Slashdot Mirror


A Profile of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Somnus writes "MSNBC discusses the evolution and current criticisms of the EFF." From the article: "The EFF continues to tackle issues like anonymity, electronic voting, patents and copyright, but the Sept. 11 attacks nearly five years ago have forced the EFF to spend more time on surveillance. It has sought to require more evidence before law enforcement can legally track people's locations by their cell phones, and in January the group sued AT&T, saying the San Antonio-based company violated U.S. law and the privacy of its customers. AT&T and NSA officials declined comment for this article."

13 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. well... by joe+155 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    can I ask (and I'm not trolling; just not from the USA) is AT&T a government thing? they seem to be close to the NSA (is that a government thing...) but I don't get why a private company would be acting like this.

    about the EFF... I don't always agree with how they do things but I'm glad that at least some people are trying to raise awareness of these issues, people often just see them as something tha will never affect them, but these issues concern everyone (or should). Once freedoms have gone they are hard to get back, if people know maybe we can try some prevention rather than cure before the idea that you don't have a right to your own privacy becomes ingrained through-out the world.

    --
    *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    1. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "but I don't get why a private company would be acting like this."

      For the same reason private companies have helped any oppressive government throughout history: AT&T will gain private benefit from it. It may come as tax breaks, as lack of anti-monopoly action, as favorable legislation, etc. Whichever is the case, AT&T "cooperated" with the expectation of some financial benefit.

    2. Re:well... by pthisis · · Score: 4, Informative

      AT&T is private. Much of their infrastructure was originally government funded (they are one of several companies that replaced Bell when Bell was broken up in the early 1980s). Partially because of that, and partially because of historical monopoly concerns, and partially because telcom is considered basic infrastructure, they are more heavily regulated than many private companies. Consequently, they tend to have an interest in making nice with the feds.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    3. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The Constitution guarentees privacy, but it does not guarentee the ability to hide the truth"

      You're playing with words here, and pretty poorly at that.

      The Constitution says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

      Persons, houses, papers, and effects all may contain the truth in facts and statements. The Constitution explicitly gives you the right to hide these truths from the government. In order to learn these truths, the government must get a warrant based on probable cause.

      "and especially not to do so in a manner that will lead to the deaths of thousands of people."

      Oh, like the Bush administration hid the truth with blatantly false press releases, in order to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people in two wars of vengeance -- vengeance upon parties who didn't commit the original offense?

      This is your dishonest double standard. You pretend you're for "truth" and "protecting us," but in actuality you're only supporting these causes when they help your rulers. You want the (inexplicably, irrationally) trusted rulers to know everything that's going on, but do you also support our right to spy on the government? It doesn't sound like it.

      Knowledge is power. Knowledge of intentions and actions gives you power to aid or prevent them. By advocating government knowledge of innocent people -- and make no mistake, you can't spy on "just the bad guys" because you don't know who they are -- you are advocating government power over those innocent people.

      Your feigned support of "privacy" is pure bullshit; privacy is the right to hide information that is nobody else's business. It is the truth, yet you are permitted to hide it -- because it is nobody else's business.

  2. MSNBC by Adelbert · · Score: 4, Funny

    MSNBC is criticising the Electronic Frontier Foundation? Now that's a turn up for the books!

    1. Re:MSNBC by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why should we trust you on this? What do you know that we don't? How did you come to know this?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  3. Go EFF! by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you don't want to send the EFF money but would like to help the cause, consider just spreading the word a bit about what they're doing. I was shocked when I mentioned the AT&T case to a number of people whom I thought were pretty well informed on the tech industry (even if not privacy/post-911 issues) and was surprised how few have even heard of it. This is a $50 billion dollar suit! That billions with a "B"!

    AT&T needs to feel some serious pain if they're found liable. This is way worse than the usual price gouging, deceptive billing, and anti-competitive behavior that people expect from the telcos. If they illegally dumped records to the NSA then I sure hope we see the execs on both sides serving some PMITA time on top of the 50 bil.

  4. Not just electronic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The EFF is a vital orgnization in the ongoing fight to defend human liberty. Still, by concentrating on technological issues, the EFF calls attention away from the fact that the rights being fought over in court today concern not just internet wiretapping and music downloads, but are in fact a facet of the overall struggle for more basic rights like the right to free speech and the right to privacy.

    The EFF should do more to call people's attention to the international struggle for human freedom. As long as they do not do this, they remain open to criticism that they are merely defending bourgeous privelege. Only when the worldwide proletariat is engaged in efforts to secure human rights will true progress be achieved. The enemy is not just a few misguided Bush administration functionaries, but is in fact the whole of the global ruling class.

    When the day comes that people's revolution has overthrown the existing order and the means of production is in the hands of workers, then will humanity finally be free from the chains of the NSA, the RIAA, and their malignant ilk.

  5. A bit premature.... by Itninja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FTA (regarding the lawsuit with AT&T):
    "It's quite possibly the most important privacy and free speech issue in the 21st century"

    Since the 21st century is only about 6 years old, isn't a statement like that just a little premature? Maybe the most important of the year, or even the decade. But the century?? I doubt it.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  6. Smear Story. by twitter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The criticism:

    Despite its many legal victories, critics charge the EFF with idealism ... and sometimes extremist.

    The article starts by describing the offices as informal and some fights within the organization, then descends into name calling and empty propaganda by some of the companies who's practices have been challenged by the EFF. The article is essentially a feel bad piece and people who want to know about the EFF would be better off visiting the site themselves.

    Idealism, what a lame complaint. The nebulous ideals of "Intellectual Property" and "Competition" (nice M$ buzzword tie-in there M$NBC!) touted by the "critics" are much less concrete and practical than any the EFF stands for. The headline might as well have read, "The EFF, though it's success, has detractors."

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  7. Criticisms? by Stephen+Tennant · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Despite its many legal victories, critics charge the EFF with idealism

    and

    That focus has left the group open to criticisms that by refusing to play the Washington game of compromising, its views are idealistic and sometimes extremist.

    It seems that, when a "critic" thinks you're "idealistic," that means you're hitting close to home, and if you're an "extremist," you're probably kicking major ass. Quite simply, the EFF would rather pay their money for litigating lawyers instead of lobbying lawyers, and that's spooking the "critics," because it works.

    --
    I spend most of my time in bed, darling.
  8. Re:Done with the EFF by linuxwrangler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow! I feel like I'm feeding the trolls here but just in case...

    JUST collecting call records? Like the ones the government was using to locate reporters' sources to chill media access to information? Like government attempts to expand easier-to-obtain pen-register warrants to cover not only the traditional who dialed whom info but also any touch-tone data within the call (PIN numbers, etc.). Who calls me, whom I call, when we call and how long we talk is absolutely nobody's business but mine and the phone company and the phone company has no business using it for anything but billing.

    Full public disclosure of all call data, indeed. I can see it now. "Your resume looks perfect for the position, Joan. Unfortunately when we ran your call-records we saw numerous calls to a shrink and a drug-rehab center. And with your husband apparently having an affair, we can't risk the possibility of family stress interfering with your work..."

    Even if EFF completely fails in the AT&T lawsuit, it has brought the issue into the public's awareness and that alone is worthwhile.

    Add to that their work on DRM, Internet governance issues, etc. and I'm more happy than ever to send them several hundred dollars every year.

    --

    ~~~~~~~
    "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
  9. That's what you get in a culture of fear. by FatSean · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Irrational fear of terrorism when you are far more likely to die in an automobile accident...yet people are afraid of these threats and willingly give up their protections, as witnessed by the jury in your example.

    It is a sad state of affairs, but I see no way out of it. As long as the government can claim "We're at war, some rights are abridged" and just say "Whale Biologist!" whenever they're caught breaking the laws they are sworn to uphold...these things will continue to happen.

    My only hope is that people will become immune from these fear-based control techniques over time, and decide that they want their old rights back.

    I can't think of too many times in history that a population has successfully reclaimed a right taken by their government. Prohibition comes to mind...

    --
    Blar.