrity.
>> Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA is currently one of the only freedom of
>> expression and access to knowledge cases being prosecuted against
>> government surveillance overreach. Unfortunately, the recent extension of
>> these surveillance practices by the U.S. Congress[15] demonstrates that the
>> courts may well be the only venue to stop or restrict these practices.
>>
>> The nature of litigation means that we will not always be able to discuss
>> certain details of any case in public. For example, deliberations about
>> tactical or strategic decisions will need to remain confidential in order
>> to preserve the attorney-client privilege.[16] In such situations,
>> particularly in a sensitive and important case like this, we are always
>> balancing the need for confidentiality with our commitment to transparency.
>> So while some information will not be public, we want to be available to
>> address your questions, should you have any. Please direct them to Greg
>> Varnum [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>, who can help provide answers.
>>
>> We will continue keeping you updated on our progress and anything that
>> might affect our communities and visitors to the Wikimedia sites.[17]
>>
>> I would like to thank Tilman Bayer, Nuria Ruiz, Faidon Liambotis, Andrew
>> Otto, James Alexander, Brandon Black, Byron Bogaert, Dan Foy, Grace
>> Gellerman, Aeryn Palmer and Jim Buatti for their extensive dedication to
>> this case.  And thanks to the C-levels supporting this work, Eileen
>> Hershenov, Victoria Coleman, and Toby Negrin.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Katherine
>>
>> [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/>
>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency>
>> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice>
>> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono>
>> [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union>
>> [6] https://knightcolumbia.org/ <https://knightcolumbia.org/>
>> [7] https://www.cooley.com/ <https://www.cooley.com/>
>> [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection>
>> [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone>
>> [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals>
>> [11] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/>
>> [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)>
>> [13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)>
>> [14] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines>
>> [15]
>> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-surveillance/trump-signs-bill-renewing-nsas-internet-surveillance-program-idUSKBN1F82MK <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-surveillance/trump-signs-bill-renewing-nsas-internet-surveillance-program-idUSKBN1F82MK>
>>
>> [16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege>
>> [17] https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/ <https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/>
>>
>> *Previous updates for your review:*
>>
>> June 23 2017
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/>
>> June 16 2017
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/>
>> May 23 2017
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/>
>> December 9 2016
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/09/wikimedia-v-nsa-hearing-fourth-circuit/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/09/wikimedia-v-nsa-hearing-fourth-circuit/>
>> October 17 2016
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/10/17/wikimedia-v-nsa-appeal-hearing/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/10/17/wikimedia-v-nsa-appeal-hearing/>
>> May 9 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/09/wikimedia-nsa-appeal/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/09/wikimedia-nsa-appeal/>
>> April 11 2016
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/11/new-resource-wikimedia-nsa/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/11/new-resource-wikimedia-nsa/>
>> February 17 2016
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/17/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-filed/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/17/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-filed/>
>> December 15 2015
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/15/wikimedia-nsa-notice-of-appeal/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/15/wikimedia-nsa-notice-of-appeal/>
>> October 23 2015
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-lawsuit-dismissal/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-lawsuit-dismissal/>
>> September 28 2015
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/28/wikimedia-nsa-first-hearing/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/28/wikimedia-nsa-first-hearing/>
>> September 4 2015
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/04/motion-to-dismiss-wikimedia-v-nsa/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/04/motion-to-dismiss-wikimedia-v-nsa/>
>> March 10 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/ <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/>
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>