Nearly 600 people tried to watch an immigration court hearing in the case of detained activist and U.S. legal permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil on April 8, only to find themselves shut out of the virtual room.

Journalists have been working tirelessly to get the full story since Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Khalil, who is the first person (but sadly not the last) the Trump administration has detained and attempted to deport based on pro-Palestinian activism and speech. There’s intense public interest in Khalil’s case and what it means for the First Amendment rights of both noncitizens and citizens.

So it’s understandable that a lot of people wanted to watch Khalil’s hearing before an immigration judge in rural Louisiana this week, occurring both in person and virtually. What’s not understandable is the judge’s decision to refuse to allow members of the press and the public to access the hearing through the publicly available online link. The judge also denied a request by Khalil’s lawyer to make future hearings accessible to the press and public online.

That’s why Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and a coalition of press freedom groups sent a letter to the court April 10 asking it to allow the press and the public to attend future hearings in Khalil’s case virtually. The immigration court is expected to rule April 11 on whether Khalil can be deported. The public should be there — in person and virtually — when it does.

Some members of the press were able to attend the April 8 hearing in person. But we know of at least three journalists who tried to attend online and couldn’t. There were likely many more — most news outlets don’t have the resources to send reporters across the country for court hearings. As a result, members of the public lost out on the chance to observe the hearing for themselves or to hear the observations and perspectives of the journalists who attempted to cover it virtually.

Transparency promotes trust in our justice system by allowing members of the public and the press to observe it firsthand. Immigration courts should maximize access to their hearings as a way of reassuring the public that their proceedings are fair and just, not locking the public out of the virtual courtroom.

freedom.press/static/pdf.js/we…

freedom.press/issues/let-the-p…

We have a few upcoming events we want you to know about:

• We have requested a table at the Boston Dyke March on Friday, June 13th. We would love your help with the table or the march;
• We will table at the Boxborough Fifers Day on Saturday, June 21st. Tell us if you will help us at the table;
• Community Bridge runs on-line Privacy Workshops as relief from knowing people are safer when they have the tools to protect their privacy. It is EVERY FRIDAY at 7pm Eastern at communitybridge.com/privacywor… The access code is privacytrust;
• Our next conference will be in June. Please fill out this poll with your choices for dates by this Saturday. We hope to meet again at the ROOTED Armory Cafe in Somerville. It is accessible by MBTA, wheelchair accessible and has ample parking in the back. Like our January conference, we will have air purifiers and provide a way for supporters to participate remotely. If you want to help organize it, fill out the form or email us at info@masspirates.org.

masspirates.org/blog/2025/04/1…

Пиратская партия России в своей программе давно закрепила принципы, предполагающие развитие многих отраслей нашей жизни в цифровой эре. Среди них такие, как внедрение и развитие системы прямого, непрерывного, свободного доступа граждан к участию в решении всех общегосударственных и местных вопросов, через систему электронного референдума и реализация контроля за достоверностью результатов народного референдума и исполнением решений референдума.

Однако, так называемое дистанционное электронное голосование, предполагающее удалённое голосование за представителей, не соответствует этим принципам. Для перехода к прямой демократии представительные органы власти всех уровней должны стать честными, открытыми и подконтрольными гражданам, их выбирающим, а процедуры, предусматривающие реализацию конституционного права каждого гражданина избирать и быть избранным, максимально упрощены.

07.04.2025 член Штаба Пиратской партии России Александр Исавнин выступил об этом с докладом в Госдуме РФ на круглом столе «Законодательное регулирование процесса голосования с использованием электронно-технических средств, в том числе электронно-дистанционное голосование», собранный КПРФ.

Запись круглого стола: duma.gov.ru/multimedia/video/e…
Выступление Александра Исавнина с 01:28:00 по 01:38:00
Презентация

По итогам круглого стола будет сформирован список рекомендаций, который КПРФ доведёт до ключевых лиц, связанных с системой выборов. Наши предложения в этот список:
I. Обязательное соблюдение 67-ФЗ
1) только избирательная комиссия должна участвовать в организации процесса голосования и подсчёта
2) должны голосовать только лица имеющие активное избирательное право
3) необходимо обеспечить систему, в которой лица, имеющие активное избирательное право могут проголосовать
4) голосование должно идти лично
5) должна сохраняться тайность выбора избирателя
6) голоса избирателей должны сохраняться неизменными, не изыматься, не дополняться
7) документы должны оформляться в соответствии с законом
8) итоги должны подводиться правильно
9) избирательная документация должна сохраняться
II. До внедрения полноценного ДЭГ должны быть технически и юридически обеспечены ответы на следующие вопросы:
1) голосует ли избиратель лично?
2) не изменяется ли его голос?
3) как сохранить тайну?
4) как проверить активное избирательное право?
5) как убедиться в сохранении голосов?
6) как убедиться в корректности подсчёта и подведения итогов?
III. Безопасность — должны соблюдаться требования
1) должны соблюдаться требования к ГИС (149-ФЗ)
2) ГОСТ 34
3) ФСБ по криптографии
4) ФСТЭК по информационной безопасности
III. Понятность для всех участников процесса
1) должны использоваться формулировки и понятия, простые, понятные и доступные для избирателей, контролирующих, законодателей и иных участников процесса, не обладающих профессиональными знаниями
2) необходимы научные и профессиональные публикации о безопасности криптопротоколов, информационных систем и в целом о работе ДЭГ, содержательные информационные компании, обучение всех участников
3) документация, документы, криптографические протоколы, исходный код должны публиковаться
3.1) должны публиковаться в сроки, которые позволят подготовиться к контролю выборов
4) тестирование систем должно быть открытым для профессионалов и участников избирательного процесса

Сообщение Пират выступил с докладом в Госдуме о дистанционном электронном голосовании появились сначала на Пиратская партия России | PPRU.

There’s been plenty of speculation over how The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg found himself on a Signal thread with top-level Trump administration officials. The latest version of the story is that national security adviser Mike Waltz inadvertently saved Goldberg’s phone number as an alternate number for a National Security Council spokesperson.

But people don’t seem as curious about an arguably more consequential question: Why did Goldberg leave the chat? Who knows how many more scoops he could have gotten about this secretive administration’s secretive bombing campaigns by sticking around?

Goldberg claims that once he confirmed the chat was real, his work was done — he had what he needed to report on the operational security breach. Plus, according to The Atlantic’s editor, the conversation was getting too sensitive for journalists’ eyes. Those explanations didn’t sit right with some reporters. The Iraq War was far from a golden age of American journalism, but imagine if a reporter took their BlackBerry and went home after finding themselves privy to a conversation between Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

But what if that’s not really the reason Goldberg saw himself out? What if, instead, The Atlantic’s lawyers told him he could be prosecuted for involuntarily receiving text messages? As Neiman Lab noted, Trump has not exactly been subtle about his desire to prosecute journalists who publish leaks, and Goldberg’s legal team knows that.

Professors and editors can grapple with the ethics of publishing secrets the government itself discloses, but the law should have no role in the decision.

In the past, the federal government prosecuting a journalist for its own negligence would’ve seemed absurd. No more — and not only because of Trump. Press freedom organizations spent years warning about the risks of the Biden administration continuing Trump’s Espionage Act prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for obtaining and publishing government secrets from a source. The case — which ended up as the first successful prosecution of a publisher (as opposed to source) under the Espionage Act — set a precedent allowing criminalization of routine journalism at presidents’ whims.

The counterargument from Biden’s Justice Department was essentially that Assange was a bad journalist, or not a journalist at all. Yes, the Espionage Act’s text doesn’t distinguish between the Assanges and the Goldbergs. But Assange’s prosecution, it was argued, nonetheless need not concern “real” journalists, who could trust the government to leave them alone.

Officials made this case with a straight face even though they’d already experienced Trump 1.0 and knew he might win again. And Trump wouldn’t even be the first to go after journalists for receiving information the government accidentally gave them.

After the administration began lashing out at Goldberg, a reporter asked me what authoritarian regime its conduct most reminded me of. My answer was Los Angeles. That city sued journalist Ben Camacho for publishing records it gave him pursuant to a public records request. The case got thrown out last year. The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected efforts to prosecute, censor, or sue journalists for reporting what the government itself released to them. But those weren’t Espionage Act cases and the Assange case leaves open the possibility that such a prosecution could succeed.

Goldberg (mostly) published the full chat after administration officials said its contents weren’t classified, but even that might’ve caused lawyers heartburn. That’s because under the Espionage Act, it doesn’t actually matter if documents are classified. The law, enacted before the modern classification system, refers only to national defense information.

A reporter asked me what authoritarian regime [Trump's] conduct most reminded me of. My answer was Los Angeles

And as attorney Mark Rasch explained in Slate, the Espionage Act isn’t the only law that might’ve raised concerns. The Biden administration’s theory in the ongoing prosecution of journalist Tim Burke was that one can violate computer crime laws by obtaining publicly available information against the wishes of its owner. Burke, unlike Goldberg, sought out the information that got him indicted (outtakes of a Tucker Carlson interview with Ye, the rapper formerly known as Kanye West). But there’s no reason — other than the boundaries of good faith, which this administration isn’t concerned with — why that distinction would exempt Goldberg from prosecution.

People can debate whether Goldberg was too risk averse. I think he was, but that’s easy for me to say — I wasn’t the one who had to decide whether to risk prosecution. Goldberg could’ve played it even safer by not reporting on the messages at all. Some right-leaning outlets have suggested that he should have left the chat and reported his inclusion to Trump officials even sooner. But that would’ve been outright journalistic malpractice. The second safest option was exiting the chat once he knew it wasn’t a hoax, and redacting texts that appeared sensitive.

What’s more important than why Goldberg held back, or what anyone thinks of him, is why we have a purported “espionage” law on the books that is so vaguely drafted that it could conceivably give an experienced journalist pause when news falls in his lap. Professors and editors can grapple with the ethics of publishing secrets the government itself discloses, but the law should have no role in the decision.

freedom.press/issues/chilling-…

Last week ICE seized Fulbright scholar Rümeysa Öztürk on the streets of Somerville for co-writing this oped. Last month, DHS agents seized Mahmoud Khalil, an organizer for Palestinian rights and a Columbia University graduate student. The Trump administration revoked visas for hundreds of foreign students studying in the US. UMass Amherst announced Trump is expelling five foreign students after his administration revoked their visas. Hundreds of men were forcibly taken from their families and friends and sent to a prison in El Salvador on the whims of people in ICE. Tens of thousands are in detention in private prisons on their way to who knows where.

Rümeysa Öztürk and Mahmoud Khalil were seized because they exercised their 1st Amendment right to free speech. Trump’s expulsion of other students is attributed by federal authorities to alleged incidents, including minor, off-campus traffic violations. As Inside Higher Ed reported:

When international students have their entry visas revoked, they almost always retain their legal residency status in SEVIS, according to immigration lawyers. They can stay in the country as long as they remain enrolled in courses and must reapply for a new visa if they leave. Now, as the Trump administration revokes hundreds of student visas each week, federal immigration officials also seem to be terminating students’ SEVIS status—paving the way for arrest and deportation.

The CIA’s extraordinary rendition program from the 2000s is being renewed, expanded and directed at people fleeing persecution, looking to learn or just trying to feed and protect their family. Trump didn’t start it, but he is expanding it and making it even more cruel and vindictive.

No one should be expelled from the US based on accusations or for exercising their right to free speech, seeking a better life, or even minor fender benders. No one should be disappeared and ripped from their family and friends. The US has ample space for the thoughts, love and talents of all who which to come here.

Find ways to oppose these actions. The weekly Tesla Takedown protests are one we support. You can also checkout our list of actions to take.

masspirates.org/blog/2025/04/0…

The Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity will hold a hybrid public hearing on bills related to data use, data privacy and cybersecurity. The hearing is on Wednesday, April 9th from 1 to 5pm. It will be in-person and remote.

At our previous member meeting we voted to support the Location Shield Act (H.86 / S.197). This bill is part of Wednesday’s hearing. We supported it in the previous session, as well. The committee is considering a number of privacy bills at this hearing.

We encourage you to testify at the hearing. You can sign up with this form. If you wish to testify virtually, you must sign up no later than 5pm on Monday, April 7th. Oral testimony is limited to 3 minutes, but longer statements will be accepted by written testimony until Monday, April 14th at 5pm.

Written testimony may be submitted to the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet, and Cybersecurity by emailing House Chair Tricia Farley-Bouvier at Tricia.Farley-Bouvier@mahouse.gov and Senate Chair Michael Moore at Michael.Moore@masenate.gov. The committee requests that your email have the subject line “AITIC Written Testimony (Bill #)”. The committee will accept written testimony until Monday, April 14th at 5pm.

masspirates.org/blog/2025/04/0…

The court responsible for hearing Apple’s challenge against the UK Government demanding that it breaks encryption has rejected the Home Office’s bid to have the case heard in secret.

Earlier this year, the UK Government ordered Apple to grant it access to encrypted data stored by Apple users worldwide in its cloud service. The order, known as a Technical Capability Notice, was made under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. In response, Apple pulled its Advanced Data Protection service from the UK, stating it would never build a “back door” into its security measures.

Apple is challenging the Technical Capability Notice in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, with the Home Office seeking to have the proceedings held entirely in secret.

Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch and Index on Censorship made a submission to the court, arguing against proceedings taking in place in secret and in favour of open justice. Today, the Tribunal has rejected the Home Office’s application, stating it did not accept “that the revelation of the bare details of the case would be damaging to the public interest or prejudicial to national security”.

Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group said:

“This is bigger than the UK and Apple. The Court’s judgment will have implications for the privacy and security of millions of people around the world. Such an important decision cannot be made behind closed doors and we welcome the IPT’s decision to bring parts of the hearing into the open so that there can be some public scrutiny of the UK government’s decisions to attack technologies that keep us safe online.”

Rebecca Vincent, Interim Director of Big Brother Watch:

“This judgment is a very welcome step in the right direction, effectively chipping away at the pervasive climate of secrecy surrounding the Investigatory Powers Tribunal’s consideration of the Apple case. The Home Office’s order to break encryption represents a massive attack on the privacy rights of millions of British Apple users, which is a matter of significant public interest and must not be considered behind closed doors. We are heartened that the Tribunal responded to the important legal arguments we made on the basis of open justice and that our submission calling for proceedings to be opened to the public has made a difference. We will keep campaigning to protect privacy rights in the face of these and other threats to encryption — as once it is broken for anyone, it is broken for everyone.”

Jemimah Steinfeld, CEO of Index on Censorship:

“This is a victory for those of us who campaign for privacy rights. It was incredibly sobering that a case about our privacy was being conducted both in private and in secret. So we’re pleased to see a course change here. That said, the battle is not yet won. The arguments to break encryption do not just relate to this specific case and we are having to constantly make the case for why encryption is vital in our democracy; nor does this judgment stipulate that the case will be held fully in the open moving forward – as it should be – only that we can know the “bare details”. We welcome this news but we continue to fight for full transparency here.”

The full judgment can be found on the Investigatory Powers Tribunal website.

Petition: keep our apple data encrypted

Stop the Home Office from putting our security at risk by demanding a backdoor into Apple’s encrypted services
Sign the petition

Become a member
Join the movement

openrightsgroup.org/press-rele…

The court responsible for hearing Apple’s challenge against the UK Government demanding that it breaks encryption has rejected the Home Office’s bid to have the case heard in secret.

Earlier this year, the UK Government ordered Apple to grant it access to encrypted data stored by Apple users worldwide in its cloud service. The order, known as a Technical Capability Notice, was made under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. In response, Apple pulled its Advanced Data Protection service from the UK, stating it would never build a “back door” into its security measures.

Apple is challenging the Technical Capability Notice in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, with the Home Office seeking to have the proceedings held entirely in secret.