EFF Has Outlived Its Usefulness?

An anonymous reader writes "An inflammatory article runs today on The Register, with the title EFF Volunteers to Lose Sony Rootkit Suit. The article argues that the EFF's track record in court is detrimental to everyone with an interest in digital and privacy rights." From the article: "This is a very good cause. Sony installed stealth spyware on many thousands of Windows computers (although calling it a rootkit is an exaggeration), and it's crucial that the company get its bottom spanked quite painfully as a deterrent to its sister cartels in the entertainment racket. This is, in fact, such an important matter that the worst possible development would be to find the EFF arguing the case. That's because EFF will do what it always does: lose, and set a legal precedent beneficial to the entertainment pigopolists. By the time these pale vegetarians get finished, spreading musical malware will be considered a spiritual work of mercy." What do you think? Isn't it better to fight the good fight?

Comments

Re:Crucial?

[giorgiofr]

There should be prison time for whoever decided it was a good idea to install a rootkit on their customers' computers.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, oh my, yes, let's shoot them, no wait, let's hang them, NO NO wait I got it, let's hang their severed heads on our pikes and put those on top of the city walls! Let's also burn all script kiddies alive while we're at it! Oh the hilarity!
... on a more serious tone, are fucking insane? Better yet, are you such a hypocrite that you think it's OK for some people to attack the university's servers (which of course it is) but it's not OK for someone else to attack YOU (which, again, of course it is)?

You unwittingly defend the wrong things

[Loundry]

The ACLU supports civil rights. The way "the system" works is that it takes away the civil rights of the most despised (terrorists, etc.) and disenfranchised (poor, underclass) first and most people support these actions since these people are "evil".

The ACLU does support the mujahideen, granted. But it's not just "poor" people that it supports. It also has supported NAMBLA and serial predatory child rapists. How's that for civil rights? Not only does it support the right of people to raise money for suicide-bombing jihadists who would gladly kill me for being gay (I am gay), would gladly kidnap my child (adoptive parents have no rights in Islam, an e-mail debate from a rep of whyislam.org confirmed this), and would gladly kill me for being an infidel (I'm an atheist, not a "protected" "person of the book") -- but the ACLU also sticks up for the rights of people who would want to rape and kill my child and then lobby for that person's right to NOT be executed after they do so.

The old saying... "I may not agree with what you are saying but I will defend (to the death) your right to say it." (attributed to Voltaire)

And here's the sad part: I totally agree with this statement. It is granted by the First Amendment, and I think gay-bashing Neo-Nazis have every right in the world to say whatever they want, no matter how offensive and upsetting it is to me. What I don't understand is how you extend this to also include the protection mujahideen who would gladly detonate a dirty bomb in my bathroom and the NAMBLA creeps who are plotting to molest my child. This goes beyond protecting the right to speech. Instead, it is the most disgusting conclusion of the "Everyone Is Special" mindset that too many liberals live by. I like the way that SeanBaby put it: "Lots of people suffer from the delusion that every life is worth saving."

So while the way that the ACLU stands up for the rights of people who do things that do not infringe on others life, liberty or property (such as drug use, acts of homosexuality, death with dignity, etc.), these noble deeds are wholly eclipsed by the fact that the ACLU has unfailingly stuck up for the rights of serial predatory child rapists and violent totalitarian jihadi zealots. The ACLU has little to do with defending individual rights and everything to do with advancing a socialist agenda.

Now, if you're a socialist then you might like that, and I won't stop you from your own individual thoughts and feelings. But I wholly object to you painting the ACLU as some kind of organization which has my rights in mind. I don't think they do at all.

Re:You unwittingly defend the wrong things

[Loundry]

References, please

How smug of you.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/567

You need only search a little bit to figure out what CAIR's agenda is, and the ACLU supports CAIR, which means they support this:

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." - Omar Ahmad

As a gay man, how should I feel about the organization which stands up for the people who want to make Islam the highest authority in America and who gives money to offensive mujahideen?

As far as defending child predators goes, it's a quick search, too. Shame, shame, shame on me for posting a link to the concerned christian bitches of America, but it's not like a liberal website is going to report on this:

http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp ?id=727&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport

Here's the money quote:

"If I murdered or raped someone before, I can go to the parks," Falk said.

How should I feel about the group that stands up for that person's right to be around my 5-year-old in the park? Does my son not deserve to be safe from harm?

If I were you, I would answer back about "he having served his time" and what not, which means that you would gladly put my son in danger of a serial predatory child molester because you certainly wouldn't want a serial predatory child molester's rights infringed upon. If I were you, I would answer that with, "It's not about his rights, it's about everyone's! Because if they can do it to him, they can do it to you!" Wrong again! I'm not a serial predatory child molester.

And that seems to be what the ACLU is about: sticking up for the rights of the mujahideen and the serial predatory child molesters in the world. When it comes to victims of frivolous lawsuits, or victims of emininet domain abuse, or victims of hate crimes where the "wrong" colors are involved, then the ACLU is no where to be found! So, quite frankly, fuck them right up the ass with a red-hot iron poker. They don't care about individual rights to life, liberty, or property. They want their own weird "Everyone is Special" agenda.

Re:You unwittingly defend the wrong things

[Loundry]

So if it were up to you, Neo-Nazis who want to kill millions of people would get freedom of speech, but muslims who want to kill millions of people wouldn't. Interesting; I'm not entirely sure what the logic is there.

It's called a strawman argument.

I support the right of Neo-Nazis and Mujahideen to say that they hate and are superior to everyone. I do not support the right of Neo-Nazis and and Mujahideen to make threats.

Here's my plan: How about if we let everybody have freedom of speech, just don't let them kill or rape people.

Do you remember the Nuremberg files online? That was a website by a pro-life nutcase who listed the names and addresses of abortion providers. When one of those abortion providers happened to be killed by another pro-life nutcase, the owner of the website would scratch out the victim's name from the list. Does that qualify as "free speech" to you? The owner of the website wasn't killing or raping anyone.

You seem to be sugesting that the ACLU defends peoples right to be "serial predatory child rapists" or "violent totalitarian jihadi zealots" as opposed to just defending peoples right to free speech regardless of who they are. Of course, you can't really be saying that can you? Because that would be completely idiotic.

Good thing I didn't suggest it then. I do not maintain that the ACLU defends a person's right to be a serial predatory child rapist or a violent totalitarian mujahideen. At the same time, the ACLU definately stands up for the civil rights of those people. You seem to think that their civil rights are worth saving, and, on that point, you and I violently disagree. Those fuckers should be shot, not defended. Shame on the ACLU for sticking up for those bastards. They want to molest/kidnap my child and murder me. I'm supposed to be concerned about their rights? They have the right to die, god dammit!

Never mind.

You call yourself "progressive"? Tell me, how gay-friendly is Islam? How woman-friendly is it? Please help me figure this out, becuase I see a lot of "progressives" sticking up for muslim fuckers (who would gladly cut off my genitals because I'm a faggot), and I think they do it all in the name of their intense, irrational, seething hatred for Chimpy McBushitler. Is me and my family worth sacrificing to the muslim god in the name of destroying BushCO? It certainly seems that ay.

Re:You unwittingly defend the wrong things

[Loundry]

the ACLU is one of few recognizing that the latest pedophile witch hunt is just that, a witch hunt. there has not been an increase in number of child molestations and rapes.

"Witch hunt" is tired rhetoric.

The issue here is the liklihood of an individual who molests a child to do it again. There have been numerous cases of individuals who rape children receiving light sentences (say, probation) who then proceed to get convicted again for raping children. Are you one to argue that probation for those individuals was a better sentence after the second child was raped? Keep in mind that the perpetrators only get punished for the rapes for which they were caught. I believe that predatory child molesters prey on many children. Go visit www.pervetedjustice.com if you would like more insight, but it's an ugly, ugly read.

It's interesting that you accuse me of engaging in a "hunt". Do you think it's fair to characterize predatory child rapists' actions as "hunting children?" Will you also decry that particular "hunt"? From my point of view, it doesn't seem like their actions bother you all that much. You save your ire and outrage for people like me who want to decrease the quality of life of those people.

here in NY die fuehrer patacki has used "civil confinement" to arbitrarily extend prison sentances after the fact.

I disagree with civil confinement, but a person who seeks out, abducts, and rapes a child deserves to be monitored for the rest of his/her life. I notice that you vilify the governor for depriving child rapists of their rights to freedom. Why don't you vilify the child rapists for depriving children of their (quality of) lives?

how long before drug dealers and drunk drivers, they are up there on the "skewer for political benefit" list.

I don't care about the "political benefit" one iota. I loathe government in general. What I want is to deprive predatory child rapists of their freedom. What I want is to protect my child's life. Why don't you? I see you sticking up for the child rapist. Why won't you stick up for my kid instead? Do you believe that once a child rapist gets caught he'll never do it again?

they can already confiscate your home if pot is growing in your yard without a trial. they can confiscate your car without a conviction and you have to sue and win to get it back.

You and I probably already agree that the War on Some Drugs is moronic. It is waged largely to pad the feelings of hatred that many people have toward drug users and to line the pockets of self-indulgent, abusive drug warriors. No action should be illegal unless it deprives another individual of life, liberty, or property.

fuck it let's get a 3x5 notecard and make a list of decent human beings in politics, then draw and quarter the rest

It looks like you're engaging in some demonizing blowhard rhetoric in order to draw attention away from the fact that you're arguing for the quality of life of predatory child rapists. Why am I the Nazi here? You are the one who's saying, "Let's not hurt predatory child rapists. Let's give them light sentences, then not incovnenience or watch them at all after the fact. After all, what's the worst thing that could happen?"

the fallacy of the slippery slope

[circletimessquare]

me: "yes, i think marijuana should be legalized"
you: "so you support pedophilia then?"

same as

me: "it's important to be pragmatic about your ideals"
you: "so you support senseless violence then?"

don't be a hysterical twit. listen to what i am actually saying, don't pump all of your retarded fears into it