Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: eff.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to eff.org.

Comments · 6,386

  1. Re:thank you... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1 · on Blizzard Seeks to Block User Rights, Privacy

    And in the BNet case, the state court and US court of appeals determined that Blizzard EULA constitutes a valid enforcable contract.

    That is kind of true. As per an EFF press release (biased source, but not given to lying) "The court held that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) prohibited the reverse engineering needed to create the program and that "click-wrap" and "browse-wrap" licenses are enforceable to prevent reverse engineering."

    The fact is that the DMCA contains text intended to protect reverse engineering: "Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title." The act goes on to say specifically that you may utilize technological means to defeat such protections, and that you may disseminate information gained through reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability.

    In other words, the judge acted in direct contravention of the DMCA in delivering that decision. It is plainly and simply a bad decision, and you don't even have to be a lawyer to understand the DMCA sufficiently to make that analysis.

    Using the DMCA to prevent distribution of a tool to strip CSS is an example of proper application of the law (as bad as the law is, this is something the DMCA is for.) Using it to prevent reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is precisely the opposite of what was intended to happen, and the judge should be stripped of his robes. Period.

  2. Tor: anonymity online by Dunge · · Score: 0 · on What MSN, Google, Yahoo and AOL Know About You

    http://tor.eff.org/

  3. Re:surprised by jimbojw · · Score: 1 · on What MSN, Google, Yahoo and AOL Know About You

    > There is no such thing as anonymous on the net.

    Some things can come pretty close
  4. Re:Bots vs. anti-virus by trianglman · · Score: 2, Informative · on Blizzard Seeks to Block User Rights, Privacy

    Actually, the "Do not disassemble" clauses (or reverse engineer) overstep the bounds of copyright. If I purchase a product, it is mine to do with as I please. Copyright, patents, etc. only come into effect if I in turn try to sell the same product (a copy) or a product that does the same thing and uses some of the code (patent infringement). Court rulings have revoked the power of this clause and technically they don't actually mean anything.

    A good article on EULAs overstepping their legal authority is on the EFF website. #3 is the pertinent part to this discussion.

  5. Regulating General-Purpose Computers by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1 · on Two Worm "Families" Make Up Most Botnets

    I don't think you're the first to be thinking along those lines. Corporations have been making attempts to restrict what types of media can play on a computer, under what terms, to the point of Sony's installing rootkits on its customers' computers. On the hardware side, the Trusted Computing concept helps limit users' anonymity. In politics, the free world is toying with laws requiring monitoring of innocent Net users to fight terrorism/porn/drugs, and countries like China are doing massive censorship. In looking at other hardware, we know that there's at least one US-government-mandated design feature -- the V-Chip for televisions -- and supposedly the Secret Service has subverted several brands of printer. Japan has even issued some draft guidelines for robot regulation.

    What we're seeing is a convergence of trends towards locking down computers, making it illegal to build or sell a machine with the full power and freedom of a Turing Machine. Some argue (Okay, it's not a great source; just did a quick search) that restrictions like this are equivalent to Soviet Russian restrictions on the use of photocopiers.

    The various restrictions being placed on computer users for various reasons threaten our use of an important tool, and are oppressive and insulting. Even if you personally are a savvy computer user, are you prepared (based on your proposal) to be charged a fee, photographed, fingerprinted, licensed, monitored, and otherwise treated like a criminal, because you weren't content with the toys your government allows lesser geeks to use?

  6. Re:cell phones or fax? by TheSlashaway · · Score: 1 · on EFF Patent Busting - Prior Art Needed for VOIP

    Receiving party is a fax machine (not a computer and no Internet connection) Sending party is a UUCP to fax gateway. ???? And the kicker is that the evidence is on the EFF's own web site!!!! http://www.eff.org/Misc/Publications/E-journals/Go vAccess/govaccess.028

  7. Maybe they have the answer themselves by vivaoporto · · Score: 4, Funny · on EFF Patent Busting - Prior Art Needed for VOIP

    Maybe EFF already has the answer, depending on how long AT&T is routing all phone calls through NSA network. They would even kill two birds with one shot, the subpoena to obligate AT&T to disclose the info could come from the patent suit. It's a win-win! What could possibly go wrong?

  8. Re:Nifty by daliman · · Score: 1 · on Using Google Maps With a Photo Album

    I can hook up up a copy of the source if you want, and you can take it from there. A surprisingly large amount of it is even commented :)

    Internally, blog entries and photo collections are grouped by location; if you look at location details, you get nearby locations, posts and photos from there, plus extra info. If you want to modify the code to show this on the map, that's very straightforward (I'm going to adjust it to show a photo in there, as the article writer has done).

    If you can do the indiana-jones style line drawing itself - very cool. I'm pretty sure that the Google API doesn't support it though. I should be updating the site to use the compressed line format, but haven't got around to it.

    As for the firewall... I'm working while on the road, so I'm lugging a laptop with me everywhere. And TOR seems to pass through these firewalls just as easily as it's meant to (I'm in Iran at the moment - the sites these people block are just funny sometimes). Updating by email shouldn't be too hard to implement though.

    Photo collections are dated and located, rather than individual photos. It's entirely manual, but takes little time. Although I never got around to implementing http uploading, so scp/pscp.exe are my friends :) There is a script there for chopping photos into three different sizes for thumbs, previews and full size though.

    Finally - SE Asia rocks. Thai food is fucking great, the prices are cheap, the weather is good (once you adapt to the heat, that is) and the people friendly. I'm heading back that way, just doing it overland :) I think I'll hang around a year or so, if I can wrangle the visas.

  9. Audio interview with the sponsor of the bill by ntk · · Score: 3, Informative · on E-Voting Reform Bill Gaining Adherants

    Here's an interview we conducted with Rush Holt, the congressman who has been pushing for this bill for years. It's about twelve minutes long, but a little more meaty than usual for a politician: Holt has a Physics Ph.D., so he has something of a scientific background, and walks through many of the problems with e-voting the proposal tries to solve (and is also fairly candid about why his bill took a while to catch on). We recorded it just before the last election.

  10. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  11. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  12. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  13. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  14. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  15. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  16. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  17. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  18. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  19. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  20. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  21. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  22. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  23. No, they can't always be popular or 'moderate' by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA
    (Disclosure: I know people at the EFF and think they're amazing people)

    To be what the EFF is, they have to take positions on issues that might not seem moderate or be popular.

    First- they have to start working on issues long before most people even know that a technology exists- things that are obscure, not popular, so less likely to bring in vast numbers of new members.
    Second- they'll work on the civil liberties implications of what might seem like fine technology- this certainly can make them unpopular.
    Third- they sue corporations, which obviously isn't going to help with corporate donations. (which is why the EFF needs memberships, they're a small, non-profit, member-based organization, even though all their cases might make them seem much larger. Grants like the one that got them into the secret EU TV DRM meetings are the exception.)
    Fourth- the defendants they get aren't necessarily going to be angelic posterboys. Governments or corporations (think RIAA) will always try to set precedents with the ugliest and least sympathetic cases first. i.e.The RIAA didn't start with grandmas and orphans, they started with rowdy-seeming college students.


    If you look at the ten major areas where they work:


    How likely is it that a techie (or anyone) will agree with 100% of all 10 areas? (Pretty unlikely, because I don't think you'd get 100% agreement even by the EFF's people themselves.) As one example, Hamidi v Intel can't be called a crowd pleaser here. And that the EFF focuses on the collateral damage to free speech caused by some anti-spam technologies isn't popular- it's probably their Skokie march- but it follows from their core work.
  24. TOR: The Onion Router by Don+Giovanni · · Score: 0 · on Protests Move From the Streets To YouTube

    Protestors can stay safe on the onion router or psiphon. Just look at the case in china where yahoo turned over Shi Tao, who went to prison for ten years.

  25. Re:It's time for the Anti-RIAA by theckhd · · Score: 1 · on RIAA Says Accused Students Are Settling

    This group already exists. But remember, representation isn't free. Do your part and chip in.

  26. Re:I have a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on RIAA Says Accused Students Are Settling
    ... and declare bankruptcy!!!

    Debts arising from copyright infringement judgments are generally dischargeable in personal bankruptcy proceedings unless the creditor (i.e., the copyright owner) can prove that the judgment constitutes a debt for a "willful and malicious injury" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). Moreover, because the legal standards for "willful and malicious injury" differ from those governing "willful infringement" under the Copyright
    Act, even a willful infringement judgment may be dischargeable in bankruptcy. http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA_v_ThePeople/P2P_bkt cy_memo.pdf

    The cost to file chapter 13 is between $150-$300 depending on were you live. So here is your answer about the 75 odd percent who don't settle.
  27. Re:EFF to the rescue by ntk · · Score: 1 · on PTO Rejects Instant Live Patent

    Hey QuantumG,

    First, these aren't pro-bono lawyers. Wendy was, and Jason is, part of our legal staff. That's some of what an EFF donation pays for: having lawyers available to protect vulnerable groups that might not otherwise be able to afford one. I imagine you'll now claim that they're no good, or somesuch. I'll just point people to the recent announcement that one of them, Kurt Opsahl, just won the California Attorney of the Year award for his work winning against Apple. Two of our other lawyers won the award in previous years. You can check all of their track records here.

    Second, you seem very against people seeking out free legal advice. I recall you weren't quite that reticent a few years back, when you mailed me while I was editor of NTK for some free legal advice on work you were involved in. I wasn't working for the EFF then, and you and I were both based in Europe, but the first thing I did - like thousands of others - was contact EFF. They were incredibly friendly, explained that they couldn't advise on EU law, but gave me some useful pointers, which I believe I passed on.

    I know you think it's funny to keep trying to troll about our work on slashdot, but when you deal with as many people who are in genuine trouble as we do, and see as many of them as is possible getting the same careful treatment as EFF gave me when I presented your problems to them, I find it less than high-larious when all you can do is spread FUD and claim it's a joke when people call you on it.

    I know funny, and I know troll. Modwise, QuantumG, you're going *down*.

  28. Re:EFF to the rescue by ntk · · Score: 1 · on PTO Rejects Instant Live Patent

    Hey QuantumG,

    First, these aren't pro-bono lawyers. Wendy was, and Jason is, part of our legal staff. That's some of what an EFF donation pays for: having lawyers available to protect vulnerable groups that might not otherwise be able to afford one. I imagine you'll now claim that they're no good, or somesuch. I'll just point people to the recent announcement that one of them, Kurt Opsahl, just won the California Attorney of the Year award for his work winning against Apple. Two of our other lawyers won the award in previous years. You can check all of their track records here.

    Second, you seem very against people seeking out free legal advice. I recall you weren't quite that reticent a few years back, when you mailed me while I was editor of NTK for some free legal advice on work you were involved in. I wasn't working for the EFF then, and you and I were both based in Europe, but the first thing I did - like thousands of others - was contact EFF. They were incredibly friendly, explained that they couldn't advise on EU law, but gave me some useful pointers, which I believe I passed on.

    I know you think it's funny to keep trying to troll about our work on slashdot, but when you deal with as many people who are in genuine trouble as we do, and see as many of them as is possible getting the same careful treatment as EFF gave me when I presented your problems to them, I find it less than high-larious when all you can do is spread FUD and claim it's a joke when people call you on it.

    I know funny, and I know troll. Modwise, QuantumG, you're going *down*.

  29. EFF to the rescue by vivaoporto · · Score: 5, Insightful · on PTO Rejects Instant Live Patent

    Some people like to diss EFF here on Slashdot, specially when they don't win some cases, but forget to thank them for the victories that make our lives easier. To show your support and help them to help us all, shell in some cash. The digital world thanks you :)

  30. Re:The actual suit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Oracle Sues SAP for Spidering Their Support Site

    Sheesh, they could of at least used tor

  31. Re:Here's an old photograph of her by -noefordeg- · · Score: 2, Informative · on NFL Caught Abusing the DMCA

    http://www.eff.org/about/staff/imgz/wendy_large.jp g

  32. Re:Woo? by ntk · · Score: 4, Informative · on NFL Caught Abusing the DMCA

    No, it's not true, although there was a fake new story that put out this idea a few years ago. These days, it sounds like QuantumG is the only person that still believes it, given that the last time I corrected a Slashdot posting about it, it was posted by him too.

    Admittedly, the list in that correction is out of date: since then we've busted a ClearChannel patent, revealed (after three years of research) a plan to introduce a broadcast flag copy controls in Europe, and made a DMCA abuser publicly apologise to the Net. Did I mention that EFF did that *this week*? Check the archives for previous stuff.

    Also, for the record, Wendy is a great lawyer, and a fine hacker of MythTV. I fully expect she'll kick the NFL's asses , then watch the action replay without ads later.

  33. simple. whitebox. by bl8n8r · · Score: 1 · on Why You Can't Buy a Naked PC

    Build your own. It's not that hard and only takes about 30 minutes to put together. Trick is to standardize on parts. Not too hard with socket AM2 (selection of cpu prices) and a 20/24 pin power supplies. If you get a board with 4 sata ports on it, it makes a nice raid server years down the road when you upgrade. Keep enough parts on the shelf to replace things when they go to hell. You get a lot more bang for your buck and no MegaCorp software bullshit to deal with. Better get your fill of it before it gets killed-off* though.

    * http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computin g/20031001_tc.php

  34. Re:Why the disrespect for header files ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on The Score is IBM - 700,000 / SCO - 326

    This is not disrespect, but rather well-established case law. If you want to copyright an array or algorithm... keep it out of header files.

    Here is a good explanation: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2001-Fe bruary/000181.html

    "Copyright law does not protect idea, just the expression of them. Several court
    decisions have been rendered which suggest that the 'purely functional' elements
    of a computer program are not copyrightable. There are several cases that
    explicitly deal with the issue of copyright and header files. The most relevant
    one for Wine development is probably the 1992 decision in Sega v. Accolade, where
    Accolade reverse engineered the headers for Sega's ROM libraries in order to
    develop games compatible with Sega's hardware without paying Sega's royalties.
    http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/sega_v_accolade _977f2d1510_decision.html

        The court in that case said:

            Computer programs pose unique problems for the application of the
            "idea/expression distinction" that determines the extent of copyright
            protection. To the extent that there are many possible ways of
            accomplishing a given task or fulfilling a particular market demand,
            the programmer's choice of program structure and design may be highly
            creative and idiosyncratic. However, computer programs are, in essence,
            utilitarian articles -- articles that accomplish tasks. As such, they
            contain many logical, structural, and visual display elements that are
            dictated by external factors such as compatibility requirements
            and industry demands... In some circumstances, even the exact set of
            commands used by the programmer is deemed functional rather than
            creative for the purposes of copyright. When specific instructions,
            even though previously copyrighted, are the only and essential means
            of accomplishing a given task, their later use by another will not
            amount to infringement."

    Here is another, specifically on the files SCO are claiming:

    http://business.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=3518 8&cid=83130

  35. Re:The Six Million Dollar 'Net. by trianglman · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Researchers Scheming to Rebuild Internet From Scratch

    I'm no terrorist and I don't care if the government watches over me.

    Unfortunately, that doesn't help those in governments where saying the wrong thing to the wrong person can get you locked up without a trial. Similar things have happened to a couple American citizens (and people unfortunate enough to have been noticed by the American administration, accidentally or otherwise) in America. Your innocence is only a protection if those who would persecute you need to prove your guilt. It does nothing when you are never even given the chance to prove your innocence.

    It's all about compromise, just like everything else we have in our society. We are not truly free, we live by rules so that we can all live together.

    Agreed, but in order for there to be compromise, those who have to follow the rules should be given equal voice to those who want to set the rules. When laws are being made by people who know little about the subject matter (a series of tubes anyone?) and those people are elected by an even less informed populace, you aren't going to get a compromise that is going to help you or me. You are more likely to get one that helps AT&T and the NSA to continue to monitor everything you do online.

  36. Re:I've got it made by Peter+Eckersley · · Score: 1 · on Don't Google "How To Commit Murder" Before Killing

    According to the article, they got the search results from her computer. Not Google nor MSN.

    Well, that's the easier way to do it if they're there (as URLs in a browser history). If not, they can get them from Google or MSN by subpoena. It's quite hard to prevent your search engine from having these records, though we've produced a guide at EFF explaining how to do it.

  37. Re:Mine already is by number11 · · Score: 1 · on Google to Anonymize Users' Search Data

    I meant to say CustomizeGoogle Firefox plugin

    That helps.

    Of course, if you want to shorten log retention further than Google's "only 2 years!", you can go through a proxy like Anonymizer or Tor. If the fullbore proxies are too much of a hassle, there's always the search proxies like Scroogle Scraper (where the log retention is 48 hours).

    Another approach is to poison the data mine with TrackMeNot by generating thousands of random searches in the background.

  38. DVB - Up to no good by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1 · on Billion Dollar Handout To Upgrade TVs
    Link

    An international consortium of television and technology companies is devising draconian anti-consumer restrictions for the next generation of TVs in Europe and beyond, at the behest of American entertainment giants.

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the only public interest group to have gained entrance into the secretive meetings of the Digital Video Broadcasting Project (DVB), a group that creates the television and video specifications used in Europe, Australia, and much of Asia and Africa. In a report released today, EFF shows how U.S. movie and television companies have convinced DVB to create new technical specifications that would build digital rights management technologies into televisions. These specifications are likely to take away consumers' rights, which will subsequently be sold back to them piecemeal -- so entertainment fans will have to pay again and again for legitimate uses of lawfully acquired digital television content.

    "DVB is abetting a massive power grab by the content industry, and many of the world's largest technology companies are simply watching," said Ren Bucholz, EFF Policy Coordinator, Americas. "This regime was concocted without input from consumer rights organizations or public interest groups, and it shows."

  39. Here's a list of mine... by hacker · · Score: 2, Interesting · on 20 Must-have Firefox Extensions

    I've posted my list back about a year ago, and I still use every single one of them every day... (I also describe how to get around a "bug" in FF that forbids non-standard port connections). Check it out here. I also spoke at my local LUG about the same thing in January.

    Here's a list of the extensions I'm currently using in my Firefox build (you can see how I have it tricked out with all of my theming and extensions over here):

    • Sage, a really slick and fast rss aggregator/reader for Firefox. It docks on the sidebar and is visible with a simple Alt-S keystroke. Very nice, and easy for me to catch up on some quick headlines when I need to.
    • AdBlock Plus with the AdBlock Filterset G Updater to stop the flood of useless ads from coming at me. I did have to add one small rule for Google's ads, because I do actually like the recommendations they provide from time to time, and it helps out sites I visit with a little revenue. That regex looks like this: @@*.googlesyndication.com/*
    • Web Developer, a very useful and slick toolbar/menu driven suite that allows me to do all kinds of things to websites I'm viewing, including validation, showing where their css classes are, manipulating forms, cookies, images, and dozens of other features. Hands-down, the most-useful extension I have as a developer/tweaker of web content.
    • PrefBar, another powerful extension I use every single day. This one allows me to change the capabilities of my browser with a simple click of a checkbox. Want Java enabled? Click. Sick of popups? Click. I have Colors, Images, Javascript, Java, Flash, Popups, Proxies, Pipelining, Referers, Cache on my bar. Its completely customizable, and very well-done.
    • SwitchProxy lets me manage and switch between multiple proxy configurations quickly and easily. I can also use it as an anonymizer to protect my system from prying eyes. I have Squid, Squid + Privoxy, Privoxy + Tor and i2p enabled in my configuration at the moment. Quick and easy, and one status-bar dropdown lets me change from one to another.
    • FasterFox gives me a little boost by auto-configuring some parameters for faster browsing, such as link prefetching, pipelining, DNS cache, paint delay, and others.
    • ForecastFox, weather.. in my status bar. I've changed the icons a bit with a separate icon pack called Lansing, which is nice adn small and out of the way. Minimal is the way to go on my toolbars and status bars.
    • Linky lets me open or download all or selected links in a page, image links and even web addresses found in the text in separate or different tabs or windows. A simple right-click on any link or web address, and away I go.
    • Google PageRank Status gives me a quick overview of the PR of a site in the current view. This is useful as I do a lot of web work, and knowing what kind of sites get a decent or poor PR is useful information.
    • SearchStatus is another SEO toolbar fo
  40. Re:Matching images to cameras by nahdude812 · · Score: 1 · on Adobe Tackles Photo Forgeries

    It's accessible to anybody with a blue light or decent eyes. Blue LED's work pretty well. Typically it's just a code representing the manufacturer and the serial number for the printer, laid out as a repeating grid of yellow dots across the image in binary. Print an all white sheet and shine a blue light and they'll pop out pretty clearly.

    Here's a list of printers that do this:
    http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/list.php

  41. Re:I detect hypocrisy by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft WGA Phones Home Even When Told No

    You send your "identification" in the form of IP, browser user agent string and what not to virtually any site you visit, without "agreeing" to this every time. Why is nobody whining about this?

    Because many of these people change their user agent string, use TOR and "what not" while browsing. I suppose that these are also the folks for whom firewalls will catch and optionally block this traffic as well, so they might be complaining out of principle. I'm not entirely sure I detect the hypocrisy.

    I think your decision to vocally (so to speak) say "no" is a good one. I hope it is heard.

  42. Re:join the EFF by kdemetter · · Score: 2, Interesting · on DoJ Mulls Tracking Picture Uploads

    sure : http://www.eff.org/legal/victories/ :

  43. Re:If you're going to blow the whistle by Darren+Bane · · Score: 1 · on Randal Schwartz's Charges Expunged

    Post it on a Tor hidden service?

  44. Re:How's that for revisionist history? by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1 · on Randal Schwartz's Charges Expunged

    State of Oregon v. Randal Schwartz Washington County Circuit Court C94-0322CR
    Complaint brought by Mr. Schwartz's client, the Intel Corporation

    Intel v. Randal Schwartz: Why Care? by Jeffrey Kegler, February 4, 1996

  45. Do Something About it: Pass the FAIR Use Act by rzanerutledge · · Score: 2, Informative · on MPAA Fires Back at AACS Decryption Utility

    While we're all spending time here grumbling about it, how about spending 2 minutes contacting your representative -- Support Rick Boucher and John Doolittle's FAIR Use Act, which is a good first step at removing some of the entertainment industry's most draconian anti-innovation weapons and chipping away at the DMCA's broad restrictions on fair use. Take action now and tell your representative to help restore balance in copyright now: http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=271

  46. Contact your Representative by godzilla808 · · Score: 1 · on Fair Use Bill Introduced To Change DMCA

    If you think that the DMCA needs fixing, this is at least a start. EFF has an e-mail template that you can customize and send to your Representative directly from their site. It only takes a few minutes. On their main page, click on "Support the FAIR USE Act!" http://www.eff.org/

  47. Re:These guys have totally lost the plot by suckmysav · · Score: 1 · on Mr. Ballmer, Show Us the Code

    sigh

    When you apply for a software patent, you don't need to include any source code. You just need to describe what your patent covers. Have you ever looked at a patent document?

    Checkout Nintendo's patent for "software emulation of a handheld game" (url includes link to the actual patent document)

    If Nintendo were to actually weild this patent they could stop anyone from producing a product that contained "software emulation of a handheld game".

    End of story.

    No "showing of code" would be necessary. It's as simple as saying "Your product provides a feature covered by one or more of our patents therefore you must give us money.

    Thank you. Come again!"

    You might say "oh, but that is just stupid. Such a patent is way to broad and there is probably prior art anyway" and you would be right.

    But the fact remains that if Microsoft has a broad patent along those lines and throws it at Samba, where do you think the Samba guys would get the money to prove their case in court? Hopefully a combination of the EFF, IBM and Redhat might be able to throw together a large enough warchest but then mahybe not either. Microsoft has a lot of lawyers on their payroll.

    It's about time you guys on slashdot came to terms with how Software patents work. It's not like they haven't been discussed ad-infinitum on this site for the past 5 years or anything.

    Here is a good article about software patents.

    Quote:
              Patents on software often appear completely counterproductive -
              by monopolising a technique, a patent can simply ensure that the
              technique is never used. Rather than making money, a patent can
              cause the death of an otherwise promising technology, and this
              is frequently the aim of patents held by owners of threatened
              technology.

    If it were possible to "code around" a patent claim then it would not be possible for a patent to kill a technology.

    I rest my case.

  48. Re:A phillips DVD recorder by iPaul · · Score: 2, Informative · on Are Unfinished Products Now the Norm?
    Yes, there are DMCA restrictions on security testing. I'm a little foggy on the rules, bou have to get an express agreement from the author/manufacturer that you are allowed to perform security testing. An example Of course I'm one of those EFF supporting lefties. Say it's a spam firewall you're reviewing, so you want to run a set of attack scripts against it to see if it actually does it's job, securely. The attack scripts are illegal under the DMCA as well as the act of running them against the firewall.

    Well, you _could_ wait until the product has been out long enough for someone (such as Consumer's Union) to have purchased a sample off the shelf, tested it, and published a report. But then you wouldn't be on the leading edge! You'd be buying "obsolete" stuff! Intolerable! Okay, so you read the review in Consumer's Union, or Consumer Reports or whatever. Only the review is 8 months old at that point. Maybe you could get it on eBay, but you will probably find BestBuy doesn't carry it any more. I repeatedly have this problem with Linux and Solaris hardware. By the time it's certified or tested, it's no longer the current, in-stock product. And while I have no problem with a little trial and error on my home machine, clients are much less tolerant of "well, it should work and it should be covered under RedHat support."
  49. Re:Criminal Liability? by ZoOnI · · Score: 1 · on RIAA Hires Artists, Then Sends In the SWAT team

    Your not getting this trailer park. Chances of you understanding the whole picture is slim. Despite hundreds of posts on slash dot of charges made by the RIAA and cases that were thrown out because the charges where false or inflated. You still don't understand the concept of Innocent until proven guilty. Its sad for all those people you will pass judgment on during your lifetime. Y'all pass me some more chewing tobacco and hang that man.

    The RIAA tried to sue Gertrude Walton for file sharing 2005. Problem Gertrude had been dead for over a year. I know trailer you can come up with a good scenario of how Gertrude was file sharing from the grave. After all we both know how infallible the US judiciary process is and if the RIAA says Gertrude is guilty then guilty she is.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_ the_dead/

    A family in Rome, GA, (one of the 235 defendants) was very surprised when the local newspaper contacted them to ask about the file sharing lawsuit in which they were implicated. Problem they didn't own an Internet connection. I know trailer, guilty for living a building that had file sharing going on. Hey would someone play the banjo and dress my sister up real nice.

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060424-6662 .html

    The RIAA was offering false amnesty program for a while but discontinued it when they got sued for fraudulent business practices. Wait a second these guys are just a trade association why would they be luring confessions from folks falsly. This must be another lie by yours truly, the person you never met but cast judgment on after his first post. The banjos play in the back ground.

    http://blogs.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001435.php
    or
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,112428-page,1/ar ticle.html

    RIAA threatens to sue a 12 year old unless the parents pay $2000 dollars. I know trailer park $2000 bucks is a small price to pay to keep your children safe. Those RIAA folks are just misunderstood, they are just trying to give that little girls a lesson she'll keep with her for the rest of her life. Man don't y'all just love those RIAA guys they are just swell. Golly trailer I hope you don't have a inquisitive 12 year old. But hey your a smart guy who can afford a computer and Internet connection I am sure you can afford a measly 2 grand.

    http://news.com.com/RIAA+settles+with+12-year-old+ girl/2100-1027_3-5073717.html

    Hey did ya notice trailer how the RIAA doesn't use the word stealing in any of its written public documents. It uses a word called copyright infringement. Thats odd don't y'all think that we'd be using the word stealing that means legally something else. I wonder where we got that stealing word from. Thats a lot of thinking us regualr folk shouldn't be to concerned with don't ya'll think.

    http://www.riaa.com/issues%5CcleanSlate.asp

    Trailer you and the RIAA are just swell folks. I don't know what I was thinking.

  50. Re:I have 1.6GB of the best stuff by shudde · · Score: 4, Interesting · on MS Dirty Tricks Archive Trickles Back Online

    Personally I'd put it on the darknets, Tor and Freenet both have sites dedicated to preserving unpopular/threatened/censored information. I'd imagine that I2P would have similar resources although I'm not personally familiar with it.

    While darknet sites aren't reachable by the average computer users, this allows the more technically-minded to repopulate the mainstream net with the content when torrents or public hosts are taken down.