Great update, thank you. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Katherine Maher <kma...@wikimedia.org> 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 gvar...@wikimedia.org, 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 > kma...@wikimedia.org > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- Philippe Beaudette phili...@beaudette.me 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
