This is really wonderful work by the EFF. Legal opinions are not dangerous. They don't disclose the locations of undercover agents or anything like that. It's a contempt to the legal profession to keep them secret so that their reasoning cannot be scrutinized by courts. A lawyer's job is to make the best possible argument for her client's position, but if the court says she's wrong--and it's within the court's sole provenance to say what the law is--then she must acquiesce.
If you found this encouraging, remember that donating to the EFF is a nice way to show appreciation. You can also set them up to benefit from amazon.smile if that strikes your fancy.
I've never donated money to a political organization before, but I started an annual gold membership with the EFF. Initially I was sceptical, because I don't want to meddle in US politics as a non-US citizen. But these are global problems and the EFF does have a global agenda. I'm also very impressed with the work they do, even on smaller things like Privacy Badger. I encourage everyone concerned with privacy to pick up their bank card and chip in. We need to make this organization as strong as it can be. Congratulations to the EFF.
The ability of the public to challenge the government in court and win on an issue like this is a large part of why America is so successful - the citizens are what removes government rot and keeps the system running well.
I'm curious, does EFF fight for the global "internet freedom" or just for American one? I know those two are tied, but they aren't the same.
Here's why census data is relevant: If you receive an extended survey from the U.S. census, you are legally required to fill it out with all sorts of personal data. If you don't return it, a census rep will hound you until you do.<p>The "Privacy Policy" for this data is on the U.S. Census website here:<p><a href="http://www.census.gov/about/policies/privacy/data_protection.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.census.gov/about/policies/privacy/data_protection...</a><p>Note the statement that "the statistics we release do not identify individuals or businesses".<p>During the last census, it became pretty obvious that this would be an effective way for the U.S. Government to compel information from people who were suspected of something. Section 215 of the Patriot Act, after all, gives the government carte blanche to obtain any "tangible" thing.<p>IMHO... the interesting questions to ask when this legal opinion is released are:<p>1. Was there ever any accuracy to the U.S. Census "Privacy Policy"? Were the privacy policies of the U.S. Census misrepresented to the public, and in particular to those who were required to complete an extended survey?<p>2. Does the legal opinion address the "third-party doctrine" when the information provided is provided under legal <i>compulsion</i>, and in particular with potential (if commonly unused) penalties for non-cooperation?<p>A very interesting test case would be for someone to sue the government, in light of the upcoming 2020 census, to test the constitutionality of the criminal liability for not completing the extended survey in light of the government using the information provided for potential law enforcement purposes. It should be easier than usual to establish standing since anyone can be forced to complete one of these extended surveys.