EFF Has Outlived Its Usefulness? 436
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?
What do you think? (Score:4, Insightful)
As the article clearly states, the question is not whether to "fight the good fight", but rather, who should fight the good fight. The article isn't inflammatory. It asks the legitimate question of whether the EFF should handle the Sony DRM case.
Ignore theregister (Score:2, Insightful)
Better (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have to fight (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe it was just a great topic to earn a Slashdot swarm? Writers often have little personally invested in the things they write about. Instead they write what people want to hear, or what they know will get them attention (see John C. Dvorak). I doubt the apparently fake guy has an "axe to grind".
In any case, even flamebait stories like this often have a grain of truth to them, and if it does inspire some discussion it can be beneficial. For instance there is truth that precedent is extremely important, and it is critical that early cases are argued as effectively as possible.
The EFF is not on "our" side. (Score:1, Insightful)
I think the article is way too harsh but more on the money than most believe. I've always felt they were a shill for mercantilist businesses.
I support the Institute for Justice [ij.org]. These guys are about freedom and focus on winning. I will never support the EFF who only want some freedom at the expense of supporting the political growth of power.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
humorless prigs (Score:5, Insightful)
Cultures not dominated by humorless prigs and literalists don't require flags to signal humor.
This particular form is called satire and is widely used to call attention to self-importance or arrogance.
Total garbage (Score:3, Insightful)
The Register is a British publication, and it's very likely the author is British also - the author's bio doesn't state his nationality. I guess this Brit feels he (or she) is a really good judge of American lawyers and the American legal system, and this places him in a good position to comment meaningfully on the merits of the actions taken by the EFF. (How many American journalists have an intimate understanding of the British courts, sufficient to write about British legal practice?)
The author also seems to be privy to the inner workings of the EFF and feels qualified to judge the merits of each case cited in the article. Or possibly he has some sort of axe to grind. It's hard to know where to start correcting his comments, and frankly it isn't worth it taking the time.
The article is a piece of garbage and fully worthy of being published in the Register.
They say that Americans never understand Irony... (Score:2, Insightful)
And it appears they are right....
Also note.. Sarcasm is NOT the same as irony, and irony is NOT like "goldy" or "silvery".
Precidents like... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean Precidents like These [eff.org]? Or lobbying efforts like getting rid of the broadcast flag?
Should any organization be required to win 100% of its legal battles (on behalf of the public I might add) in order to gain support? I don't think setting an impossible standard is a helpful guide for deciding what organizations to support.
The EFF has been fairly effective in legal matters, and even more effective in educational areas like lobbying. AS that is the key to a better future (better to never have a bad law passed than to fight it latre through the courts) it is important to support the EFF as they are pretty much the ONLY group that understands the deep technological chasms laws can veer into. Are you honestly going to trust the ACLU to handle stuff like P2P?
For those who see the value in having an organization fighting for technical rights, you can donate to the EFF here [eff.org]. I donate every year and really all of us in the technical field should feel ashamed if we are not supporting the people that brought down things like the broadcast flag.
I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened to The Register? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nowadays, all their articles seem to be written by brainless trolls.
It's funny -- laugh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is exactly the philosophy of the ACLU, btw. It should be the philosophy of any good attorney. Foolishly jumping into the fray "for the good fight" is a good way down the road to a phyric victory. Losing sets precedents, and the legal system does not give "A"s for "Effort".
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the EFF's victories page. They list MGM v. Grokster. Ummm, I think SCOTUS overturning the 9th Circuit's ruling qualifies as a DEFEAT! So without wasting half my day to chase down their other "victories", I believe I will trust the EFF's objectivity about as much as anyone else (not much as all).
Even if the article is meant as satire, it still raises a good point. Has the EFF outlived its usefullness? When first created it could stand up as a group defending the little guys from the law and big corporations using said law. However, it is quite clear nowadays the EFF is a political group, after all they have tried to effect changes in the law more widespread then their individual cases.
Isn't the EFF sort of turning into a modern day ACLU. I still know a good many people who cringe when they hear the ACLU is getting involved in a case because their political agenda often effect the way they defend a person and brings with it an image that may affect the decisions of a judge or jury.
Re:Sounds pretty damning. What have they won? (Score:3, Insightful)
These cases of the EFF's aren't like a football league where they've signed up to play every week and they consequently have to play every opponent. In choosing which cases to defend (and put their imprimateur on) they are in position to research the facts, the law and the judicial record of the panel they'll be arguing before. With all that info, one would expect their record to be significantly better than 50%, unless they're blowing it.
Instead of whining about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
It wouldn't hurt to help the EFF [eff.org] out with a donation in this holiday giving season. If the EFF is losing cases that it ought to be winning, I don't imagine that it's for lack of a clue. It's probably just outgunned by the huge, deep-pocketted corporations and industry associations that it takes on. EFF and ACLU seem like the two best organized outfits that are standing up for our rights, so search your sofa for loose change and help 'em both out.
And although it sounds tired, it never hurts to let your elected representatives know what you think. If they hear from enough of us, they really will do something about it.
April 1st already? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exaggeration? It modifies the behavior of the OS at the lowest level possible for anyone outside Microsoft, for the purpose of hiding files and processes performing whatever Sony wants. It allows activity below the level of any user environment, thus allowing for what amounts to the ultimate in "privelage escalation". What do you call a rootkit, if not that?
beneficial to the entertainment pigopolists
Puh-lease. I loathe the RIAA et al as much as the next geek, but save the name-calling for the discussion. FPs should at least pretend to have some objectivity. If I still believed in Slashdot Editors (you know, like Santa and the Tooth Fairy), I would say they should never have let this one through.
Re:What do you think? (Score:2, Insightful)
US judges don't like to make political decisions (Score:3, Insightful)
The EFF's weakness isn't that they lose. It's that they fight cases they shouldn't. You want to structure things so that even if you lose in the court because the law's wrong, the publicity is positive so that you can go to the people to make the law right. Never take a case that detracts from your credibility.
Case in point: Mr. "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" whines that the EFF won't be able to get a US judge to rule that anonymous travel on eminently hijackable aircraft is a fundamental right. Well, duh. In the face of worldwide terrorism, NO ONE could do that. It's settled law that aircraft travel is not treated the same as walking down the street (which is why the government can legally search you prior to boarding). The real question is why did the EFF take this up at all? Is there no better place to spend their energies?
Pick your fights, EFF. Pick your fights.
I think he missed some research (Score:3, Insightful)
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? Isn't he know free, and writing lots of other interesting stuff?
Indeed, there is no good reason why anyone should not be permitted to travel incognito, and many good reasons why one should. This is a case that can, and should, be won. Surely, only an EFF principal could blow this one, yet blow it he did.
What? This is the absolute worst environment to be trying this kind of case. We have a "war on terror", and this guy thinks a case involving NOT identifying oneself while boarding a plane is a good idea that "should" be won? This guy is nuts...
I have no idea about the EFF's track record, but this guy seems to be wildly off....
story as old as time (Score:5, Insightful)
pragmatism does, and you don't have to sacrifice any of your ideals to be pragmatic about how to work them. in other words, you don't sacrifice your principles by playing them correctly, it's an unfounded fear that by playing it any other way except straight you are somehow sacrificing your ideals. this is not a cynical observation, it's a tactical one
the ivory tower approach to life may well make you feel smug and superior in life, but it doesn't help with a messy struggle in the mud. you don't lose when you go the idealistic route, you just wind up not playing the game, and becoming irrelevant to the causes you care about
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the EFF losing, or is this just corruption of the courts?
Re:If you have to fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to invoke Godwin's law or anything, but if one were to indeed use any means necessary, then the Nazi's didnt really do anything repugnant with the concentration camps. The Japanese didnt do anything wrong with Pearl Harbor. And Saddam Hussein didnt do anything wrong when he gassed the Kurds. And, using your argument, there wouldnt seem to be anything wrong with the actions of the 9/11 bombers either.
As in all things, there are limits. The ends do not always justify the means because as someone else put it "what good is it if you win the war but lose your soul?".
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is obviously a back-handed remark on the awful current occupant of the White House.
Seriosly, if someone has this as their bio, and is writing this kind of trash about the EFF, then they're obviously trolling. Is sending several thousand hits his way via slashdot the way to reward this kind of trash?
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pro-EFF, but as a matter of full disclosure, it would be nice to have the EFF also maintain a page of legal spankings it took, lessons learned, that sort of thing.
Difficult to argue policy (Score:5, Insightful)
The EFF takes the most difficult side and tries to prevail. Even if they are not successful in the courts, they are certainly successful at raising awareness. Furthermore, there is no "public defender" for copyright cases. If you violate someone's copyright, you are paying for your own lawyer. The ACLU is not going to jump in, so your only chance at a defense is to spend out-of-pocket, or get an organization like the EFF to back you up. Even if you do pay money for a lawyer, much of his work has been done by the EFF, which results in lower fees for the client
I do not think the EFF has outlived its usefulness.
Re:humorless prigs (Score:3, Insightful)
The trouble with many brits is that while they understand the basic concept of traditional dry british humor, they almost always do it badly. They mistake deadpan delivery of random combinations of weak sarcasm and patent absurdity for wit. They then claim the audience is too low-brow to catch the subtlety of the humor, when in reality it's just not particularly funny.
MGM v. Grokster (Score:5, Insightful)
What SCOTUS said was that Betamax (AKA Sony) was not a carte blanche to facilitate copyright infringement, and that actions taken outside the realm of actual.technology are legitimate targets. In other words, technology per se is off the table provided that it satisfies Sony (the precident, not the company). However, if I sell photocopiers and say "Buy my photocopiers! They are great to copy books with," then I may have stepped over the line.
In many very important ways, the technology community won a number of important victories in the Grokster case, and the media companies were given an arguably fair system, and this is likely to help forestall the next wave of media-bought acts (for example, keeping the INDUCE act from being reintroduced).
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 problem is that once "they" have established the right to take away civil rights, they can come after anyone (even you) if they don't like what you are saying or doing... it's a slippery slope.
The result is that the ACLU often finds itself defending some pretty odious people on principle. This clearly turns off most conformist people who don't understand the basic prinicples that are being defended.
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)
Now if you are a true Republican (American Republican, not of the French Republic), you will disavow this since Voltaire was FRENCH.
And that's why Trotskites suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Promote more of the very thing you hate in order to make the people hurt enough to drive them into revolt? Look at what happened with your own example, prohibition.
The temperance movement got a ban on liquor - a recreational drug with significant downsides. Net effect was to make it more popular and fund the development of organized crime, the BATF, and self-defense bans in the US.
After a decade of horrendous body counts and far larger counts of people injured by adulterated product and gang violence, public pressure finally got the law repealed. But the dead were still dead, the crippled were still crippled, and organized crime is still with us - along with the out of control bureaucracies, which were converted to drug (starting with marijuana) and firearms law enforcement rather than disbanded.
The harm continues, and escalates, to this day, with urban drug gangs and violence, RICOing of drug users' assets, and such debacles as Waco and Ruby Ridge.
All this over the freedom to have a little drink when you party.
Yet you advocate repeating this DELIBERATELY as your solution to restrictions on information technology? A decade of war - or more, since that technology is the main tool of resistance?
Then there's the other thing such groups do: Disrupt any tyranny-resistance organization that isn't doing things THEIR way, in order to take it over if it can be, destroy it if not. Here we have the first meeting of such an organization, and (as is usual for first meetings) it has a lot of disorganization and a heavy sprinkling of well-meaning flakes among the activists. These things generally get sorted out quickly, if proceedings aren't disrupted. So what do you do? When they don't instantly do things your way, you disrupt them.
Congratulations. Maybe you killed it. Maybe you just made it less responsive to popular input. But you certainly aren't getting the problem solved.
Unless the problem is Trotskyites - and other, similar, communist/socialist factions.
That problem you're putting right in people's faces, so they can see what you are.
Back in the '60s we had a saying: "Trots are a case of the slow runs." Thanks for showing us it's true in the naughties as well.
Re:The Cream Gang (Score:3, Insightful)
While I tend to agree with the person who started their post "Nice, another word-wanker.", I also agree with the general point of yours. Personally, I wouldn't have started in your camp in that meeting, but I would've ended up there because I think you're right.
This isn't a fight where a comprimise will leave anybody in a good position. This is one where we have to win in the long run. I think your strategy is the only viable one I've heard that has a chance of accomplishing that.
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
You have completely missed the point. The courts are upholding LAWS. Laws that have gotten passed at the behest of big business in CONGRESS. You want different outcomes on this sort of stuff (q.v. "broadcast flag"), vote for different people, lobby Congress yourself, take out some advertising, start a grassroots campaign... The options are varied depending on your commitment to change.
Me? I just live without. But I'd be doing that anyway. In my opinion, "big media" can KEEP the stupid tripe they try to monopolistically shove down our throats.
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
Often the battles for our rights are far more subtle than they appear. These center around what evidence is admissable before the court, on what basis one can be found guilty for violating laws, and on what basis one can be found liable for damages. It is in these areas that the meat and substance of a precident lie.
For example, in the Betamax case, the court ruled that it was insufficient to argue that because Sony knew that the Betamax VCR's could be used to violate copyrights when arguing that Sony should be held liable for damages caused by users of the product. This isn't really surprising. Just because a hardware company knows that, say, a hammer could be used for various types of illegal activity up to and including murder, one would not really consider holding them liable for wrongful death damages on that basis alone (and appeals courts have releatedly upheld the same standard for gun manufacturers too). In essence, the court said in Betamax that if a product has substantive legal uses, then knowledge of potential or actual illegal uses is insufficient to hold the manufacturer responsible.
In Grokster, the court looked at whether a manufacturer (under Betamax) could be held liable on grounds other than those covered in Betamax. I.e. if Betamax created a shield that would allow for activities conducted in bad faith to be legally protected. SCOTUS concluded that Betamax only protected the acts of engineering, manufacturing, and distributing the technology, and that arguments could be made about whether the purpose of the company or the product was specifically to facilitate copyright infringement regardless or substantive legal uses. In other words, if you make P2P software, that doesn't make you liable, but if you advertise it saying "Download any songs you want" then that advertisement itself might make one liable. This distinction is a critical one and, in many ways, it upholds the substantive protections we have had under the Sony/Betamax precident (Breyer's concurring opinion is probably most eloquent in this regard).
Lets take another example that is not in the domain of the EFF: Jose Padilla. This is a man who was (arguably illegally) imprisoned without trial, access to a lawyer, etc. for three years and has finally been indicted on charges that are fairly minor compared to what he has been accused of doing by our government. Now, I don't really care whether he wins or loses his case. Indeed I hope that in the end justice is served. However, I think that the Supreme Court needs to rule on the legality of Padilla's imprisonment for a number of reasons including what evidence might be allowable at trial and whether the government might have an incentive to undertake similar steps against others in the future. In essence the danger posed by someone like Padilla is far less than the danger posed by an Executive that has freed itself from judicial oversight. In other words, whether Padilla wins or loses, the rules decided in this case may be around for a while, so it is important that we reinforce the protections that we have against arbitrary imprisonment.
In essence, I don't believe that the EFF is doing a bad job. There are a few cases that have gone badly (most notably the 2600 case) but in general, they seem to be doing a good job. I say, "Keep up the good work!"
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
In theory, yes. They should be supporting the civil rights of everyone.
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. The ACLU is strangely silent when that happens.
One of my civil rights as a law-abiding citizen is my right to own a gun. Why do we have the NRA? Because the ACLU doesn't defend this right; we need another organization to pick up the slack.
The problem isn't their mission, but the selective way they pursue it.
YOU'RE missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
After that, they have to determine the intent of a particular law. Only then can they uphold a law.
Losses overreported by the pigopolists, perhaps? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds pretty damning. What have they won? (Score:3, Insightful)
First, though the EFF can choose who they defend, the opposition can choose who they prosecute.
Second, the legislation they're trying to fight against is often pernicious, but since it is the law of the land, the only way to fight it is to argue it on constitutional grounds. The courts aren't usually eager to overrule Congress unless they've clearly overreached. So the EFF needs to present a slam-dunk case to a sympathetic judge just to have a chance.
Any decent lawyer could easily rack up a 100% win record, just by taking only the slam-dunk cases. But if the EFF only fights the battles they're certain to win, I don't see how they would be terribly useful.
Re:EFF has excellent legal talent (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right in that these cases are expensive and that EFF's purse is rather smaller than those of the media companies. From my observation the difference between EFF and the big firms/media companies is how much legal grunt work they can handle - the critical moments of brillance of the great lawyers at EFF (and also at the media companies - they are not all monsters) are relatively few and far between when measured against the droll masses of the pleadings, discovery, fact checking, and all of the minutae that makes much of law expensive (and often boring.) Yes, the big firms have an advantage when it comes to the the dross of the law, but in my observation, that advantage is gone when it comes to the core aspects of framing a case and finding and articulating the core issues and rationales for the judge.
Re:Sounds pretty damning. What have they won? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, you seem to imply that researching the facts will give you a good idea of how the court will lean. That's not the case. You have arguments and the other side often has also good arguments. It's a coin toss in a lot of cases, and not because the EFF didn't do its job, but because such is the nature of courts.
The Register has a point... (Score:2, Insightful)
However, the Register raises a valid point: the EFF does not have a good track record.
Now, that *could* be because our rights in the US are being so violated that it is a long uphill battle and the EFF is fighting the good fight. But, it could also be that the EFF isn't doing the best job they could.
I don't know which is which--I have not followed all of the EFF cases closely. However, the few briefs I have read by the EFF do sometimes make me wonder.
For what it's worth, the Register article was inflamatory to be sure, but hidden in the vitrol is a valid question, well worth asking: is the EFF doing the best job they could be doing?
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh is it? [aclu.org] "September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show." "December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors." "November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school." "August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln." "February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages." "July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school." April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating." "January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways."
Wow, that ACLU sure does turn a blind eye to protecting religion.
I'm quite sure that if a city specifically shut down a nativity scene on private property that the ACLU would be all over it. (Assuming, of course, that the situation was biased. If the city shut down everything on everyone's lawns, navity scenes and garden gnomes alike, it would be stupid, but legal and fair.)
Why do we have an EFF? The ACLU already spends lots of effort fighting for the exact same causes that the EFF does. Ultimately because some peopl prefer to focus in particular areas more than the ACLU does. I suspect the NRA would exist even if the ACLU did defend gun rights.
On that particular issue, well, yes, the ACLU has a different interpretation of the second amendment. [aclu.org] I don't actually agree with their assessment, but they're hardly hostile to gun ownership Unless you found the organization, I doubt you'll find an organization that you entirely agree with. I chose to accept that and support several organizations that work in areas I care about.