hello everybody, welcome to the EFf panel uuuhhm >> We are the EFF or position of EFF who is here to answer your questions. My name is Kurt. I am the deputy (audio drop) I have been doing this for a long time before we get to your questions we are going to giver some brief overviews. One thing I wanted to do is put out ground rule. First of all, most of you are how many people are much with the EFF but as you may know one of things that we do we counsel people and give legal advice to security researcher and people from this community about presentations they are having. What is something that we enjoy doing but now is not the time to ask those questions we want that with attorney client privilege. So if you have questions to your situation contact us afterwards and set up a time to talk to us. So let me introduce who we have here starting my right we have Nate staff attorney with EFF and Corine, legal director and mark -- and Cooper who works on technology projects and Nadia. >> So we wanted to do something different this year for some of you have come to panels before what we have done each of us will talk about one or two things that we work on. But I wanted to give a little bit more I wanted to talk everything that we do and I had a interns prepare the list of everything that we do and single spaced it would have taken me 20 minutes the read so I will not do that so I will give some highlights so that you have a little bit more of appreciation of the scale and work that we do. Seventeen lawyers. So it not a big team but in the last year we have filed more than 15 new lawsuits including film maker Laura -- seeks her detention more than 50 times and we represented a patent controlled victim success fully and a first time we have done a direct representation of the context and we sued DEA twice. We had major development in more than a 11 of our ongoing cases about that ranged from major brief files to major court arguments. In the last three years we have done counseling engagements. This year alone we counseled presenters giving 10 talks at the three conferences. And we filed more than 30A MIC A briefs probably something like 50 it courts all the around the country ranging from supreme court to federal circuits to state supreme court to local courts. We testified in state local and federal rule makings and hearings at least eight times in the last year. So that those are the numbers. Fifteen new suits 10 counseling engagements -- >> I can talk about a few of them because we could not review owl of work so I will talk about a few cases and situations that I am engaged in and really we have been enjoying. The first is we filed six exception request before the office in the DMCA rule making process and for those that saw -- you will know about it but what we had found is that we have this law that makes it illegal to break DRM even if you do it for a lawful reason like testing your security or a host of otherwise legal things that you want to do but you need to break the DRM in order do it and that is illegal unless you get permission from the copyright office so every three years we get to go to copyright office and ask a bunch of lawyers if it is okay the technology do their work. And this year we tried to up the anti-because we are seeing how different places because we have software in so many kind of devices to cars to refrigerator and phone and DRM suddenly is more necessary than ever for us to go the library of congress and asks permission for you all to do the work that you do. I wish we didn't have to do that but we do and this round is interesting because in particular the exception that we ask for which had to do with car repair and security video game preservation and jail breaking not just your phone but tablets. We aroused the interest of GM. And John deer. Who felt necessary to file responses to exception to say no, no, no we own the copyright in the software and you can't mess with it. So all of sudden I am fighting John Deer in court. Infere thought I would have to reach out the farmers I wish I didn't. But on the other hand I think that way you turn the time because you get more and people more to that you had this area of law is effecting them. So the DMC rule making process is sill in plane and we will know the play in a couple of months. We -- (audio drop) and the reason I wanted to talk about these two is because I thought this audience would appreciate at the pay tend that we killed one was a competition over social network. It is not going to work too well. Secondly there is pay tend only pod casting. Somebody thinks they own that. We don't think so and turns out we won that one. And the victor has to do with cloud flare and what happening more and more is that the entertainment companies are running to court and get broad injection to require providers to a website requiring those providers to shut down service sites based on nothing more than (audio drop) that same kind of idea, the theory is if you provide any service to website what is doing something unlawful you are conspiring with it. Providing basic service like they would to any other customer. Basically making cloud flare into copyright cops and this is part of trend which is why we were worried about it but we got it narrowed so clear that cloud fair does not have to be the trademark cops. So that was a big victory and I hope that set president for other situation down D line. >> I will do this quickly because I know people want to answer questions. I focus on things that we are doing on EFF. First thing is updating privacy law right now was a law in 1986 and it has been for the congress. For the first time the house has bill sponsored by 200 members and second one we're doing is (audio drop) where you want the make sure it is used encourage security research and not skill it and proposals we have seen is disaster yous and not encouraging it so working on those two things and the third thing we're doing and something that going to move next month in September combating a lot of privacy basis sharing bills. They didn't a lot of new authorities for attacking users so what we're doing now and -- with CFA amendment that is just (audio drop). We're going the try to kill that in the short term. The last thing we're doing which I think if a lots of you follow the news in the summer there was one part of it with performing one of many stated programs the last thing we're doing is furthering looking at surveillance laws and offering changes in spying. Huge numbers of mass spying and collecting America information with twisting interpretation so also working to change those. >> So in addition to legal work we do, we do a lot of technology work. We have several technology projects. This year along we have unavailable four new technology projects. Certified of authority. Canary watch which was tracking -- and privy (audio drop) in addition we have maintained several other technology projects such as start TLS every where to encrypt all of the e-mail observers. And we have done some tech. The super efficient -- window spy wear and the we helped uncover leak where you personal information was being leaked to third party advertiser so those are some of technology techniques that we do and I can do into more details of them. >> So in addition to litigation we have activity vim teach. One of things that I work on the privacy to addressing things that happened this year we worked on letter to I can the corporation that assigns domain names so they are wanting to get rid of privacy services for anybody that is commercial website and what deem commercial is a huge range of websites they are possible out of touch with how people with using the inter-intestine and why they would want privacy so we I can with a huge list of signatures and was a diverse range of people and people that were targeted for harassment and people concerned about security and it was we think that it had a good effect that time I have sort of dialed back on saying they are going to get rid of privacy services and we happy to say that and we think they need to be more responsive. In addition to that we worked on the Facebooked real name policy so this is something that a lot of people are seeing this year they get kicked off of Facebook and used as a way to shut people up and get them off of Facebook so people like international activist or people in Vietnam use that as platform for blogging to political and drag queens are getting kicked off even though they use names they use in everyday life just huge range of people so we keep pushing on that. Another pro-correct we have surveillance self defense so on we put -- play list which are list of tools that we think would be helpful for specific groups so we have play list for youth for people working on human rights and we added more new tools and do trainings and I would say this year we trained people how to use encryption. In addition to -- that I'm excited about is street level surveillance that so project when we'll go out therein a talk to people who may be don't have knowledge about surveillance they are thinking about (indiscernible) and they thinking that it is something far away, that maybe it is something hey should be concerned about but in the last couple of years we are see proliferation of technology in the hands of local law enforcement so street level surveillance is gave -- we want it to be something that people use to take issue in their own hands so we have partnership with (indiscernible) you should check them out. They have made it possible for thousands of people to file public records at request. So we have partnership with them to help people file PRAs on the use of -- and we have talking points for activist and adding more and we are highlighting legal work that we have done. We got a case accepted to California court and public records act case around the use of automated license -- so automatic license plate users is sort of privacy catch 22. If you can't get public record request you are not going to know how. It's invasive they are and if they are being miss used and the information deal was lot of information about the license plates being tracked. That is why we want to make it public what is being revealed just like with a lot of surveillance. So really excited today see that case go the California supreme court and lot of legislation at the state level on license plate readers and whether that information can we requested under the state public record law so we think this case is going to be important. And A RBC are couple technologies that we have information on but string rays and drones and shots you name it going to end up on that website because we think it is important for people to have this information in front of them so keep it short. >> Where are we going to have the question. If you have a question we will start to line here. Come forward with your questions and the others sort of -- ask me anything. So we're looking forward to hearing from you. >> I'm curious on privacy -- some other actors in the space has gone out against transparency perhaps I want to make a website and I don't want to tell the word. It is my website. Are there places where -- how do you manage cases like that where there is public interest in transparency how you balance those. >> (indiscernible) I think this is interesting question and hard to answer. I think that certificate transparency is important of I will some problem was CA system. A couple and I think that the benefit that we get from certificate transparency and knowing the SSL certificate that you site is encrypted with is the one that it is supposed to be encrypted with is pretty strong. Maybe there are some oh work for that. I think the benefits of CT out way the privacy concerns. I don't know I have not done much research on that topic. You can ask Peter, I will throw him under the bus on that one. >> So back in may there was a circuit court ruling that surveillance said it wasn't authorized by the pat trout acts and say everything is fine were more or less surveillance and congress reauthorized the inspiring section. I hope you guys could provide context how it would play out in the courts will that go to supreme court or how can congress (indiscernible). >> So on the first part, yes, there was a good ruling about section 215 of the pat trot act and what the government had been doing was illegal. It was not saying that it was unconstitutional but that argument was made. That circuit court decision was not binding outside of that circuit so it is not enough that that happened to require this court the a bide by that and then things got further complicated by the passage of United States freedom which changed the language of statute that had prior been the court interpreted to say they could noted do the program so think about program under the new statute and how that is going to play out in congress Mark do u with want the stay something. I think the questions how it is going the play out when you have two court decisions. I think now we have continuation of program and we're going to go into this narrow program. I would be interested on where (indiscernible) as well as if those cases are ongoing because a part of that we is what happens to current court cases. So there are a number of different cases out there which where challenging wire taping program and several ACLU versus clapper which had section 215 decision. And there are other ones out there. There is Smith Obama which was a case what brought by a practitioner attorney on behalf of his wife as the client but adverse decision at that court level. That was heard in December so we have a number of cases ongoing and have to determine a couple of thing going forward. The main question is this unconstitutional. Goes beyond the wounds of what was acceptable under the four amendment. And your write of associate. Those will remain ongoing but for the aspects of these challenges where it a focused on statutory language that has been changed by modification of United States freedom. So the originally statute 215 it was thought to be the library division. They get library book records and things that authorized through the investigation and through secret law by courts that were not known to anybody they determined that everything is relevant to authorized investigation which make irrelevant dead letter. They expanded the understanding of in tangible things. It was a ongoing daily dump of the phone records prospectively. So their interpretation was wrong and that is the problem that does secret interpretation. So they changed some of that language through United States freedom and came up with a different system where communication companies would hold on the records and starting in six months they use a different system to get them and so when you have statutory challenge and there is little bit of procedural monkey wrench and we have been providing briefing to court and what the effect open United States freedom. Those cases have been doing on for a long time now. But one of things that is extraordinary to be every time we turn around, now we know we are fighting over this issue and we're going to need to okay we are focused now and then all of sudden we get a new revelation and turns out other agency is collecting records of all Americans and we have brand new case so we had the file a lawsuit against the drug enforcement agency which nate just mentioned so we are back down the district court starting again but a similar kind of activity. And seems like every time you turn around your most paranoid fantasy are true just another way of government spying on you. So what happens with these cases is important but it is clear that the problem doesn't is not that confined not confined to NSA. What the DEA was doing they were collecting records and all the other agencies access them. >> So there was QA by Bruce nigher yesterday. I will channel a answer to (indiscernible) easier for normal. The response was it is impossible, so go for pretty good security and make (indiscernible) so to that end, I know that training and user on end to end encryption is one of services if I recall, what can we do to encouraging the downs by a peer tools to just kind of get the word out there? >> I think one of the -- there are variety of different ways to encouraging people. So depends on your audience but I think one of the things I like the point out is that we are making surveillance more expensive and difficult for the government when we do that and another important point if you feel like if you have or understand how open source applications work and you know you are okay using them that your security is strong as the weakest link in your security. So important for this community to work with the people who -- you grandmom (indiscernible) could use signal and no reason why she couldn't. And no reason why anybody counted use signal. Everything that is share able so -- what's URL? Shocking URL. HTTPS -- so please send people there. There are people across the country who do these trainings and do for people of variety of level. One of the things that I get excited about doing is trainings where I know the audience is going to be so I think sort of that is very long answer to simple question your argument to why peopled should use thing is audience specific. We try and make encryption prevalent to get plane text off the wire and do policy work to make sure that (indiscernible) safe and legal and not back doored. >> So follow-up to that question. We have seen a lot for lack of better word, zero knowledge encryption systems and services being provided the private key they encrypt the private with the user password on a legal level this is differ than just encrypting it with a system that you control but when there is messaging act that talking using protocol to remote server and things get fuzzy when it is browser base. Proton mail they is client and you put your password word but easy to back door those on demand and target the user, my question is is that for you United States services and I don't think you can talk about Germany but for United States services do you feel there is legal distinction there between the systems. >> There is no law in this what so every. No court has ruled on this in United States. We have not seen and we are unaware of any order from the United States court ordering a service to back door product. Some situation different. That was not a back door order but that is only one that we heard of. What we have seen a ton of informal pressure put on (audio drop) so your question was is there a legal description no because it is no law what so every. What that means what happened when you get a wiretap order with technical assistance attached we don't know the answer to that. Run a service and you get a order please in to us. >> So going to switch gears, so when stuff like the legislation that won't die or congress passing retro active community to questionable programs, does that seem to be happening every other day, and kind of the deck being stacked against you. How do you deal with burn out? How do you keep from knowing your hands up in the air in a saying fuck it? >> So working on cyber security stuff in two weeks I'm going on a 500-mile bike ride and not putting on devices. We have to fight for these thing. We have people some intelligence and FBI and fighting us. Everything that EFF works on so for me personally the fact that we don't -- if all of us are not fighting against it and setting the standards for better uses then we're going the have much worse in my opinion technology history so I think those are my two answers. Burn out is difficult. You saw over the summer had where working on national security and we switched to this cyber information sharing act so there is not a lot of rest but try and take vacations and just realize that we are in a very specific and important time period. I will get to rest later in my life. >> I would add that everybody at EFF feels privilege that had we get to do this work and that you guys support us so like yes it is not like you don't have hard days but really we are so lucky that we get to do this and fight this fight. No one who works at EFF is a kind of person that doesn't love a good scrape and sometimes you win and that feels good. So have to remember those. >> Just one other thing to had one of great things about EFF we have holistic strategy. And we all work on a lot of things so in this year I have seen frustrating things that didn't move but the I get to work on local things like is city counsel level. I got somebody to use a program they would have never used before. I have a comment and at least two questions. What do we do about the problem of demonstrating injury when there is so many secret things going on. There was lack of evidence of injury and court said and they could not have obtained the evidence. That is catch 22 any suggestions or thoughts on that? >> Evidence of injury, there is a notion called standing that is necessary you have to have standing before you proceed with a case. You have to have some concrete relationship to case that is demonstrated by showing that you have been injured in that case and one of challenges that has come up is the government asserts that it is state secret whether or not they spied upon you so even if they have program that is spying on everybody -- you can't get standing and case has to be dismissed. And we have been fighting on this issue. Anyway to over come that? >> I think one of things that we foresee a lot of work on with national security we want to see or fix classification so h is problem and something that makes it hard to see cochlea the going on. Whether there is hope or not, yes there is always hope. >> My comment people often in know will tell you that there is shortage of good attorneys, a lot of the qualified and skillful litigate fors get lifelong contracts to represent you might say bad guys. So assume that shortage of attorneys it has been said 10 percent of the population will litigate and let's will be able to make a argument that is complete. How do you feel about your availability of legal team? Is there assist legal research or do you feel confidence that you have enough to get the job done? >> Well, I would put our team against any team anywhere in the United States. And we often are against different companies big law firms, big governments large and small we will fight them and take them on and win. So I feel good that we have set of -- we can always use help. Help is great. One of the things that we have if lawyers in the room we have co-op attorneys. They take the cases that we can't. We get lots of inquiries we try to take the cases that we can charge the law. But we also connect people to legal services. So we have host of attorneys that we want more help when people are willing to take on the clients that just need advice. So if you want to join that list sent e-mail. Give you card to EM IL and we have group of co-rate rating technologist who are willing to help out with some of projects so if you would like the join that group same contract information. >> My question is about European laws. Privacy laws. My question is about the European privacy laws that are being discussed at the moment and what is your thoughts if it is going to be a difference. >> Are you talking about the right to be forgotten? >> That for one but (indiscernible) the company location is restriction of (indiscernible) this is a growing issue and the law raises it as well. So I will try the answer in one. So for those that are not familiar the right to be forgotten is in Europe and basically where you say there is something on internet about me and it is not true and it is invading my privacy so you get a order requiring search engine to take down the link and pretend that website doesn't exist my more and what has happened is that in Europe they adopted this and we had court order google to apply that right but up until now it has been country specific. So if it a French court then only in France people can't get to that website. But (inaudible) drop that is on appeal said no, no, no we need you the take down all around the world so no one could access it because some portion of the French population has figured out you can get around that. So google is fighting this and I think write I will so and because sit very dangerous to have a world you see a different view of the internet. I they is very dangerous path for us to go down and people come in and have these stories there is untrue and I didn't do it but what it means is depending on what kind of editing you want you choose your just direction and you orders that global implications. I don't think anyone court should have the ability to set the terms for the entire world. There are other countries that worry about things like the right to be forgotten. So Latin American that I are concerned about this because they have history where it is important for them to remember. If you are Latin where a lot of history was erased by dictatorships you can scared by the notion that some portion of history will disappear depend on you where it is. This is hard problem because I don't practice law un-Germany. So one of things that that we're working on is building coalition with lawyers, with privacy groups in other countries and figuring out way to work together. In terms of data localization laws we have skeletal of those laws but a we have seen them even more than not past for a wrong purposes not to give greater protection but to force companies to store data to give to law enforcement so that scares us. >> So I was glad to see EFF that was listed one of the organization against -- and I hoping that you explain about why and what the impact of those international trade agreements will have as well as kind of what you see as next steps. >> I can speak to that. So we are against the T P P. Vast trade agreement that cover all types of thing to dairy and corn and covers a lot but it also as chapter on intelligent property. There is chapter where they negotiate international copyright law by trade agreement. When you talk about copyrights you are talking about balancing and figuring out what the are the rules for expression and that means you are talking about speech and that means doesn't belong in a trade agreement because not the same thing figuring out what the rates for corn. It is a very, very different things we have tree speech tradition here and when you say the word copyright all of free speech goes out the window. The other problem with T P P -- so we sort of know we have a long history and know that doesn't work. Doesn't stop the trade represent of trying to make other country -- they occurred in secret. And this therapy behind trade agreements secret is because you don't want people shorting I don't know cars or manipulate the market. That is all fine but now they negating the rules for speech. So we have been fighting it and the good news a round of negotiation and that was supposed be the final round and deal fell apart. So have to go back but gives it any chance to challenge it. With trade agreements sometimes people just give up and that will be a best thing or they may drop the TP section. So I remain hopeful this trade agreement may die in the vine. >> EFF comments on (indiscernible). >> So for those of you that don't know the vas nor arrangement is four is state arrangement to control the export of dual use technology and what that means is technology that is useful both in civilian and military context. Nerve gas, body armer, land mines stuff like that. Were added to control list for the first time. The United States didn't implement the rule instead department of commerce took eight months to get act took and it was terrible. It would have outlawed jail breaking services or license. Dependent on how you read it and for debuggers and this was crazy, that had nothing to do with types of software that the vas nor arrangement to band the export of. The software intended to be cover were things like fin fisher and hacking team. State sponsor malware to target end points. This kind of restriction would be unconstitutional. The next step commerce has indicate that had they are going to revise the rule. So we have won the first battle but the real next step is going to be try and push the states at that meeting in December of this year in Europe to try and clarify the control list itself. John Gillespie more in 1993 said the net censorship is damaged and routes around it. Software controls don't work that well so we are going the trial to focus on end use. So that is where we are now hopefully we will work with the state and make sure that any controls on surveillance technology doesn't sweep in really good thing like pen testing. We need to make sure they are not chilled and secure user academics hackers are not chilled and are free the continue going about their work. >> You mentioned indication that you like to do and third thing you were talking about if you have some current development service and the government comes with you get something like that and you get to litigate that and curious if there is services that you would like to see developers set up purposely in hopes that the government goes after them so you can beat them in court? >> Is this being recorded? Yes. So making a legal honey bot. We take the cases where that come up one of things that has happened the government is good at identifying good facts so one of things that we have done is try to establish there is protection for you e-mail. That the government need to have warrant. 180 days or older and we think the amendment should apply to e-mail all the time and we have won that case in some jurisdiction. And I appreciate that because it is victory for clients in this case but not larger purpose of trying to establish the president. So one trying to create the honor my bot with good facts attempt the government to raise this issue they have some people they have figured that out and will not take they battle. (audio drop) so the question about burn out got me thinking, that raises me a concern because it is the days there a lot of sort of more distance in accessible intuition base back because they are tech companies tend to be more accessible and more culturally related but you have like goings tell come industry what is looking for new technology and looking to deploy relevant cloud based services but when you want to work with them the first question they ask under the table, but perhaps obviously is this law -- can the technology do law enforcement request and you have those sort of very old tell come institution that are only willing to deploy you have the so law enforcement recess that remain outside of the culture reach of what the way they EFF operates generally so you see things like reports and you see things like all those things who is transparent and who is reaching out. You see a list of companies like apple Facebook and google all of the modern tech companies just in this case what a modern company is question of culture and question of how related is that company culture to the way that EFF understands and how we all understand in this room tech culture. But what do you do about the people the standards that you set is just not relevant to their way of thinking because they are coming from the old telephone way of doing things. And this is something that reaches outside of United States also to Europe. >> So what is question? >> How do you deal with that? >> There are ways that we can pressure companies and established tech is still knew to sometimes improve the practices and hard to get at the codes. How do we handle that problem is that the question? >> Yes. >> So we have who has your back project so we go through who has you back when the government comes knocking and I will tell you our super friendly companies got one stars and they improved their practices so people like stars so we have we started out saying you need to improve you practice. So I wanted to say even the people that we are friends with we had to D a fair amount of work to get them to improve -- I don't know if we are friends with them but we it took a while to get them in a better place. So I think there are some companies they are going to be who they are going to be and they will just evolve over time and we will get a new guard take over for the old guard. >> I was going the mention we have holistic approach. There are multiple ways to deal with company. We have policy and activism. That is what comes to mind to answer that question. >> He saw some things while there and at AT wiring up a room for the NSA surveillance program. Figure out what he had been involved with he knew that it was wrong and he wanted to tell somebody about that and from that we got our case against ATT for collaboration in the NSA program and that was applying some values that maybe a little bit different the what you see in some of modern internet companies but reflecting a belief shared by a lot f people that we don't want the give the government that much power over our lives. >> I think companies respond to bad publicity. (audio drop). >> So you touched on this in answer to other questions I want to ask sort of the how can be -- let me start again. How can we prevent and what tools do we have to prevent the setting of bad International precedence so these come in two forms -- parliament pushed through audio recordings with no treaty. Because the United States does it that is international. You get these standards without the bodies out of nowhere, (indiscernible) it is bad. (laughter) it what hard to intervene on the international level. Sometimes we can and make it possible for people in United States and outside of United States to speak up and sort of international principles that valuable. So that is one way to do it and people in this room the thing is stay tuned to EFF -- even if it seems doesn't effect me as citizen. We can stop bad things but only when there is out cry. I would remind everybody (audio drop) right around the same time International name protest stopped A CT A which was a international trade agreement and stopped in the tracks by the international protest here and a broad so stiff we can do but required coordination. >> So you guys have talked about the freedom of speech issues so far and I'm curious, so I have heard some quotes from your organization about speaking out against laws what is referred to as reviewing form and I am curious if you think in this space there is way way to balance criminalizing these actions with free speech. >> I think the answer is we have not seen any legislation that comes close to that. The problem is a lot of legislation has poorly defined terms and in some ways the (indiscernible) coming from companies and their questions about really key terms like consent that are just not clear. So if were to see a piece of legislative that could balance these concerns we could be excited but the question of addressing this issue is certainly something that we think people need to think about because what's happening now that it is very reactionary and it is reactionary in a particular way sort of to mentioning the companies they know people are upset and know that people want to do something and they are going to do the things are easiest to do. The other thing to keep in mind is that a lot of this legislation is not thinking about what -- all of this issues of harassment are coming from a big cultural context. (audio drop). >> EFF has come out against (indiscernible) I am curious if you can describe it at a high level of government perspective sharing -- protection of individual's information. >> I think we should start out by addressing the flaws I think one of the for important thing to note is that -- these laws are addressing or they have been painted as more information sharing but when we look at lot of breaches what happened when we look at JP morgan chase, home depot, what it was -- JP morgan that was due to not updating the server so the first accept is ensuring that we tackle those things and we could talk about hours what a good policy is. We focus on the -- the granting of new powers a lot of people neglect and the -- often is not contend and what these bills do and what we see every bill what every bill does for the past three year as try to get rid of privacy protections and try to enlarging the scope of the contend or of the able to collect private information, but also increase the powers. So I think the -- we try to focus (audio drop) we don't need the grant companies huge -- let's deal with the problems that we are trying to deal with. Let's look at how this was caused and try the fixed those problems. We are focusing on the solution that not a actual solution to these problems. >> Have you seen attend towards law enforcement trying to force individuals to give their password. >> So I will take the portion about the giving out password . S this has been a continued area of litigation under what circumstances can someone be compelled to give password. Or compelled to provide un-encrypted information the government cannot compel you to give away you password but you may have a order to decrypt the information but you may be able to do that. Whether the act having that password would give testimony to provide information. Will it be testimonial. But if they know that it is your computer they know you have access to this information but the you are not currently giving it to them that sometimes courts will order somebody to give a decrypted copy. So that was that and I forgot the second part of you question. >> It was about increase in law enforcement attempting to force people -- >> Because when the government we only fine out about it if someone creates EFF for help. One of the things that government does is they pick and choose the facts of litigate and their is good set of factors for us it is often the case we drop it. And Judges are willing to go to great length to throw child pornographers -- so there is has been some bad law made by some bad people. >> So you touched on proposals and information sharing that would under mine our rights so I it is easy to become disa lighted with political system but there any proposal that let us sleep easier. Something that benefit our right as what can with do to help. >> So let me by start by pointing out the win so this is not all doom and gloom because we had a Witness here that was 4 million people spoke up and forced FCC to do the right thing and rules that make sense and will survive legal review and FCC has been trying to interact -- it would go to court and lose again and we have world in which many people have little choice with respect to high speed access and EFF believed that we needed rules of road. We turned ship and it was amazing thing to happen. And it leaves me feeling very, very positive about the power of the net. So that makes me helpful and those rules are being litigated in court but this time I feel like we can win this one. We will survive legal review and there have been victories and I think internet user are starting to mature as a political force. >> I want to go back years with the (indiscernible) and how much it shocked the country. A lot of us knew some f this but not the extent. Working cyber security world -- a lot of people in this room -- the feeling that I get when I read something there are thank you things that come out about surveillance feel like people become desensitized to it now and peers of mine so my question is, how can be get people to become more (audio drop). >> So that is a great point. I think that people do feel over then I ask how many people say it is just so bad will is nothing I can do about it. So I think we need to make it real and sorry if kids in the room but Dick picks that is brilliant segment and when you talk about section 702 people want to know how it is going to effect them and really on the base level people want to know can they see Dick fix you make it real for people and we are still figuring out how much is still out there and we are figuring out how to communicate with people and we want to talk about the values of work we do. But we need to talk about how it matters to people so having that approach so it is really bad and I am going to tell you about something else but here is something that you can do now. You can start doing this thing that is going to make it harder the government to watch you. When congress people get calls it does make a difference. Some times the difference is only in numbers if they only got one call they are not listening but if they got a hundred calls this is something people care about. If they get more than then care more so all of those things people need to hear all of those. >> I would add there is one thing I love the privacy bagarre projects part of it I have it installed and you go website to website. It is company surveillance but way to see I can see all the different companies that are watching me now. Where as if I go to this site it green so this is safe. So this is important and interesting way for people to engage and become conscious of how much they are being tracked so those kind of projects key to keeping people aware. >> We don't talk about free speech as only individual issue. We should not talk about privacy as individual issue. I care about free speech for everybody else because that is what matters. And privacy is the same thing. I care about other people having privacy because privacy is what is necessary to do the hard work of democracy. You can't push social change without advocacy just like you can't do it without free speech and you can't have free speech without privacy. It is about society. >> I would like to move the conversation back to online harassment. I have had the time what has had a hard time so near and deer to my heart. I know this summer the court came out with a decision that kicked a lot of these things back down to lower courts to redefine. am I right on that about how -- there was a ex-husband who went after his wife and that decision was kicked back down I would like to know if EFF are working at the lower court level to help define what is harassment and how that is defined going forward? >> So I can say that I am not certain which case you are referring to but there is bleed between online and offline harassment and sounds like the case you are talking about was about offline -- it was online harassment he was putting things on Facebook. Sorry, now I know what case you are referring to. I will let one of attorneys answer that. >> I this the question was not about the case I think the question was what the EFF doing to help the lower courts define. I think part of our point is we have a lot of laws that define harassment already. We have number of laws on the books that can be used criminal laws and civil law That's can be used when people are stepping out of line. We have robust laws and criminal penalties for criminal activity. One of the things that (audio drop) I think law enforcement needs to be better educated about what counts as threat. I think of 10 law enforcement discounted important threats that are happens -- I think something we are aware of the laws on the books are not enforced the right way and but we sort of -- what we like about the laws on books like with defamation of law we have history of courts figuring out they balance between defamation and (audio drop) true threats and just talk and I think it is bone to continue to be a struggle. (audio drop). >> I think recently in a district court decision maybe in new or whens judge found (audio drop) using DCMA as a lock he found the thing that was being locked had (audio drop) and using it as access control list and found not use of DCMA so h is judge slapping down over reach or is that kind of use in decline now. >> So what we have seen there is question whether you activity (audio drop) or tied to copyright infringement and we would like the world in which you have to be breaking (indiscernible) for there to be a claim. There is law that is being represented that would do just that but courts have interpreted this in different ways whether it has to be tied to breaking a lock or tied to copyright interest or not. So kind of mess but in the meantime if you person engaged in security research that is not very comforting so the law is kind of mess. >> So do you see this going to supreme court? >> It could happen. >> Is there any legal basis -- I see you shaking your head that is good. Or just a cable company talking point. >> Yes. I was not planning on asking a question (audio drop) I guess where I want to go with this we hear terms like cyber warfare and we are getting bombarded more and feeling of having to defend ourselves I guess is more into something more than just physical. It digital (audio drop) on the first amendment and lot of answers were based on protection and we have DMCA1201 -- have you guys considered application of the second amendment to this defense. So second amendment is right to defend our self but the kind of idea and the second amendment was to protect our several against the government and the right to bear arms so if we had some application and of morph of that second amendment, maybe that could be a defense. >> So the notion of second amendment coming into play have been raised on the number cases. There is no court that indicates they might look at is second amendment. To say like guns a knives and weapons of that sort. And when it has come to software putting into categories with weapons that generally been a problem. So in earlier days of EFF the first round of war there is were controls over the export with notion -- those were weapons. And in that case it really the first amendment that came into play. The code of speech and you have -- so no indication that the second amendment will be a fruitful application. So the question can the second amendment be useful, remains out there. The area in which it may start to impact technology things like hacking, we talked about that earlier and 3D printing with e are bring these issue to the forum. >> Last question. Mine is simply have you seen a increase in use of (indiscernible). >> H1B visas. As in -- we don't do immigration law. I was curious if you heard anything. >> No. Immigration is not one of issues that we work with and when EFF needs immigration law advice we hire those lawyers. >> I want to follow-up with question you mentioned the secret around national security, I don't know if you guys remember the case Japanese car maker -- >> Hold the mic closer. >> I don't know if you remember a Japanese car because his rental car tag was expired. He was arrest because the rental card registration was expired. >> I don't think we are familiar with that case. >> Alabama has a law if you have car registration (indiscernible) if you are foreigner and minor traffic problem you have go to jail so that was a kind of (indiscernible) my question is that the car company used (indiscernible) we made a mistake and somebody didn't do the work. But before that case, given one of those cars and -- I think that is kind of -- they have a program to provide car to some people so that (indiscernible). >> This is about your specific situation -- >> No. I was asking if there is policy or something like that. >> Hard to hear. >>So are you asking whether license plates are policy. >>They have a program like a car company (indiscernible) in the name of national security whether the (indiscernible) privacy something like that, how you contact that -- something to do with national security we can do nothing about it. >> I'm not positive this will be a answer to your question but the let me take a stab. We have street level surveillance project and part of goal of that project to not just track but share information in the ways in which people on ground including things like tracking license plates. I don't think that what you're asking but that is closest in terms of what we're are paying attention to. >>One of the things that we encourage is people file -- you are mentioning the car companies and that is -- >> Sorry I could not catch that. >> Car manufacturing we have not heard information that car manufacturing are -- >> Rental company? Rental cars. >> Sorry we don't have a better answer for you. We are not really aware of rental car program that is involved. Could be that there is one but we have not really heard of that. But thank you for you question and thank you all for coming and appreciate coming here and being apart of this community and thank you much.