Fight for the Future

CISA: Internet users deluge House leadership with 50,000+ tweets after reports that Paul Ryan is trying to force a vote on controversial cyber bill this week

Posted 10:26 EST on December 8, 2015

December 8, 2015

Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457,

Internet users are furious about media reports indicating that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is manipulating Congressional process in an attempt to force a rushed vote on the final version of a controversial cyber-surveillance bill this week – and that the final language is even more draconian than expected, with the last vestiges of privacy protections stripped out.

Fight for the Future and other groups from across the political spectrum have been mobilizing Internet users to speak out about Ryan’s backroom dealing, demanding transparency in the process. Fight for the Future members alone have generated more than 50,000 tweets over the weekend focused on Ryan, and also calling for House Homeland Security Chair Michael McCaul––a key player in the negotiations––to stand up to leadership.

“This is Congress at its worst,” said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, “Not only are they ignoring widespread public outcry and consensus from security experts that this bill will make us even more vulnerable to cyber attacks, they’re using a sneaky non-transparent process to force a rushed vote and keep the public, and even members of Congress, in the dark about what they’re really voting on.”

“Paul Ryan seems to care very little for his party’s concerns as he rushes a vote on a bill that would turn corporations into government spies,” added Tiffiniy Cheng, co-founder of Fight for the Future.

People close to the negotiations indicate that the final text is more than 100 pages long. It’s hard to imagine how members of Congress can be expected to meaningfully review the language, or get input from experts, if leadership succeeds in pushing through a vote this week.

Digital rights group Fight for the Future has been at the forefront of opposition to CISA. Earlier this year they lead a series of high profile campaigns, sparking a backlash that resulted in major tech companies like Apple, Google, Twitter, Dropbox, Yahoo, Wikipedia, Yelp, and Salesforce coming out in opposition to the bill. They have also mobilized more than 15,000 websites for an online protest, and generated more than 6 million faxes to the Senate, along with hundreds of thousands of emails and phone calls.

Other groups from across the political spectrum have opposed the bill, along with security experts. Below is a list of recent blog posts from groups opposing Paul Ryan’s attempt to rush CISA to a vote this week.


Campaign for Liberty:

Fight for the Future:

Electronic Frontier Foundation:

American Library Association:

Cory Doctorow:

The Constitutional Alliance:

Open The Government:

Regardless of what happens with the cyber bill negotiations, any final bill will of course have to be signed by President Obama, who had previously promised to veto similar legislation without robust privacy protections. Fight for the Future and other groups will be demanding that Obama stand by his previous commitment, and calling for a veto on any bill that does not meet the White House’s previous standards.


Fight for the Future is a grassroots advocacy group with more than 1.4 million members that fights to protect the Internet as a powerful platform for freedom of expression and social change. They’re best known for organizing the massive online protests against SOPA, for net neutrality, and against government surveillance. Learn more at https://www.fightforthefuture.organd

Share on:

URGENT: Congress pushing shady deal to pass CISA this week

Posted 14:50 EST on December 7, 2015

Hey, we just got word that pro-surveillance forces in the House of Representatives are pushing hard for a backroom deal that would force a rushed vote on a final version of CISA, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, this week.

Here’s the worst part: the final version of the bill appears even more draconian than expected, with the last vestiges of privacy protections stripped out. [1]

The final language is somewhat of a “Frankenstein” bill that combines the worst aspects of several cyber bills that Congress has been considering. It’s more than 100 pages long, but Paul Ryan, the new Speaker of the House, is trying to steamroll dissenting voices and ram through a vote before anyone has even had time to read the whole thing.

Remember the PATRIOT Act? This could be even worse. But it’s also a risky play – if enough members of Congress get upset about this abusive manipulation of Congressional process, CISA could implode.

Time-sensitive: click here to tweet at Paul Ryan right now telling him not to force a vote on CISA.

Not on twitter? Call his office at: (202) 225-3031

Things are moving extremely quickly, so timing is everything. There’s no time for emails or petitions to Congress to get through right now, but we’ve been hearing more and more from staffers on Capitol Hill that they *really* notice when they get a lot of tweets about an issue.

Sometimes even just a few dozen tweets can be enough to affect a Representative’s vote.

We need to make sure that Paul Ryan gets the message that CISA is politically toxic. That’s the only way to slow it down.

But to help make that happen, we also need to get some of the members of the “Freedom Caucus,” who ostensibly oppose overly broad government surveillance, to speak up and oppose Ryan’s dirty dealing.

If you only have a second, click here to tweet at Rep.Paul Ryan to slow down CISA.

If you have two seconds, click here to also tweet at Rep. Mike McCaul, who is the other key player in these negotiations.

And if you’ve got two minutes, please go down the list below and tweet at these other key members of the House who can help stop CISA from barreling through without any meaningful review of the final text.

Did you make it through the whole list? You’re a true Internet hero.

Thanks for all that you do. We’ll keep you posted as things develop.

-Jeff at FFTF

P.S. To understand one of the less-discussed dangers of CISA, check out this CNN article about how corporations and the government collude to hide major hacks. CISA would give more companies legal immunity and cover for this type of abuse.

[1] The Hill. Cyber bill’s final language likely to anger privacy advocates.

Share on:

Want to support Fight for the Future but you can’t make a donation right now?

Posted 14:41 EST on December 4, 2015

If you’re already buying gifts for friends and family, you can support us through many of your online purchases.  Are you an Amazon shopper?  Bookmark this link for your Amazon purchases and you will support our work at no cost to you.  Shop for games and books at Humble Bundle?  Bookmark this link for their store or search for us in the list of groups at checkout. They donate a portion of their profits to groups like ours.  Are you a seller on eBay?  Click here to donate a portion of your sale.  Looking for ways to protect your privacy? If you buy a VPN from Private Internet Access here, they will donate a portion of their sales to us. Are you in need of great gifts or just looking for some cool merch?  Visit our store to find cat lights, Snowden t-shirts and more.

Hoorah!  Thanks in advance for doing everything you can to fight for an open Internet!

Share on:

Paris and Beirut: more mass surveillance won’t make us safer

Posted 14:04 EST on November 19, 2015

I wish we didn’t have to write this. I wish we could take this week to reflect and grieve. But some politicians are wasting no time exploiting tragedy and manipulating our emotions to push their political agendas. To remain silent right now would be irresponsible.

Sign the petition: more mass surveillance will not make us safer.

The attacks in Paris and Beirut have all of us looking for answers. What can we do to stop this violence?

But while people around the world are grappling with that question, U.S. government official are instead seizing the opportunity to renew their attacks on our most basic freedoms, even though they know it won’t make us safer from attacks.

Specifically, government officials in the U.S. and Europe are pushing to ban strong encryption technology. They want every type of Internet security to have a “backdoor” so that governments can access literally everything. Here’s the problem: weakening encryption will actually make us all less safe. Even if you trust governments to never abuse this system and only use it in the most extreme circumstances, once a backdoor exists, it can be used by anyone who can find it, including criminals, other governments, and yes, even terrorists.

Fortunately, we’ve done a mountain of work over the last year educating the public and fighting this kind of misinformation, so more people than ever before know what’s really going on.. Security experts agree that putting backdoors in encryption technology and letting the government collect even more of our personal information won’t prevent attacks like the ones we saw last week.

The battle lines are being drawn, but some powerful voices have been listening and are weighing in on the side of freedom and logic. The influential New York Times editorial board just came out swinging with the headline: “Mass surveillance is not the answer to fighting terrorism.”

If you agree, don’t be silent and let them take our freedom away. Click here to send the NYT editorial to your lawmakers and tell them that more surveillance won’t make us safer.

The details from Paris and Beirut are still emerging. The latest evidence suggests that the attackers were using totally unencrypted SMS messages. The facts haven’t stopped politicians and pundits from demonizing encryption, but the reality is that it’s still not clear exactly how this happened, or how it could have been prevented.

But what is clear is that now is not the time to make hasty decisions and rush to pass laws we’ve barely read. That path has failed us. Now is the time for informed, thoughtful, discussion about the causes of this violence and the real solutions to address it.

Weakening the encryption that protects our hospitals, power plants, airports, and personal information isn’t going to make us safer.

Collecting a giant haystack of data about hundreds of millions of innocent people is not going to stop the next attack.

We need real answers and solutions, not politicians scrambling spin this terrible situation to grab more power.

Do you agree? Click here to take one small action to make sure we don’t repeat our mistakes.

These decisions about encryption and mass surveillance will determine the type of world our children and our children’s children will live in. We shouldn’t let them be made for us by opportunistic politicians or violent attackers.

Yours for freedom and a better world,
-Fight for the Future

P.S. Here’s a link directly to the New York Times editorial. Please share it widely!

P.P.S. This is probably the only time you’ll see us rallying behind an NYT editorial. Savor the strangeness.

Share on:

Final TPP text confirms worst fears: shadowy agreement poses a grave threat to the Internet and freedom of expression

Posted 11:14 EST on November 5, 2015

November 5, 2015

Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457,

Early this morning, the government of New Zealand released the final negotiated text of the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP.)

Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, said, “Now that we can read the final TPP text, it’s obvious why it was kept in total secrecy for so long: this agreement is a wishlist for powerful special interests and multinational corporations. The Intellectual Property chapter confirms our worst first about the TPP’s impact on our basic right to express ourselves and access information on the Internet. If U.S. Congress signs this agreement despite its blatant corruption, they’ll be signing a death warrant for the open Internet and putting the future of free speech in peril.”

Fight for the Future has been at the forefront of a massive coalition of groups that oppose the TPP, and has organized a wide range of high profile actions against the agreement. As an organization that works to protect the Internet, many of our concerns focus on the Intellectual Property chapter, which reads as if it were written directly by by lobbyists from Hollywood, the record indsutry, and big pharmaceutical companies (because it was.)

Here are several sections of grave concern based on our initial read of the final released text. There are undoubtedly other serious issues in the TPP that will be surfaced as technologists and experts read more deeply.

Article 18.26: Term of Protection for Trademarks
Increases the minimum protection for trademarks to 10 years, forcing countries to follow the U.S. model on this rather than make their own trademark policy based on the public interest. This will limit technological innovation and could curtail affordable access to medicines or other basic necessities.

Article 18.37: Patentable Subject Matter
Allows for the patenting of “new methods of using a known product,” which essentially allows for unlimited patents from Pharmaceutical companies and will block affordable access to medicines and medical procedures and prevent innovation of better and more affordable healthcare procedures.

Article 18:28: Domain Names
This undermines anonymous online expression by requiring governments to keep a public database of real names and addresses associated with country code top level domain names, (such as .us, .au, .ca, etc). This is dangerous especially for the ability of opposition groups in repressive countries to voice their concerns online without fear of violent retribution.

Article 18.63: Term of Protection for Copyright and related Rights
This is one of the most egregious pieces of the deal. It forces the most draconian parts of the U.S.’s broken copyright system on the rest of the world without expanding protections for fair use and free speech. This section requires countries to enforce copyright until 70 years after the creator’s death. This will keep an enormous amount of information, art, and creativity out of the public domain for decades longer than necessary, and allow for governments to abuse copyright laws to censor online content at will, since so much of it will be copyrighted for so long.

Article 18.68: Technological Protection Measures
This section attempts to make it a crime to circumvent any “Digital Rights Management” (DRM) locks on a device, even if you own it. It could criminalize people who unlock their phones in order to use accessibility software, for example, or make it illegal to circumvent DRM on a computer in order to use Linux.

Article 18.69: Rights Management Information
This section criminalizes basic activities that involve removing a Rights Management marker, even if it’s done in the process of creating something totally legal. For example, cropping a photo that has a watermark on it in order to use it as part of a fair use creation or as part of a political protest. And yes, that does include if you give credit elsewhere (like the description of a YouTube video).

Article 18.78: Trade Secrets
Criminalizes the “unauthorized and willful disclosure of a trade secret including via a computer system.” This is clearly intended to stifle whistleblowers and journalism covering the documents they expose – it could criminalize, for example, The Guardian’s reporting on the documents they received from Edward Snowden.

Section J: Internet Service Providers
This is one of the worst sections that impacts the openness of the Internet. This section requires Internet Service Providers to play “copyright cops” and assist in the enforcement of copyright takedown requests – but it does not require countries to have a system for counter-notices, so a U.S company could order a website to be taken down in another country, and there would be no way for the person running that website to refute their claims if, say, it was a political criticism website using copyrighted content in a manner consistent with fair use.

Section J makes it so ISPs are not liable for any wrongdoing when they take down content – incentivizing them to err on the side of copyright holders rather than on the side of free speech.

Additionally, the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s chapter on investments includes intellectual property as a matter that can be included in investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS).

Article 9: Investor-State Dispute Settlement
No matter what else is in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, this section makes it bad for people everywhere. It allows companies to sue governments — but not the other way around. These legally-binding challenges are decided by arbitrators hired for that case only, and investors have every reason to stack the cases with as many standards violations as they’d like. Intellectual property is just one of the many things that investors can bring suits over, but we could soon see cases of investors suing governments because they think punishments and rewards for copyright or trademark violations aren’t enough to satisfy them. Decisions that impact the future of the Internet should never be made in secretive international tribunals — especially not ad hoc ones.

Additional background:

Fight for the Future is a digital rights nonprofit that has driven more than 130,000 emails and more than 15,000 phone calls to Congress opposing the TPP  in recent months, rallied more than 7,500 websites for an online protest, and helped coordinate a letter to Congress from more than 250 tech companies expressing transparency and tech related concerns about Fast Track legislation.

The group made headlines in March when they flew a 30’ blimp over several of Senator Ron Wyden’s town hall meetings calling for him to “Save the Internet” by opposing Fast Track for the TPP, and then parked a Jumbotron on capitol hill to display the viral video they made about the stunt. More recently, Fight for the Future made a splash on the hill when they delivered actual rubber stamps to every house Republican’s office with a mock letter from President Obama asking Congress to “please rubber stamp my secret trade agenda.


Fight for the Future works to defend the Internet as a free and open platform for expression and creativity, and is best known for their role organizing the massive online protests against SOPA, the Internet Slowdown for net neutrality, and the Reset The Net campaign for online privacy, which was endorsed by Edward Snowden.

Share on: