Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
EFF v. Global Equity (see SPEECH Act § Use in courts) Electric Slide Litigation; Eli Lilly Zyprexa Litigation; Embroidery Software Protection Coalition v. Ebert & Weaver; First Cash v. John Doe; Fix Wilson Yard v. City of Chicago; Frankel v. Lyons (Barney) Fuller v. Doe; Indymedia Server Takedown; JibJab Media v. Ludlow Music ("This Land ...
October 2005: EFF investigates and documents how the Xerox DocuColor printer's serial number, as well as the date and time of the printout, are encoded in a repeating 15 by 8 dot pattern in the yellow channel on printed pages. EFF is working to reverse engineer additional printers. (see Printer steganography)
Jewel v. National Security Agency, 673 F.3d 902 (9th Cir., 2011), was a class action lawsuit argued before the District Court for the Northern District of California and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of American citizens who believed that they had been surveilled by the National Security Agency (NSA) without a warrant. [1]
The Electronic Frontier Foundation was formed in July 1990 by John Gilmore, John Perry Barlow and Mitch Kapor in response to a series of actions by law enforcement agencies that led them to conclude that the authorities were gravely uninformed about emerging forms of online communication, [1] [unreliable source?] and that there was a need for increased protection for Internet civil liberties.
At nine months, that number was estimated to be 40,000. [8] To approach Barlow's vision of a self-governing Internet, the Cyberspace Law Institute set up a virtual magistrate, now hosted by the Chicago-Kent College of Law. Magistrates would be appointed by the institute and other legal groups to solve online disputes. [7]
Hepting v. AT&T, 439 F.Supp.2d 974 (N.D. Cal., 2006), was a class action lawsuit argued before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of customers of the telecommunications company AT&T.
The proposed law would have expanded existing criminal laws to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Proponents of the legislation said it would protect the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and was necessary to bolster enforcement of ...
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Anderson, et al., Civil Action No. 08-11364, was a challenge brought by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to prevent three Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) students from publicly presenting a security vulnerability they discovered in the MBTA's CharlieCard automated fare collection system.