Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

A submitted amicus brief shows how Colombia’s intelligence law and unlawful surveillance practices are violating the right to privacy and other human rights.

“Faced with expansive and vague moderation obligations, little time for analysis, and major legal consequences if they guess wrong, companies inevitably over-censor. Stricter regulation of and moderation by platforms also results in self-censorship”.

Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter highlights the risks to human rights and personal safety when any single person has complete control over policies affecting almost 400 million users. And in this case, that person has repeatedly demonstrated that they do not understand the realities of platform policy at scale.

EFF has been analyzing and reporting on the bill since its earliest stages in the Brazilian Congress. The latest text, which has been approved by a working group in the Chamber of Deputies, still contains dangerous language for free expression and digital rights.

“Targeting every computer with a Russian or Belarusian IP address with this sort of hacktivism as a means of protest against the actions of a government is patently absurd and harmful. Developers living in countries that commit war crimes, including the US, might want to consider how they would feel if the tables were turned.”

Courts do not always apply the correct tests to protect anonymous speakers, particularly when they use others’ copyrighted material to engage in commentary and criticism.

Face surveillance is a growing menace to racial justice, privacy, free speech, and information security. So EFF supports bans on government use of this dangerous technology, and laws requiring corporations to get opt-in consent.

“There is no question that Spotify has the right to determine whom to host, profit from or reject from its platform; what is worrisome, however, is Spotify abdicating its ethical responsibility to its users to make such decisions in a transparent and consistent way.”