Privacy Bill of Rights establishes device identifiers as PII

In my view the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights drafted by US Senators McCain and Kerry would significantly strengthen the identify fabric of the Internet through its proposal that “a unique persistent identifier associated with an individual or a networked device used by such an individual” must be treated as personally identifiable information (Section 3 – 4 – vii).   This clear and central statement marks a real step forward.  Amongst other things, it covers the MAC addresses of wireless devices and the serial numbers and random identifiers of mobile phones and laptops.

From this fact alone the bill could play a key role in limiting a number of the most privacy-invasive practices used today by Internet services – including location-based services.  For example, a company like Apple could no longer glibly claim, as it does in its current iTunes privacy policy, that device identifiers and location information are “not personally identifying”.  Nor could it profess, as iTunes also currently does, that this means it can “collect, use, transfer, and disclose”  the information “for any purpose”.  Putting location information under the firm control of users is a key legislative requirement addressed by the bill.

The bill also contributes both to the security of the Internet and to individual privacy by unambiguously embracing “Minimal Disclosure for a Constrained Use” as set out in Law 2 of the Laws of Identity.  Title III explicitly establishes a “Right to Purpose Specification; Data Minimization; Constraints on Distribution; and Data Integrity.”

Despite these real positives, the bill as currently formulated leaves me eager to consult a bevy of lawyers – not a good sign.  This may be because it is still a “working draft”, with numerous provisions that must be clarified. 

For example, how would the population at large ever understand the byzantine interlocking of opt-in and opt-out clauses described in Section 202?  At this point, I don't.

And what does the list of exceptions to Unauthorized Use in Section 3 paragraph 8 imply?  Does it mean such uses can be made without notice and consent?

I'll be looking for comments by legal and policy experts.  Already, EPIC has expressed both support and reservations:

Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) have introduced the “Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011,” aimed at protecting consumers’ privacy both online and offline. The Bill endorses several “Fair Information Practices,” gives consumers the ability to opt-out of data disclosures to third-parties, and restricts the sharing of sensitive information.

But the Bill does not allow for a private right of action, preempts better state privacy laws, and includes a “Safe Harbor” arrangement that exempts companies from significant privacy requirements.

EPIC has supported privacy laws that provide meaningful enforcement, limit the ability of companies’ to exploit loopholes for behavioral targeting, and ensure that the Federal Trade Commission can investigate and prosecute unfair and deceptive trade practices, as it did with Google Buzz. For more information, see EPIC: Online Tracking and Behavioral Profiling and EPIC: Federal Trade Commission.

Kerry McCain bill proposes “minimal disclosure” for transaction

Steve Satterfield at Inside Privacy gives us this overview of central features of new Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights proposed by US Senators Kerry and McCain (download it here):

  • The draft envisions a significant role for the FTC and includes provisions requiring the FTC to promulgate rules on a number of important issues, including the appropriate consent mechanism for uses of data.  The FTC would also be tasked with issuing rules obligating businesses to provide reasonable security measures for the consumer data they maintain and to provide transparent notices about data practices.
  • The draft also states that businesses should “seek” to collect only as much “covered information” as is reasonably necessary to provide a transaction or service requested by an individual, to prevent fraud, or to improve the transaction or service
  • “Covered information” is defined broadly and would include not just “personally identifiable information” (such as name, address, telephone number, social security number), but also “unique identifier information,” including a customer number held in a cookie, a user ID, a processor serial number or a device serial number.  Unlike definitions of “covered information” that appear in separate bills authored by Reps. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and Jackie Speier (D-Cal.), this definition specifically covers cookies and device IDs.
  • The draft encompasses a data retention principle, providing that businesses should only retain covered information only as long as necessary to provide the transaction or service “or for a reasonable period of time if the service is ongoing.” 
  • The draft contemplates enforcement by the FTC and state attorneys general.  Notably — and in contrast to Rep. Rush's bill — the draft does not provide a privacy right of action for individuals who are affected by a violation. 
  • Nor does the bill specifically address the much-debated “Do Not Track” opt-out mechanism that was recommended in the FTC's recent staff report on consumer privacy.  (You can read our analysis of that report here.) 

As noted above, the draft is reportedly still a work in progress.  Inside Privacy will provide additional commentary on the Kerry legislation and other congressional privacy efforts as they develop.   

Press conference will be held tomorrow at 12:30 pm.  [Emphasis above is mine – Kim]

Readers of Identityblog will understand that I see this development, like so many others, as inevitable and predictable consequences of many short-sighted industry players breaking the Laws of Identity.

 

WSJ: Federal Prosecutors investigate smartphone apps

If you have kept up with the excellent Wall Street Journal series on smartphone apps that inappropriately collect and release location information, you won't be surprised at their latest chapter:  Federal Prosecutors are now investigating information-sharing practices of mobile applications, and a Grand Jury is already issuing subpoenas.  The Journal says, in part:

Federal prosecutors in New Jersey are investigating whether numerous smartphone applications illegally obtained or transmitted information about their users without proper disclosures, according to a person familiar with the matter…

The criminal investigation is examining whether the app makers fully described to users the types of data they collected and why they needed the information—such as a user's location or a unique identifier for the phone—the person familiar with the matter said. Collecting information about a user without proper notice or authorization could violate a federal computer-fraud law…

Online music service Pandora Media Inc. said Monday it received a subpoena related to a federal grand-jury investigation of information-sharing practices by smartphone applications…

In December 2010, Scott Thurm wrote Your Apps Are Watching You,  which has now been “liked” by over 13,000 people.  It reported that the Journal had tested 101 apps and found that:

… 56 transmitted the phone's unique device identifier to other companies without users’ awareness or consent.  Forty-seven apps transmitted the phone's location in some way. Five sent a user's age, gender and other personal details to outsiders.  At the time they were tested, 45 apps didn't provide privacy policies on their websites or inside the apps.

In Pandora's case, both the Android and iPhone versions of its app transmitted information about a user's age, gender, and location, as well as unique identifiers for the phone, to various advertising networks. Pandora gathers the age and gender information when a user registers for the service.

Legal experts said the probe is significant because it involves potentially criminal charges that could be applicable to numerous companies. Federal criminal probes of companies for online privacy violations are rare…

The probe centers on whether app makers violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, said the person familiar with the matter. That law, crafted to help prosecute hackers, covers information stored on computers. It could be used to argue that app makers “hacked” into users’ cellphones.

[More here]

The elephant in the room is Apple's own approach to location information, which should certainly be subject to investigation as well.   The user is never presented with a dialog in which Apple's use of location information is explained and permission is obtained.  Instead, the user's agreement is gained surreptitiously, hidden away  on page 37 of a 45 page policy that Apple users must accept in order to use… iTunes.  Why iTunes requires location information is never explained.  The policy simply states that the user's device identifier and location are non-personal information and that Apple “may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose“.

Any purpose?

Is it reasonable that companies like Apple can  proclaim that device identifiers and location are non-personal and then do whatever they want with them?  Informed opinion seems not to agree with them.  The International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications, for example, asserted precisely the opposite as early as 2004.  Membership of the Group included “representatives from Data Protection Authorities and other bodies of national public administrations, international organisations and scientists from all over the world.”

More empirically, I demonstrated in Non-Personal information, like where you live that the combination of device identifier and location is in very many cases (including my own) personally identifying.  This is especially true in North America where many of us live in single-family dwellings.

[BTW, I have not deeply investigated the approach to sharing of location information taken by other smartphone providers – perhaps others can shed light on this.]

Google Indoors featured on German TV

Germans woke up yesterday to a headline story on Das Erste's TV Morning Show announcing a spiffy new Internet service – Google indoors

The first's lead-in and Google Indoors spokesman

A spokesman said Google was extending its Street View offering so Internet users could finally see inside peoples’ homes.  Indeed, Google indoors personnel were already knocking on doors, patiently explaining that if people had not already gone through the opt-out process, they had “opted in”…

Google Indoors greeted by happy customer

… so the technicians needed to get on with their work:

Google Indoors camera-head enters appartment

Google's deep concern about peoples’ privacy had let it to introduce features such as automated blurring of faces…

Automated privacy features and product placements with revenue shared with residents
 
… and the business model of the scheme was devilishly simple: the contents of peoples’ houses served as product placements charged to advertisers, with 1/10 of a cent per automatically recognized brand name going to the residents themselves.  As shown below, people can choose to obfuscate products worth more than 5,000 Euros if concerned about attracting thieves – an example of the advanced privacy options and levels the service makes possible.

Google Indoors app experience

Check out the video.  Navigation features within houses are amazing!  From the amount of effort and wit put into it by a major TV show, I'd wager that even if Google's troubles with Germany around Street View are over, its problems with Germans around privacy may not be. 

Frankly, Das Erste (meaning “The First”) has to be congratulated on one of the best crafted April Fools you will have witnessed.  I don't have the command of German language or politics (!) to understand all the subtleties, but friends say the piece is teeming with irony.  And given Eric Schmidt's policy of getting as close to “creepy” as possible, who wouldn't find the video at least partly believable?

[Thanks to Kai Rannenberg for the heads up.]

Malcolm Compton on power imbalance and security

Australia's CRN reports that former Australian Privacy Commissioner Malcolm Crompton has called for the establishment of a formal privacy industry to rethink identity management in an increasingly digital world:

Addressing the Cards & Payments Australasia conference in Sydney this week, Crompton said the online environment needed to become “safe to play” from citizens’ perspective.

While the internet was built as a “trusted environment”, Crompton said governments and businesses had emerged as “digital gods” with imbalanced identification requirements.

Power allocation is where we got it wrong,” he said, warning that organisations’ unwarranted emphasis on identification had created money-making opportunities for criminals.

Malcolm puts this well.  I too have come to see that the imbalance of power between individual users and Internet business is one of the key factors blocking the emergence of a safe Internet. 

CRN continues:

Currently, users were forced to provide personal information to various email providers, social networking sites, and online retailers in what Crompton described as “a patchwork of identity one-offs”.

Not only were login systems “incredibly clumsy and easy to compromise”; centralised stores of personal details and metadata created honeypots of information for identity thieves, he said…

Refuting arguments that metadata – such as login records and search strings – was unidentifiable, Crompton warned that organisations hording such information would one day face a user revolt

He also recommended the use of cloud-based identification management systems such as Azigo, Avoco and OpenID, which tended to give users more control of their information and third-party access rights.

User-centricity was central to Microsoft chief identity architect Kim Cameron’s ‘Laws of Identity’ (pdf), as well as Canadian Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian’s seven principles of ‘Privacy by Design’ (pdf).

Full article here.

Lazy headmasters versus the Laws of Identity

Ray Corrigan routinely combines legal and technological insight at B2fxxx – Random thoughts on law, the Internet and society, and his book on Digital Decision Making is essential.  His work often leaves me feeling uncharacteristically optimistic – living proof that a new kind of legal thinker is emerging with the technological depth needed to be a modern day Solomon.

I hadn't noticed the UK's new Protection of Freedoms Bill until I heard cabinet minister Damian Green talk about it as he pulverized the UK's centralized identity database recently.  Naturally I turned to Ray Corrigan for comment, only to discover that the political housecleaning had also swept away the assumptions behind widespread fingerprinting in Britain's schools, reinstating user control and consent. 

According to TES Connect:

The new Protection of Freedoms Bill gives pupils in schools and colleges the right to refuse to give their biometric data and compels schools to make alternative provision for them.  The several thousand schools that already use the technology will also have to ask permission from parents retrospectively, even if their systems have been established for years…

It turns out that Britain's headmasters, apparently now a lazy bunch, have little stomach for trivialities like civil liberties.  And writing about this, Ray's tone seems that of a judge who has had an impetuous and over-the-top barrister try to bend the rules one too many times.  It is satisfying to see Ray send them home to study the Laws of Identity as scientific laws governing identity systems.   I hope they catch up on their homework…

The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) is reportedly opposing the controls on school fingerprinting proposed in the UK coalition government's Protection of Freedoms Bill.

I always understood the reason that unions existed was to protect the rights of individuals. That ASCL should give what they perceive to be their own members’ managerial convenience priority over the civil rights of kids should make them thoroughly ashamed of themselves.  Oh dear – now head teachers are going to have to fill in a few forms before they abuse children's fundamental right to privacy – how terrible.

Although headteachers and governors at schools deploying these systems may be typically ‘happy that this does not contravene the Data Protection Act’, a number of leading barristers have stated that the use of such systems in schools may be illegal on several grounds. As far back as 2006 Stephen Groesz, a partner at Bindmans in London, was advising:

“Absent a specific power allowing schools to fingerprint, I'd say they have no power to do it. The notion you can do it because it's a neat way of keeping track of books doesn't cut it as a justification.”

The recent decisions in the European Court of Human rights in cases like S. and Marper v UK (2008 – retention of dna and fingerprints) and Gillan and Quinton v UK (2010 – s44 police stop and search) mean schools have to be increasingly careful about the use of such systems anyway. Not that most schools would know that.

Again the question of whether kids should be fingerprinted to get access to books and school meals is not even a hard one! They completely decimate Kim Cameron's first four laws of identity.

1. User control and consent – many schools don't ask for consent, child or parental, and don't provide simple opt out options

2. Minimum disclosure for constrained use – the information collected, children's unique biometrics, is disproportionate for the stated use

3. Justifiable parties – the information is in control of or at least accessible by parties who have absolutely no right to it

4. Directed identity – a unique, irrevocable, omnidirectional identifier is being used when a simple unidirectional identifier (eg lunch ticket or library card) would more than adequately do the job.

It's irrelevant how much schools have invested in such systems or how convenient school administrators find them, or that the Information Commissioner's Office soft peddled their advice on the matter (in 2008) in relation to the Data Protection Act.  They should all be scrapped and if the need for schools to wade through a few more forms before they use these systems causes them to be scrapped then that's a good outcome from my perspective.

In addition just because school fingerprint vendors have conned them into parting with ridiculous sums of money (in school budget terms) to install these systems, with promises that they are not really storing fingerprints and they can't be recreated, there is no doubt it is possible to recreate the image of a fingerprint from data stored on such systems. Ross, A et al ‘From Template to Image: Reconstructing Fingerprints from Minutiae Points’ IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 2007 is just one example of how university researchers have reverse engineered these systems. The warning caveat emptor applies emphatically to digital technology systems that buyers don't understand especially when it comes to undermining the civil liberties of our younger generation.

Broken Laws of Identity lead to system's destruction

Britain's Home Office has posted a remarkable video, showing Immigration Minister Damian Green methodically pulverizing the disk drives that once held the centralized database that was to be connected to the British ID Cards introduced by Tony Blair.  

“What we're doing today is CRUSHING, the final remnants of the national identity card scheme – the disks and hard drives that held the information on the national identity register have been wiped and they're crushed and reduced to bits of metal so everyone can be absolutely sure that the identity scheme is absolutely dead and buried.

“This whole experiment of trying to collect huge amounts of private information on everyone in this country – and collecting on the central database – is no more, and it's a first step towards a wider agenda of freedom.  We're publishing the protection of freedoms bill as well, and what this shows is that we want to rebalance the security and freedom of the citizen.  We think that previously we have not had enough emphasis on peoples’ individual freedom and privacy, and we're determined to restore the proper balance on that.”

Readers of Identityblog will recall that the British scheme was exceptional in breaking so many of the Laws of Identity at once.  It flouted the first law – User control and Consent – since citizen participation was mandatory.  It broke the second – Minimal Disclosure for a Constrained Use – since it followed the premise that as much information as possible should be assembled in a central location for whatever uses might arise…  The third law of Justifiable Parties was not addressed given the centralized architecture of the system, in which all departments would have made queries and posted updates to the same database and access could have been extended at the flick of a wrist.  And the fourth law of “Directed Identity” was a clear non-goal, since the whole idea was to use a single identifier to unify all possible information.

Over time opposition to the scheme began to grow and became widespread, even though the Blair and Brown governments claimed their polls showed majority support.  Many well-known technologists and privacy advocates attempted to convince them to consider privacy enhancing technologies and architectures that would be less vulnerable to security and privacy meltdown – but without success.  Beyond the scheme's many technical deficiencies, the social fracturing it created eventually assured its irrelevance as a foundational element for the digital future.

Many say the scheme was an important issue in the last British election.  It certainly appears the change in government has left the ID card scheme in the dust, with politicians of all stripes eager to distance themselves from it.  Damian Green, who worked in television and understands it, does a masterful job of showing what his views are.  His video posted by the Home Office, seems iconic.

All in all, the fate of the British ID Card and centralized database scheme is exactly what was predicted by the Laws of Identity:

Those of us who work on or with identity systems need to obey the Laws of Identity.  Otherwise, we create a wake of reinforcing side-effects that eventually undermine all resulting technology.  The result is similar to what would happen if civil engineers were to flount the law of gravity.  By following the Laws we can build a unifying identity metasystem that is universally accepted and enduring.

[Thanks to Jerry Fishenden (here and here) for twittering Damian Green's video]

Incident closed – good support from janrain…

When I connected with janrain to resolve the issue described here, they were more than helpful. In fact, I have to quote them, because this is what companies should be like:

“We certainly test on ie 6,7,8,9, and would love to get your situation smoothed out.” 

The scary part came a little while later…

“The cause is likely to be configuration based on the browser.  Browser security settings should be set to default for testing. Temporarily disable all toolbars and add-ons. Clear caches and cookies (at least for your site domain and rpxnow.com.”

Oh yeah.  I've heard that one before.  So I was a bit skeptical. 

On the other hand, I happened to be in a crowd and asked some people nearby with Windows 7 to see what happened to them when they tried to log in.  It was one of those moments.  Everything worked perfectly for everyone but me… 

Gathering my courage, I pressed the dreaded configuration reset button as I had been told to do: 

Then I re-enabled all my add-ons as janrain suggested.  And… everything worked as advertised.

So there you go.  Possibly I did something to my IE config at some point – I do a lot of experimenting.  Conclusion: if any of you run into the same problem, please let me know.  Until then, let's consider the incident closed.

 

Six new authentication methods for Identityblog

Back in March 2006, when Information Cards were unknown and untested, it became obvious that the best way for me to understand the issues would be to put Information Cards onto Identityblog. 

I wrote the code in PHP, and a few people started trying out Information Cards.  Since I was being killed by spam at the time, I decided to try an experiment:  make it mandatory to use an Information Card to leave a comment.  It was worth a try.  More people might check out InfoCards.  And presto, my spam problems would go away.

So on March 18th 2006 I posted More hardy pioneers try out InfoCard, showing the first few people to give it all a whirl.

At first I thought my draconian “InfoCard-Only” approach would get a lot of peoples’ hackles up and only last a few weeks.  But over time more and more people seemed to be subscribing – probably because Identityblog was one of the few sites that actually used InfoCards in production.  And I never had spam again.

How many people joined using InfoCards?  Today I looked at my user list (see the screenshot below with PII fuzzed out).  The answer: 2958 people successfully subscribed and passed email verification.  There were then over 23,000 successful audited logins.  Not very many for a commercial site, but not bad for a technical blog.

Of course, as we all know, the powers at the large commercial sites have preferred the  “NASCAR” approach of presenting a bunch of different buttons that redirect the user to, uh, something-or-other-that-can-be-phished, ahem, in spite of the privacy and security problems.  This part of the conversation will go on for some time, since these problems will become progressively more widespread as NASCAR gains popularity and the criminally inclined tune in to its potential as a gold mine… But that discussion is for another day. 

Meanwhile, I want to get my hands dirty and understand all the implications of the NASCAR-style approach.  So recently I subscribed to a nifty janrain service that offers a whole array of login methods.  I then integrated their stuff into Identityblog.  I promise, Scout's Honor, not to do man-in-the-middle-attacks or scrape your credentials, even though I probably could if I were so inclined.

From now on, when you need to authenticate at Identityblog, you will see a NASCAR-style login symbol.  See, for example, the LOG IN option at the top of this page. 

If you are not logged in and you want to leave a comment you will see :
 

Click on the string of icons and you get something like this:

 

Because many people continue to use my site to try out Information Cards, I've supplemented the janrain widget experience with the Pamelaware Information Card Option (it was pretty easy to make them coexist, and it leaves me with at least one unphishable alternative).  This will also benefit people who don't like the idea of linking their identifiers all over the web.  I expect it will help researchers and students too.

One warning:  Janrain's otherwise polished implementation doesn't work properly with Internet Explorer – it leaves a spurious “Cross Domain Receiver Page” lurking on your desktop.  [Update – this was apparently my problem: see here]  Once I figure out how to contact them (not evident), I'll ask janrain if and when they're going to fix this.  Anyway, the system works – just a bit messy because you have to manually close the stranded empty page.  The problem doesn't appear in Firefox. 

It has already been a riot looking into the new technology and working through the implications.  I'll talk about this as we go forward.

 

Social Network Users’ Bill of Rights

The  “Social Network Users’ Bill of Rights” panel at the South by Southwest Interactive (SXSW) conference last Friday had something that most panels lack:  an outcome.  The goal was to get the SXSWi community to cast their votes and help to shape a bill of rights that would reflect the participation of many thousands of people using the social networks.

The idea of getting broad communities to vote on this is pretty interesting.  Panelist Lisa Borodkin wrote:

There is no good way currently of collecting hard, empirical, quantitative data about the preferences of a large number of social network users. There is a need to have user input into the formation of social norms, because courts interpreting values such as “expectations of privacy” often look to social network sites policies and practices.

Where did the Bill of Rights come from?  The document was written collaboratively over four days at last year's Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference and since the final version was published has been collecting votes through pages like this one.  Voting is open until June 15, 2011 – the “anniversary of the date the U.S. government asked Twitter to delay its scheduled server maintenance as a critical communication tool for use in the 2009 Iran elections”.  And guess what?  That date also coincides with this year's Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference.

The Bill – admirably straightforward and aimed at real people – reads as follows:

We the users expect social network sites to provide us the following rights in their Terms of Service, Privacy Policies, and implementations of their system:

  1. Honesty: Honor your privacy policy and terms of service
  2. Clarity: Make sure that policies, terms of service, and settings are easy to find and understand
  3. Freedom of speech: Do not delete or modify my data without a clear policy and justification
  4. Empowerment : Support assistive technologies and universal accessibility
  5. Self-protection: Support privacy-enhancing technologies
  6. Data minimization: Minimize the information I am required to provide and share with others
  7. Control: Let me control my data, and don’t facilitate sharing it unless I agree first
  8. Predictability: Obtain my prior consent before significantly changing who can see my data.
  9. Data portability: Make it easy for me to obtain a copy of my data
  10. Protection: Treat my data as securely as your own confidential data unless I choose to share it, and notify me if it is compromised
  11. Right to know: Show me how you are using my data and allow me to see who and what has access to it.
  12. Right to self-define: Let me create more than one identity and use pseudonyms. Do not link them without my permission.
  13. Right to appeal: Allow me to appeal punitive actions
  14. Right to withdraw: Allow me to delete my account, and remove my data

It will be interesting to see whether social networking sites engage with this initiative.  Sixestate reported some time ago that Facebook objected to requiring support for pseudonyms. 

While I support all other aspects of the Bill, I too think it is a mistake to mandate that ALL communities MUST support pseudonymity or be in violation of the Bill…  In all other respects, the Bill is consistent with the Laws of Identity.  However the Laws envisaged a continuum of approaches to identification, and argued that all have their place for different purposes.  I think this is much closer to the mark and Right 12 should be amended.  The fundamental point is that we must have the RIGHT to form and participate in communities that DO choose to support pseudonymity.  This doesn't mean we ONLY have the right to participate in such communities.

Where do the organizers want to go next? Jon Pincus writes:

Here’s a few ideas:

  • get social network sites to adopt the concept of a Bill of Rights for their users and as many of the individual rights as they’re comfortable with.   Some of the specific rights are contentious  — for example, Facebook objected to in their response last summer.  But more positively, Facebook’s current “user rights and responsibilities” document already covers many of these rights, and it would be great to have even partial support from them.  And sites like Twitter, tribe.net, and emerging companies that are trying to emphasize different values may be willing to go even farther.
  • work with politicians in the US and elsewhere who are looking at protecting online, and encourage them to adopt the bill of rights framework and our specific language.  There’s a bit of “carrot and stick” combining this and the previous bullet: the threat of legislation is great both for encouraging self-regulation and getting startups to look for a potential future strategic advantage by adopting strong user rights from the beginning.
  • encourage broad participation to highlight where there’s consensus.  Currently, there are a couple of ways to weigh in: the Social Network Users’ Bill of Rights site allows you to vote on the individual rights, and you can also vote for or against the entire bill via Twitter.  It would be great to have additional voting on other social network sites like Facebook, MySpace, Reddit to give the citizens of those “countries” a voice.
  • collaborate with with groups like the Global Network Initiative, the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition, the Social Charter, and the Association for Progressive Communications that support similar principles
  • follow Gabrielle Pohl’s lead and translate into multiple languages to build awareness globally.
  • take a more active approach with media outreach to call more attention to the campaign.  #privchat, the weekly Twitter chat sponsored by Center for Democracy and Technology and Privacy Camp, is natural hub for the discussion.

Meanwhile, here are some ways you can express your views: