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

'Inflammatory' indeed.

[TripMaster Monkey]

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:

Bonhomie Snoutintroff is a plain-spoken strong leader in cyberspace. He did poorly in school but his family is rich and well connected, so he's served as CEO of numerous, well-known Internet ventures that for various reasons unrelated to his forward-looking guidance no longer exist. He developed a cocaine and alcohol problem, although he refuses to dwell on the past: his mission is to bring honor and dignity to the IT profession. His keen insight as a global techno-visionary is matched only by his Christian humility.

Why the hell isn't this in the 'humor' section....of either site?

Re:'Inflammatory' indeed.

[waynetv]

They're quick to defend the rights of an artist who has created something that some people find objectionable...provided that it's not a Christian nativity scene on someone's front lawn that non-Christians find objectionable.

Actually, the ACLU have defended many Christians (and others) who have been prevented from expressing their religion. That too is a civil liberty.

Unfortunately, you've been mislead that the ACLU is some religious hating organization -- that's patently false.

EFF has excellent legal talent

[karl.auerbach]

I've worked with EFF's legal folks and they are very, very good.

And when we went to court, we won.

Re:EFF has excellent legal talent

[chip rosenthal]

When I was threatened by a reverse domain hijacking, the EFF provided reference to a lawyer who helped with my case. We won, and I've been told my case has established precedent. As a result of my case, a company cannot try to steal a domain by filing a lawsuit in a distant state.

I'm grateful for the support of the EFF.

Re:Sounds pretty damning. What have they won?

[meisenst]

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.

I refer you to some EFF propaganda

[David Price]

Disclaimer: I am a former EFF intern.

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.

Newmark suit (ReplayTV)

[eggboard]

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.

Article's comment on Gilmore is wrong

[whoever57]

his unreasonable demand that he not be subject to any security measures, like a bag search and a pat down,

According to this article he accepted physical security measures in order to board an aircraft. Gilmore has a valid point: identity checks don't make us any more secure. The 9/11 hijackers all had (or had access to) documents that would have passed identity checks. On the other hand, physical security checks can be linked quite closely to security of the aircraft.