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?

'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 [eff.org], 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?

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 [eff.org], we won.

Re:Sounds pretty damning. What have they won?

[meisenst]

See the EFF's legal victories page [eff.org].

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.

Well....if you don't like the article....

[LordPhantom]

.... Tell Him So [theregister.co.uk]

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 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 [eff.org].

Re:Actually I agree

[terrymr]

Trial court verdicts don't establish precedent ... only a reported appeals court case does that.

They listed the worst possible cases...

[butters the odd]

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.

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.

Re:EFF has excellent legal talent

[chip rosenthal]

When I was threatened by a reverse domain hijacking [unicom.com], 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:Anagram

[iwrasahp]

Sure does. A few other things to consider:
1) Another of his/her articles [theregister.co.uk] which was equally entertaining
2) The initials B.S... how appropriate.
3) Gotta love the bio at the end of the article

Here's the suit.

[Internet Ronin]

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).

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/hullvs ony112105cmp.pdf [findlaw.com]

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/txsony 112105pet.pdf [findlaw.com]

Re:Sounds pretty damning. What have they won?

[Lew Payne]

"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.

There are several suits proceding

[sacrilicious]

If not the EFF, who else is willing to take up the fight?

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.

No money in education

[Tony]

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 [nationmaster.com] money at all [nationmaster.com] on education, comparatively-speaking.

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 [postgazette.com] 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.

Not precedent

[www.sorehands.com]

Usually rulings do not set precedent until an appeals court rules on them. But, if there is a ruling in a case, Collateral Estoppel [caught.net]applies to the parties in the case. If the EFF brings a case and wins, if it a good win.

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.

William F. Buckley Jr. was defended by the ACLU

[Omega]

That's the problem I have with the ACLU. I'm completely opposed to them on most of their favorite issues, so I would be disinclined to ask for their help on anything, even something I do think they got right. It's probably not fair to them, but I associate them with the whole range of their positions, good and bad.

You'd probably be surprised to know that William F. Buckley Jr. was defended by the ACLU in the 70's; and William F. Buckley Jr. is definitely not who you'd think of as your typical ACLU supporter. They've also defended Rush Limbaugh and the KKK -- not because the ACLU agrees with their beliefs, but because they support their civil rights.

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?

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.

Re:No money in education

[Trolling4Columbine]

Then why are we 4th in spending dollars-per-student [nationmaster.com]? It seems that a lot of other countries are doing just fine with less.

Re:'Inflammatory' indeed.

[vishbar]

Yeah, [aclu.org] the [aclu.org] ACLU [aclu.org] hates [aclu.org] Christians. [aclu.org]

plane... and train... and bus...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I think he missed some research

[sakusha]

Umm, please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the case eventually get thrown out? Or, to put it more precisely, didn't the MPAA give up because they knew the cat was out of the bag?

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.