The journalist Rafael Martínez Alequin in 2005. (Photo: Kitra Cahana/The New York Times)

In the ever-shifting media landscape of 2008, who, exactly, is a journalist?

That question is at the heart of a lawsuit filed against the Police Department on Wednesday on behalf of three men — Rafael Martínez Alequin, Ralph E. Smith and David Wallis — who say that they were unfairly denied press passes because they work for online or nontraditional news outlets.
The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, asserts that the three men were denied press credentials in 2007 “with little explanation or opportunity for appeal,” and that the system for issuing press credentials is “inconsistent and constitutionally flawed.”

The system of granting press credentials in New York City has run amok and needs to be changed immediately,” Norman Siegel, the civil-liberties lawyer, who is representing the three men in the complaint, said in a phone interview. “The right of a free press is a cornerstone of our constitutional system, and it’s a right that must be respected.”
Gabriel Taussig, chief of the administrative law division at the city’s Law Department, said in a statement:
The issuance of N.Y.P.D. press passes strikes an appropriate balance between First Amendment concerns and public safety. We just received the complaint and are investigating the plaintiff’s concerns thoroughly.

The Police Department issues two kinds of credentials: working press cards, for a “full-time employee of a news-gathering organization covering spot or breaking news on a regular basis such as robbery scenes, fires, homicides, train wrecks, bombings, plane crashes, where there are established police or fire lines at the scene,” and press identification cards, for journalists who are “employed by a legitimate news organization” but who do “not normally cover spot or breaking news events.” (The language is from the city’s official rules and regulations.)

The working press card ostensibly allows the journalist to cross police lines at emergencies and at nonemergency public events, like parades and demonstrations; the press identification card is “issued as a courtesy” but does not carry such privileges. Each card must be renewed annually.

The three men have varied journalistic practices.

Mr. Wallis is the founder of featurewell.com, a syndication service that provides news coverage to 1,500 publication worldwide, including The Guardian, The Irish Examiner, The Australian Financial Review and The New Zealand Herald. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Wallis had a press identification card off and on from 1994 until August 2007, when his petition to obtain the card again was denied without explanation.

Mr. Smith is published of The Guardian Chronicle, a Web site for black law enforcement workers. He has been a public information officer for the city’s Correction Department since 1988, and had a press credential from 1996 until January 2007, when he application to renew the credential was denied. Despite several attempts to get a written explanation for the denial, Mr. Smith has not received one, the suit says.

The case of Mr. Martínez Alequin, a longtime City Hall gadfly, has already been chronicled in the press. He published The Brooklyn Free Press from 1983 to 2001, when he ceased publication after the death of his wife. Then he launched an online publication, The New York City Free Press, in 2003, and began a related blog, Your Free Press, in 2007. He had a working press card from 1986 to 2000 and again from 2005 to 2006.

In May 2007, his application to renew it was denied, and from April to June of that year, the suit says, he was barred from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s news conferences in the Blue Room at City Hall because he lacked a press credential. Mr. Martínez Alequin has been a frequent critic of the mayor; he has since been allowed to attend news conference, but has not been called upon to ask questions.

The lawsuit asserts that the Police Department violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right of freedom of speech and of the press; the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law and equal protection; and the State Constitution’s guarantee of press freedom. The suit asks the court to find the regulations governing press badges to be “unconstitutionally vague”; to bar the Police Department from denying press credentials “in the same manner they have done to the plaintiffs therein”; and to award compensatory and punitive damages.

cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/nypd-is-sued-over-denial-of-press-credentials/

California’s building codes, plumbing standards and criminal laws can be found online.But if you want to download and save those laws to your computer, forget it.The state claims copyright to those laws. It dictates how you can access and distribute them — and therefore how much you’ll have to pay for print or digital copies.

It forbids people from storing or distributing its laws without consent.

That doesn’t sit well with Carl Malamud, a Sebastopol resident with an impressive track record of pushing for digital access to public information. He wants California — and every other federal, state and local agency — to drop their copyright claims on law, contending it will pave the way for innovators to create new ways of searching and presenting laws.

“When it comes to the law, the courts have always said there can be no copyright because people are obligated to know what it says,” Malamud said. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse in court.”

Malamud is spoiling for a major legal fight.He has begun publishing copies of federal, state and county codes online — in direct violation of claimed copyright.On Labor Day, he posted the entire 38-volume California Code of Regulations, which includes all of the state’s regulations from health care and insurance to motor vehicles and investment.

To purchase a digital copy of the California code costs $1,556, or $2,315 for a printed version. The state generates about $880,000 annually by selling its laws, according to the California Office of Administrative Law.

Malamud isn’t just targeting California. He posted safety and building codes for nearly all 50 states, and some counties and cities such as Sonoma County and Los Angeles.

This is not uncharted territory for Malamud. In 1994, he pushed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to post corporate filings online, opening the door for companies such as Google and Yahoo to create elaborate financial Web sites. In June, Malamud helped convince the state of Oregon to stop claiming copyright over its laws.

Now Malamud wants to do the same for California — and everywhere else. And he’s willing to go to court to make his point. He thinks the court system will rule in his favor, establishing a precedent that all government agencies must follow.

“If that happens, it opens the doors to innovation,” Malamud said.

To get the California Code online, he digitally scanned a stack of documents that weighed 150 pounds. Now anyone can download the 33,000 pages, and print whatever they want from his Web site, public.resource.org.

Traditionally, governments provided publishing companies such as LexisNexis copies of laws to print and bind for people. It was practically the only way to get the laws distributed to people. LexisNexis claims to have the “world’s largest collection of public records.”

But the Internet has changed how people can share information. Increasingly, government agencies — including Sonoma County — contract with LexisNexis and other publishers to post their laws online.

“Most of the county staff now just look up the codes on the Internet,” said Jennifer Barrett, Sonoma County’s deputy planning director. “You can quickly search for keywords or a section. It’s quite easy to find what you are looking for.”

But LexisNexis does not format the online laws for easy printing or downloading, Malamud said. And that hampers how people can access the laws.

LexisNexis is the exclusive distributor of Sonoma County statutes, selling print versions for $220. It offers free access to the county’s codes on the Internet, but its Web site is relatively archaic and doesn’t include the features common in newer sites.

If the county provided those laws in a free, standardized digital format, others could design Web sites with more modern search and presentation features, Malamud said. Social Web sites could pop up where, for instance, plumbers could provide useful annotations to building codes — perhaps blending Wikipedia with Facebook for a more useful law site.

LexisNexis declined to comment for this story. Its primary competitor, Thomson West, which publishes California laws under a contract with the state, does not claim copyright over government statutes, a spokesman said.

California asserts copyright protections for its laws, contending it ensures the public gets accurate, timely information while generating revenue for the state.

“We exercise our copyright to benefit the people of California,” said Linda Brown, deputy director of the Office of Administrative Law, which manages the state’s laws. “We are obtaining compensation for the people of California.”

Malamud must get permission from the state to post codes online, Brown said. She was not familiar with Malamud’s actions, and could not comment on what steps would be taken to protect the state’s copyright.

Malamud might be seriously outgunned in regards to the financial and legal resources of the governments he is facing. But Malamud has a track record of defeating much larger foes, said Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society.

“I think his work is extraordinarily important,” Lessig said.

While there is a lot of commercial interest in stopping Malamud, his strategy of showing how easy it is for governments to post laws themselves makes a strong argument to the public, Lessig said.

Malamud thinks it will take him another three years to establish that no one can assert copyright over any U.S. law.

Like in his previous battles, he’s not going it alone. His nonprofit has received about $2 million so far, with money coming from Internet pioneers such as the foundation of Pierre Omidyar, who founded eBay. Malamud expects it will take several million more to finish his campaign.

He also has some heavy-hitting legal academics on his side.

Professor Pamela Samuelson, co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, has also questioned the legality of copyrighting standards and laws.

“If it’s the law, the public should have access to it,” she said.

Samuelson points out that the idea of copyright was established to provide people incentive to create. People are given exclusive legal rights to their paintings, writings and other works because by selling those rights they can attempt to make a living.

There is no similar need for financial incentives to establish standards such as building codes, Samuelson said. For the most part, volunteers spend long hours drafting proposed standards for things like plumbing and building. Governments often take those standards and adopt them into law.

Once the standards become law, she doesn’t think people can claim copyright protections. But like Malamud, she sees the courts making the final ruling.

“I don’t think it’s an airtight case for either side. But I think the law favors that if something is a law, it’s in the public domain,” she said.

You can reach Staff Writer Nathan Halverson at 521-5494 or nathan.halverson@pressdemocrat.com.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080903/NEWS/809030309 1350&title=Getting_access__one_document_at_a_time

Sunday, August 31st, 2008

Dear God,

The other night, the Rev. James Dobson’s ministry asked all believers to pray for a storm on Thursday night so that the Obama acceptance speech outdoors in Denver would have to be cancelled.

I see that You have answered Rev. Dobson’s prayers — except the storm You have sent to earth is not over Denver, but on its way to New Orleans! In fact, You have scheduled it to hit Louisiana at exactly the moment that George W. Bush is to deliver his speech at the Republican National Convention.

Now, heavenly Father, we all know You have a great sense of humor and impeccable timing. To send a hurricane on the third anniversary of the Katrina disaster AND right at the beginning of the Republican Convention was, at first blush, a stroke of divine irony. I don’t blame You, I know You’re angry that the Republicans tried to blame YOU for Katrina by calling it an “Act of God” — when the truth was that the hurricane itself caused few casualties in New Orleans. Over a thousand people died because of the mistakes and neglect caused by humans, not You.

Some of us tried to help after Katrina hit, while Bush ate cake with McCain ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/images/20050829-5_p082905pm-0125-515h.html ) and twiddled his thumbs. I closed my office in New York and sent my entire staff down to New Orleans to help. I asked people on my website to contribute to the relief effort I organized — and I ended up sending over two million dollars in donations, food, water, and supplies (collected from thousands of fans) to New Orleans ( http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2005-10-04 ) while Bush’s FEMA ice trucks were still driving around Maine three weeks later.

But this past Thursday night, the Washington Post reported that the Republicans had begun making plans to possibly postpone the convention. The AP had reported that there were no shelters set up in New Orleans for this storm, and that the levee repairs have not been adequate. In other words, as the great Ronald Reagan would say, “There you go again!”

So the last thing John McCain and the Republicans needed was to have a split-screen on TVs across America: one side with Bush and McCain partying in St. Paul, and on the other side of the screen, live footage of their Republican administration screwing up once again while New Orleans drowns.

So, yes, You have scared the Jesus, Mary and Joseph out of them, and more than a few million of your followers tip their hats to You.

But now it appears that You haven’t been having just a little fun with Bush & Co. It appears that Hurricane Gustav is truly heading to New Orleans and the Gulf coast. We hear You, O Lord, loud and clear, just as we did when Rev. Falwell said You made 9/11 happen because of all those gays and abortions. We beseech You, O Merciful One, not to punish us again as Pat Robertson said You did by giving us Katrina because of America’s “wholesale slaughter of unborn children.” His sentiments were echoed by other Republicans in 2005 ( http://mediamatters.org/items/200509130004 ).

So this is my plea to you: Don’t do this to Louisiana again. The Republicans got your message. They are scrambling and doing the best they can to get planes, trains and buses to New Orleans so that everyone can get out. They haven’t sent the entire Louisiana National Guard to Iraq this time — they are already patrolling the city streets. And, in a nod to I don’t know what, Bush’s head of FEMA has named a man to help manage the federal government’s response. His name is W. Michael Moore. I kid you not, heavenly Father. They have sent a man with both my name AND W’s ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/08/20080830-2.html ) to help save the Gulf Coast.

So please God, let the storm die out at sea. It’s done enough damage already. If you do this one favor for me, I promise not to invoke your name again. I’ll leave that to the followers of Rev. Dobson and to those gathering this week in St. Paul.

Your faithful servant and former seminarian,

Michael Moore

MMFlint@aol.com http://www.michaelmoore.com/

P.S. To all of God’s fellow children who are reading this, the city New Orleans has not yet recovered from Katrina. Please click here for a list of things you can do to help our brothers and sisters on the Gulf Coast ( http://troublethewaterfilm.com/content/pages/learn_what_you_can_do/ ).

And, if you do live along the Gulf Coast, please take all necessary safety precautions immediately.

Col. Serge Labbe was promoted to the rank of brigadier-general July 2 without public notice, the Canwest News Service reported. Labbe served as one of the senior officers in the 1992-1993 mission to Somalia, during which Canadian paratroopers tortured a 16-year-old man to death. Inquiries also showed two Somalis were shot in the back after they entered a Canadian camp

Labbe was never charged with any of the incidents, although a 1997 inquiry said he exercised “poor and inappropriate leadership,” the Ottawa Citizen said.

Labbe was denied a promotion to brigadier-general twice before, the newspaper said.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/25/Canada_promotes_criticized_officer/UPI-79851217010700/

By Jacqui Cheng | Published: July 22, 2008 – 04:31PM CT

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today upheld a ban on the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), ruling once again that it was unconstitutional, overbroad, and vague. The American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged COPA on behalf of a coalition of writers, artists and health educators, hailed the ruling as a victory for free speech.

“For years the government has been trying to thwart freedom of speech on the Internet, and for years the courts have been finding the attempts unconstitutional,” said Chris Hansen, senior staff attorney with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group. “The government has no more right to censor the Internet than it does books and magazines.”

COPA was originally passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1998 and was meant to protect children from “harmful” content on the Internet. Unfortunately for proponents of the law, its wording was very broad and would have required website operators to implement a number of measures to enforce “contemporary community standards.” According to the ACLU blog, it would have even barred adults from seeing material that was not appropriate for a child and would have affected, among other things, the online availability of sexual health information.

Opponents of the law sued to block enforcement almost immediately, and in the ten years since the law was passed, it has never been enforced. Instead, it worked its way through the system for years. In 2002, the Supreme Court instructed a Circuit Court to reconsider its ruling preventing the law’s enforcement. The Supreme Court blocked enforcement of COPA in 2004, again sending the law back down to the District Court for further study.

In 2007, the District Court struck down the law yet again, ruling it unconstitutional and issuing a permanent injunction against its enforcement. The court found that COPA violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, ruling that “COPA prohibits much more speech than is necessary to further Congress’ compelling interest.” Not one to take failure lying down, the government appealed the decision, bringing us to where we are today.

In a unanimous decision, the court ruled (PDF) that COPA was “not narrowly tailored” enough to serve the government’s goal of protecting children from content on the Internet, it was was not the least restrictive means available, and was substantially overbroad. The government now has the same decision to make as it has many times in the past: whether to appeal to the Supreme Court (again), or let it die. It wouldn’t be a huge surprise to see the case appealed one last time. “Hopefully [the government] will conclude that 10 years of litigation is enough,” notes the ACLU. We agree.

Dating back to the 1700s, crown copyright reflects a centuries-old perspective that the government ought to control the public’s ability to use official documents. Today crown copyright extends for fifty years from creation and it requires anyone who wants to use or republish a government report, parliamentary hearing, or other work to first seek permission. While permission is often granted, it is not automatic. The Canadian approach stands in sharp contrast to the situation in the U.S. where the federal government does not hold copyright over work created by an officer or employee as part of that person’s official duties. Government reports, court cases, and Congressional transcripts can therefore be freely used and published.

The existence of crown copyright affects both the print and audio-visual worlds and is increasingly viewed as a barrier to Canadian film making, political advocacy, and educational publishing.
For example, while U.S. governmental reports are freely available and often used for commercial purposes without the need for prior permission, Canadian publishers seeking to release a Canadian report as a commercial title would need approval from the government to do so. To obtain permission, the publisher would be required to provide details on the intended use and format of the work, the precise website address if the work is to appear online, as well as the estimated number of hard copies if the work is to be reprinted. If the work is to be sold commercially, the publisher would be required to disclose the estimated selling price. Film makers and educational publishers face similar barriers. Unlike their U.S. counterparts, they must budget for lengthy, expensive approval processes for the use of government clips in their films or documents in their textbooks.

Beyond the policy reasons for abandoning crown copyright, internal government documents reveal other concerns. Financially, the federal crown copyright system costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Documents from Public Works and Government Services Canada, which administers the crown copyright system, reveal that in the 2006-7 fiscal year, crown copyright licensing generated less than $7,000 in revenue, yet the system cost over $200,000 to administer.

In most instances, Canadians obtain little return for this investment. Ninety-five percent of crown copyright requests are approved, with requests ranging from archival photos to copies of the Copyright Act. More troubling are the five percent of cases where permission is declined. While in some instances refusals stem from the fact that the government does not have rights in the requested work, government documents reveal that some requests are declined for what appear to be politically motivated reasons.

For example, an educational institution request to reproduce a photo of a Snowbird airplane was denied on the grounds that the photo was to be used for an article raising questions about the safety of the program. Similarly, a request to reproduce a screen capture of the NEXUS cross-border program with the U.S. was declined since it was to be used in an article that would not portray the program in a favourable light. Although it seems unlikely that crown copyright authorization was needed to use these images, the government’s decision to deny permission smacks of censorship and misuse of Canadian copyright law.

Given the significant costs associated with a program that does more harm than good and that appears susceptible to political manipulation, any new copyright reform should eliminate crown copyright and adopt in its place a presumption that government materials belong to the public domain to be freely used without prior permission or compensation.

President Bush on April 24, 2008, signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.

Described as a “national contingency plan” the justification for the new law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of “public health emergency.”

The bill states that the federal government should “continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening” and “maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening… ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly”.

Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests.

Read the full bill here.

One health care expert and prominent critic of DNA screening is Twila Brase, president of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care who has written a detailed analysis (PDF) of the new law in which she warns that it represents the first program of population wide genetic testing.

Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:

• Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.

• Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.

• Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.

• Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study “secondary conditions” of individuals and their families.

• Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.

“Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research,” Brase writes. “The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research.”

“The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child’s DNA for the purpose of genetic research.”

In a previous report we outlined the consequences of the already existing DNA warehousing operation in Minnesota, a program that the Citizens’ Council on Health Care has been following closely for a number of years.

Ms. Brase explained in a statement last month that state Health Department officials are now seeking exemption for the so called “DNA Warehouse” from Minnesota privacy law. This would enable state officials to continue to take the DNA of newborn infants without consent, which would also set the precedent for nationwide policy on DNA screening.

DNA of newborns has already been harvested, tested, stored and experimented with nationwide.

The National Conference of State Legislatures lists for all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the various statutes or regulatory provisions under which newborns’ DNA is already being collected.

In addition, all 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Department of Homeland Security.

The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 merely establishes this practice within the law.

Another vocal critic of bill S. 1858 is Texas Congressman Ron Paul who made the following comments before the U.S. House of Representatives:

“I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation’s stated goals, that exceed the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it.”

Paul, a medical doctor himself continued, “S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. …”

“Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent … My review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children,” Paul continued.

“In fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a ‘public health’ disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of ‘emergency,” he concluded.

Senators Clinton has been very vocal and supportive of the passing of this bill. Senators John McCain and Obama also voted in favor.

Source: Infowars.net
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/? p=1896
Published: May 2, 2008
Author: Steve Watson

“From on or about April 22, 2005 thought on or about May 21, 2005, a mail cover was conducted for all mail pieces addressed to an individual residing on Lauder Street in Detroit, Michigan who was, at all times relevant to the Information, the subject of an ongoing federal criminal investigation,” reads the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Friday.

On July 8th of that year, Cry “did disclose to the subject … that his mail was monitored by the Postal Service,” the complaint alleges, violating a federal law against disclosing confidential government information, a misdemeanor.

Courts have ruled that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the address information on their mail, and mail covers have a long and storied history in the annals of domestic surveillance. In the 1970s, the Church Committee found that the CIA and FBI had used the mail cover program as a front to secretly open, copy and re-seal some 215,000 letters, in a single spying operation run from an office in New York.

In 2005, the Bush administration unsuccessfully lobbied Congress for expanded authority to obtain mail covers, complaining that the Postal Service’s standards for approving the surveillance were too restrictive.

Unlike other forms of surveillance, like wiretaps and pen registers, statistics on the number of mail covers performed each year are not released. In 2007, Salon reported on widespread suspicions in the civil liberties community that the secret number is rising.

It’s surprising to hear that an ordinary letter carrier would be privy to the workings of a surveillance program, even one as antiquated as mail snooping. It’s also kind of reassuring. If you notice your mailman, avoiding eye contact the time you sign for a parcel, they may be trying to send you a message.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/post-carrier-ac.html

San Francisco – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a broad coalition, including civil rights groups, professional associations and technologists, called on Congress today to hold oversight hearings on the Department of Homeland Security’s search and seizure of electronic devices at American borders.

The press has widely reported disturbing stories about U.S. citizens subject to intrusive searches of their laptops and cell phones. But a recent court decision found that customs officials can search travelers’ computers at the border without suspicion or cause. In a letter sent to the House and Senate Homeland Security and Judiciary committees today, the coalition urges lawmakers to consider passing legislation to prevent abusive search practices by border agents and to protect all Americans from suspicion less digital border inspections.

“Our computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices hold a vast amount of personal information like financial data, health histories, and personal emails and letters,” said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. “In a free country, the government cannot have unlimited power to read, seize, and store this information without any oversight.”

So far, the Department of Homeland Security has refused to release its policies and procedures for conducting these intrusive searches. EFF and the Asian Law Caucus have filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security to obtain the information through the Freedom of Information Act.

“Your privacy could be at risk even if you don’t travel yourself. Your financial institution, your insurer, and other enterprises hold extensive personal data about you and your family,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien. “If agents of those groups travel internationally, your information could be exposed to officials at the border or potentially copied and stored in government databases. Americans should know how and why electronic data is seized and kept by the government, and who is able to access it at the border and in the years afterwards.”

In addition to EFF, the coalition signing today’s letter includes more than 40 organizations and individuals, including the Association for Corporate Travel Executives, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Rutherford Institute, and prominent technologists such as Bruce Schneier and Whitfield Diffie.

For the full letter to Congress:

STAHL: If someone’s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person — if you listen to the expression “cruel and unusual punishment,” doesn’t that apply?

SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think — Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so.

STAHL: Well I think if you’re in custody, and you have a policeman who’s taken you into custody–

SCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for? … When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

Watch it: