Slashdot Mirror
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?
After reading this 'article' (and I use the term loosely), one is left wondering if this "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" has an axe to grind against EFF specifically, or if EFF was simply unfortunate enough to present an accessable target for one of "Bonhomie's" mindless rants.
One thing is for sure...even if "Bonhomie" went by a less ludicrous pen name (honestly..."Bonhomie Snoutintroff"???), and refrained from such pejorative terms as 'pigopolists' and 'pale vegetarians', he still couldn't be taken seriously, due to his gross misrepresentation of the facts. Bonhomie cited six losses by the EFF...visit the EFF's legal victories page, and you'll see several wins that Bonhomie conveniently failed to mention.
This kind of vapid tripe is pathetic even for the Register's admittedly lax standards. In case there remains any doubt, I leave you with the short bio of "Bonhomie Snoutintroff", which was appended to the 'article' in question:
Why the hell isn't this in the 'humor' section....of either site?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I've worked with EFF's legal folks and they are very, very good.
And when we went to court, we won.
See the EFF's legal victories page.
There are some fairly important legal victories on that page. It is simply a case, it seems, of harping on the EFF for their failures without recognizing that they're human, and they lose cases. They also win cases.
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
.... Tell Him So
;)
;) .
Of course, RTFA before you do. Not that he'll probably be able to tell
However, I'm unsure of how/why this is news for us exactly. Great discussion question, perhaps, but do we really want a guy by the name of Bonhomie Snoutintroff to be the one creating ripples in the tech community
I won't try to argue here, but I will suggest, in the interest of balance, that you check out EFF's list of legal victories.
Trial court verdicts don't establish precedent ... only a reported appeals court case does that.
I don't know about everyone else, but looking through the list of cases they show that the EFF has lost, I don't think any of them were winnable. They all seem to be cases where they have challenged a law or prior judicial ruling and went in knowing the chances of winning the case were slim. I'm just glad that there are people out there who will take on the big companies even if it is hopeless.
First, EFF doesn't always lose. That's a gross mischaracterization of their efforts.
Second, sometimes losing is the only way to cast in stark relief deep efforts by companies to hide what they're doing. This will (eventually) produce a change only if citizens want their rights back and elect folks who campaign (however cynically) on that matter. It's not important to constituents on the whole yet. Hollywood's contributions are laughably small in the scale of things.
Third, the Newmark v. lawsuit that I was part of to preserve consumer rights in the ReplayTV lawsuit, established a precedent even though we didn't "win." The suit was eventually settled by ReplayTV's buyer (the company that bought the product line out of bankruptcy of the parent firm), but the judge in the case allowed us as consumers to join a lawsuit in which consumer rights were threatened. Thank you, EFF.
Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
Sure does. A few other things to consider:
1) Another of his/her articles which was equally entertaining
2) The initials B.S... how appropriate.
3) Gotta love the bio at the end of the article
If anyone is interested, this is a 30 page suit that is being brought on behalf citizens of California (class action suit) by the EFF. It seems like a well reasoned, and sound case. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the EFF is going to beat Sony on this, though I know only a bit about the California Penal Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ( the statues under which this is being prosecuted).
s ony112105cmp.pdf
y 112105pet.pdf
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/hullv
compare this with the filing by the State of Texas, six pages, and see if you think that the EFF didn't provide a ton of valuable knowledge to the California filing.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/txson
"There are some fairly important legal victories on that page. It is simply a case, it seems, of harping on the EFF for their failures without recognizing that they're human, and they lose cases. They also win cases."
They're also, for the most part, a bunch of inexperienced idiots who jump into cases for the publicity and headlines. In many cases, the attorneys that they send into court have only the faintest clue as to what they're doing. Their oral arguments are infantile and unpolished, as are their written briefs. In effect, having them argue a case typically means opening yourself up for an easy defeat.
I speak from personal experience with them, in the Kevin Mitnick case as well as the complaints against the FBI to the Attorney General's Office of Professional Responsibility for illegal wiretapping using informants to control SAS/SARTS.
I realize most of the people [who orate opinions] on slashdot do so out of a desire to socialize with their fellow peers, and not because they're qualified to speak on the subject at hand. Still, it is frustrating to read all the rhetoric and bullshit that sprouts up from these serious topics which do have substantial social impact on us all.
Last I heard, state AG's for Massachussetts, Texas, and California were all lining up their own suits as well.
Doesn't mean the EFF shouldn't also be in the crowd though. The more the better.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
In other words, solve the problem by throwing money at it. Just look at what all that extra $$$ has done for our public education system.
This is satire, right?
If you are talking about the United States, we hardly spend any money at all on education, comparatively-speaking.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Even when they loose, they win. They bring the issue to light. If you don't like how they handle a case, then you take the case over or hire a lawyer to take the case over.
This applies to doctors, lawyers, fighters, etc. If you only take easy cases, you can always win. If Mike Tyson only fights drunks at the local bar, he will always win. If you only take hard cases, you may lose more than you win.
Fight Spammers!
That's why I'm kind of confused by your statement that you're "opposed to them on most of their favorite issues..." Their favorite issues are defending the constitution and your civil rights. How can you be opposed to your civil rights?
Not just plane.
You cannot get on Boston-NY Amtrak without showing a picture id. You will be denied permission to board. A conductor checks ids, one by one, at the end of the platform.
Boston Greyhound ticket agents will request name, and sometimes id, but are still haphazard about it.
I too am amused to recall the old police state rhetoric.
For a while, the Boston subway (the "T") had continuous announcements like "Now more than ever, you are our eyes and ears. If you see something, say something". Felt like being an extra in a 1984 movie.
As for flying, the last time I saw so many people standing around with automatic weapons was as a child seeing Franco's Guardia.
Seeing foriegn students having to be careful to carry their passports, to avoid being denied entry to... bars, also still seems odd. Can't go to dinner with friends without your passport - it WILL be checked.
OK. You're wrong. Corely lost all the way up to the 2nd District Court of Appeals, the last step before the Supreme Court. He did not appeal to SCOTUS, the EFF even has a press release on their site announcing they gave up.
At least the PLAINTIFF knew when he was beaten, unlike the EFF.