00601-Decl of Laroia w Exhs

8/14/2019 00601-Decl of Laroia w Exhs

1/11

23

Cindy A. Cohn, Esq. (SBN 145997)Wendy Seltzer,Esq.ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDAnON454 Shotwell StreetSanFrancisco,CA 94110Telephone: 415) 436-9333xlO8Facsimile: 415) 436-9993s6

Alan Kom, Esq. (SBN 167933)LA W OFFICE OF ALAN KORN1840Woolsey StreetBerkeley, CA 94703Telephone: 510) 548-7300Facsimile: 510) 540-482178 Attorneys or PlaintiffONLINE POLICY GROUPJenniferStisaGranick, Esq. (SBN 168423)STANFORD LAW SCHOOLCYBERLA W CLINIC559 NathanAbbott WayStanford,CA 94305-8610Telephone: 650) 724-0014Facsimile: (650) 723-4426

1011111314 Attorneys for PlaintiffsNELSON CHU PA VLOSKY and LUKETHOMAS SMITH5

UNITED STAT~ DISTRICT COURT6FOR THE NORTHERNDISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA7

) No. C-O3-04913 IF8 ONLINE POLICY GROUP,NELSON CHUPA VLOSKY, and LUKE THOMAS SMITH19 ))Plaintiffs,20 DECLARATION OF ASHEESH LAROIAIN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'MOnON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.21DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED,and DIEBOLD)ELECTION SYSTEMS, NCORPORATED, )22 Date: February9, 2003Time: 9:00 a.m.Courtroom: 33 )efendants.24 )25

26 , AsheeshLaroia, declareunderpenaltyof perjury that the following is true and correct:2728

-1-


2/11

I am a second ear studentat JohnsHopkins University, intending o major in2 cognitivescience.

JohnsHopkinsprovidesstudentswith web erverspace nd spaceon FESTE~ a3 2.web-enabled ile transfer and file sharing service or membersof the Hopkins community.I posted he Diebold email archive on my website via FESTERbecause was3.concernedabout electronic voting and the potential insecurities n Diebold's machines hat emailsin the archive revealed. I had read the researchof Johns Hopkins ProfessorA vi Rubin and others,analyzing he Diebold voting machines' ailure to meet minimal security standards, nd was8disturbed hat the Stateof Marylandwasnonethelessroceedingo purchase nd deployDieboldelectronicvoting machines.I thought hat posting he email archive was a productiveway to0contribute to this public discussion.1

On November5, 2003, got an email from JohnsHopkins StudentTechnology2 4.Services nd ound hat the Dieboldemail archivehadbeen emoved rom my FESTERweb file13

14 space.In a November7, 2003 meetingwith StudentTechnologyServices, learned hat5 5.

Johns Hopkins University had not received a cease-and-desistetter from Diebold but had decided67 not to pennit the posting of the email archive.

On November25, after learning hat Diebold had nformed he SanJoseDistrict8 6.Court of its decision not to sue for copyright infringement over the posting of the email archive, I19informed JohnsHopkins StudentTechnologyServices hat I intended o fe-publish the email0

I then fe-posted he Diebold entail archive tarball.rchive..1.On December ,2003, receivedan email from DeborahSavage,orwarded rom2 7.

Wes Blakesleen JohnsHopkins egal department.A copy of the email s attached s Exhibit A.3The email indicated that despite Diebold's retraction of letters to other ISPs, the University would4not pennit its resources o be used or "copyright violation."5

I responded,citing Diebold's withdrawal letter of November 24, 2003, and26 8.statements at the case managementconference December 1. 2003. A copy of my responses27attached sExhibit B.8

-2-


3/11

9.On December , I receiveda further email from DeborahSavage, copy of which s10.

attached sExhibit C. That email ndicated hat3[Johns Hopkins Provost] Dr. Knapp has responded o our publishing Dieboldmemoson University owned esources.He states hat the university cannotallowits resources o be used n violation of copyright aw, whether or not the holder ofthe copyright in this caseDiebold)plans o prosecute.As long as he adviceof ourGeneral Counsel is that posting this material on our website would, in fact,constitute ucha violation, we cannotpermit t.

456

I am not currently posting the Diebold email archive becauseof JohnsHopkins18 concerns boutcopyright iability. I remain nterested n the electronicvoting debate,however. I9 would like to republish he email archive,and ntend to do so again f JohnsHopkins permitsme

10to.11

1213

I declare nderpenaltyof peljury under he aws of the Stateof Maryland hat the foregoinis true andcorrectand hat this declarationwas executedn ~ 1.t;\~)I\orG.Maryland.

14- ~t\\4."",'1 .::l0-0 4-IS Date: ~..;~.N~: ~'~A';;'_;ASHEESHLAROIA6

171819202122232425262728

_':"J~

J_,-~~


4/11

EXHffiIT A


5/11

From [email protected] 16 18:34:182003Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:39:57 0500From: DeborahG. Savage [email protected]>To: [email protected]:Fwd: Re: Fwd: Diebold memosupdate Confidentialcommunication fcounsel>Date:Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:36:24 0500>From: WesleyBlakeslee>Subject:Re: Fwd: Diebold memosupdate Confidentialcommunication>of counsel>To: [email protected]>Cc: StevenKnapp >X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise nternetAgent 6.0.4Beta>Original- ec p ent: rfc822;dsa [email protected]>Deborah:>>First, without the necessity f legal analysis, he University s the>ownerof andhasabsolute ontrol of its resources, nd canmake ts own>decisionas o how its resources re used. There s no "right" of a>student o useUniversity resources.Thereare no First Amendment r>otherConstitutional ssues nvolved here.1 understandhat the student>hashis own websiteand canpost he materials here. What s the basis>of the desire hat thesematerialsbe postedon JHU resources?>>If the student an producea writing from Diebold o JHU that Diebold will>not object o the placing of its materialson mu network space,AND, that>we can so post hat with the materials, rom a legal standpointhe>student ould restorehis materials o Fester Subject,of course o all>the rules n effect for so doing, ncluding volumeof files, etc.),but>the Diebold acquiescence ust be postedaswell. 1 am not interestedn>any filing that Diebold may havemade n any itigation to which JHU was>not a party. (I have ead he materials eferred o, and ndeed>they refer only to the parties n that itigation, and hey contain he>continuedassertion y Diebold of ownershipof the materials,and>Diebold'sobjection o the publicationof its source odeor other rade>secrets; .e. thesedocuments re not in the public domain.)>>Thereare more han egal ssues ere. As a non-profit educational>institution which produces opyrightedworks, andwhich, prior to>publication,holds and maintainssubstantial onfidentialandvaluable>inforrnation,we are aggrievedwhen someoneakesour work without>perrnission, nd could suffer arge ossesf our confidential nformation>wereprematurelydisclosed.Therefore,we havea generalpolicy>of respecting he rights of othersaswell. Diebold hasapparently iven>up trying to contain hesematerials,but does hat make he copyright>violation any ess,or ust reduce he consequences? hould he>University aid and abet,and participate n this "electroniccivil>disobedience" as he sitesnoted n the student's mail call this campaign).>>Please nderstandhat 1view this act far different han he work of>ProfessorRubin. If a faculty member hooseso do a scholarlyanalysis,F.yhihit A. nprlDrDtinn nf A~hpp~h T .DrniD


6/11

>no matterhow detrimental pure egal defamation side),we would, and do,>standby that faculty member's ight to publish. This s far different,>it is the publishingof the raw documents elonging o Diebold. It is the>differencebetweenpublishinga thoughtful, houghscathing,article about>the poemsof Shelly and simply publishinga copy of the poems>themselves.The first is ournalism,scholarship nd research,he atter>merelycopyright violation.>>AlI of this havingbeensaid, don't fomlulate policy. I would like a>writing from Diebold to JHU to satisfymy risk tolerance or unnecessary>Iegalexposure.Beyond hat, he other ssues raise or your>consideration. Theremay be many others hat you feel you mustconsider>aswell. From an educational tandpointmaybe he administration elieves>we shouldbe reactionaryand controversial, nd hat the postingof>Diebold'smaterials urthersa valid end. Justas heremay be>Iegitimate easonsor posting he poems n the aboveexample. Those>decisions rebest eft to otherschargedwith that responsibility.>>1 havecopiedDr. Knappwho is often the fmal arbiter of such>controversy, o he s awareof this request. Certainly f Dr. Knapp>believeswe shouldpost his material, henby all means o proceed.>>WesBlakeslee

F.yhihit A- np"l"r"tinn nf A~hpp~h I."rni"


7/11

EXHIBIT B


8/11

om [email protected] 16 18:36:382003Date:Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:50:39 0500 EST)From: Asheesh aroia To: DeborahG. Savage [email protected]>Cc: BrandonLockett ,vi Rubin ,GeraldMasson,ennisO'Shea,DarrenLacey .Adam Stubblefield,TadayoshiKohno ,[email protected],[email protected]:Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Diebold memosupdate Confidentialcommunicationof counsel

"Diebold has epresented,oth n its submissiono the Court datedNovember24, 2003 DocketNo. 38) and at a specially-set asemanagementconference n December1,2003, hat t no longerdemandshat Plaintiffsor any othcr party cease nd desistusing Diebold'semail archive ornoncommercial ritical purposes.n addition o representinghat it willnot suePlaintiffs for copyright nfringement,Diebold alsohasrepresentedhat t will retractall outstandingDigital MillenniumCopyright Act safeharbornotifications o InternetServiceProvidersconcerning he email archiveand will not issuesuchnotifications o anyparty n any urisdiction in the future."This is from a court order dated yesterday:

http://www.eff.org/Legal/ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/2003120 I_order .pdfThe "any other party" and "in any urisdiction" phrases re key toaddressingGeneralCounsel's oncerns.Please orward his to general ounsel should just CC: him myself nthe future?).Yours,Asheesh.-If everything is coming your way then you're in the wrong laneOn Mon, Dec 2003, Deborah G. Savage wrote> Asheesh- 've been n touch with the University Council. He haswritten> the following. Pleasewait until we hear rom the Provostbeforeyou post> anythingon the University site.>> >BrandonLockett ,vi Rubin > > >Cc: GeraldMasson,ennisO'Shea [email protected]>,> > > DarrenLacey,Adam Stubblefield,> > > TadayoshiKohno >> DeborahG. Savage Krieger Hall, IO7A> StudentTechnologyServices 3400N. CharlesStreet> IT@JHU Baltimore,MD 21218;> 410.516.2924

Fyhihit R np,.IHrHtinn nf A~hpp~h T .HrniH


9/11

>> "Our flfSt belief is that "disability" is a rationalconcept. t does> not residewithin the ndividual. Our second elief is that electronic> technology analter environmentsn sucha manneras o allow people> who havevarious unctionaldeficits to operatewithout any disability> what so ever." RichardReed,CCD Newsletter,Fall 1988,v (2), EDUCOM> Software nitiative, 1989.>>>

Fyhihit R fipr1HrHti"n "f A~hpp~h J ,HrmH


10/11

EXHmIT C


11/11

Date:Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:10:03 0500From: DeborahG. Savage [email protected]>To: Asheesh aroia Cc: WesleyBlakeslee,BrandonLockett ,[email protected],[email protected]:ProvostKnapp's esponseDear Asheesh,Dr. Knapp has espondedo our publishing Diebold memoson Universityowned esources.He states hat he universitycannotallow its resourcesto be used n violation of copyright aw, whetheror not the holder of thecopyright (in this caseDiebold) plans o prosecute.As long as he adviceof our GeneralCounsel s that posting his materialon our websitewould,in fact, constitutesucha violation, we cannotpennit it.Your access o FESTER, if it has not been restored, will be made available,immediately.Sincerely,DeborahSavage

FThihit r nprlStrSttinn nf A~hpp~h T StrniSt

Documents

00601-Decl of Laroia w Exhs