Comment by tailspin2019 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tailspin2019 | Hacker News Reader

Every time I read about what the EFF is doing I get the sense that their priorities are clear, they’re fighting a good fight and in my case they’re generally acting in line with the values/beliefs I hold around the areas they get involved with.

It’s cool when you find an organisation whose actions line up with your view of the world like that, and appears to be pretty effective too.

Someone else commented about the cost of this “stunt”, but I can’t see it costing a huge amount to pull off in the big scheme of things, and it does make for some excellent visuals which as someone else pointed out, may give some journalists a “hook” into the story.

I don’t donate much (monthly recurring) but I’m pretty happy with what I see coming out of the EFF and am happy to support them.

By the way, if anyone is on the fence about donating, check out their site as you can get some “cool”[1] EFF swag in return for your donation too:

https://supporters.eff.org/donate/

[1] No guarantees implied or given about how “cool” others will think your swag actually is.

Are they pretty effective?

Most proposals they object to are trying to solve real problems. I almost never see the EFF propose better ways to solve those problems. They just raise objections to everyone else's proposed solutions.

And those objections are often just low effort implausible slippery slope arguments. It is pretty easy to make a slippery slope argument for pretty much anything that has it leading to a dystopian nightmare.

Legislators and policy makers tend to pay more attention to people with solutions, even bad solutions, than to people who just object to everything, especially when those objections are low quality.

> I almost never see the EFF propose better ways to solve those problems. They just raise objections to everyone else's proposed solutions.

That's not their job though, providing solutions and listening to citizen and NGO feedback is the job of the politicians.

If the EFF doesn't suggest something the people who propose the ideas the EFF objects to will continue to have all the influence over politicians.

If you don't propose an alternative then people will see you as just an irritating contrarian.

1) free software is viable. The alternatives to practically everything exist technologically.

2) can you provide an example of a 'slippery slope' that did not come to fruition? Rhetorical devices and hyperbole are exactly how you make abstract technical concerns feel real to an average 65 year old congressperson

> Most proposals they object to are trying to solve real problems. I almost never see the EFF propose better ways to solve those problems.

To start, if the problem is 'doing something wrong' vs 'status quo', simply stopping the 'doing something wrong' is a proposal

Nevermind the many concrete recommendations which do occur- support for net neutrality is one clear example i can recall from memory, I'm sure they are others.

Also:

https://www.eff.org/cases

has clear examples of cases impacting policy which eff have been involved in

and:

https://www.eff.org/pages/tools

has some very important tools for internet privacy, some of which which have made a huge impact

> I almost never see the EFF propose better ways to solve those problems.

Why does their need to be a better solution in the case of the Apple CSAM phone scanning debacle? The solution is to just not do it.

If Apple is so worried about illegal material being uploaded to iCloud, they can just modify their iCloud encryption logic to give themselves access and scan the material on their own servers when it's uploaded. They have access to the unencrypted content either way, so it's fundamentally no less private. Actually, it's more private because at least Apple wouldn't be giving themselves access to content on my private property.

> Are they pretty effective?

One particular area where I get the impression they have a specific measurable impact is in their legal support on certain cases:

https://www.eff.org/legal-victories

Then there is (for example) their practical solution of how to help increase HTTPS adoption with their excellent software tool, CertBot, which helps automate LetsEncrypt certificates:

https://certbot.eff.org

I’d note that it seems to be exceptionally rare for a politically active organisation to be able to both campaign on issues at a high level AND produce technically viable and relevant software tools. Those are two wildly different areas of expertise, and yet they do this, with a clear overarching narrative.

In terms of proposing more specific solutions to problems they protest against, I don’t have a strong view on whether you’re right to emphasise this or not. Maybe there is more they could do here. But in terms of the larger question of “are EFF effective?” I’d say they are demonstrably having a positive impact.

Is it enough? I don’t know. How do you measure it… Can they do better? Almost certainly.

Look at who really funds the EFF.

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/all-effd-up-levine

I'm not one to normally ask for a TLDR; but that article is a dense 10,000 words...

I'm open to new information... so if you know something I don't, is there a more concise answer to "who really funds the EFF"?

Google. That's an interesting summary, missing a lot of good writing and references. Also could explain this latest fly over from a cynical point of view.

I’d say section on the history of its creators/Silicon Valley is more important to understanding the problem, but here’s a couple of relevant paragraphs:

> One likely explanation, Glaser reasoned, was that most of these groups depended on funding from the very same corporations that they should be criticizing. Over the past years, EFF has taken millions in funds from Google and Facebook via straight donations and controversial court payouts that many see as under-the-radar contributions. Hell, Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s foundation gave EFF at least $1.2 million.

> But the reason for EFF’s silence on the Facebook surveillance and influence scandal goes deeper—into the business model of the internet itself, which from the outset has framed user privacy as being threatened by ever-imminent government censorship, as opposed to the protection of users and their data from wanton commercial intrusion and exploitation. Put simply, the lords of the internet care very little about user privacy—what they want to preserve, at the end of the day, is their own commercial license against the specter of government regulation of any kind.

Interesting article. Very long. But revealing. And disappointing. (Truth usually is.) Then the issue arises, who is worth supporting, that will truly defend our digital privacy?

"You guys are protesting incorrectly" is among the most useless things you could write. It's Kaepernick all over again but for the tech crowd.

I disagree. Disagreements with Kaepernick were largely that his actions were socially unaccaptable and uneffective. But it was his choice and he didn't need anyone to enable him to do that. (I think Kaepernick was effective personally).

If you think the EFF is not an effective organization, it might be worthwhile explaining your opinion so as the influence charitable donations that could be spent differently. I think the EFF misses the mark pretty frequently, personally. But they're net positive.

In recent years slippery slopes have proven more and more to be real...

All you have to do is look at the extension of domestic surveillance laws to see where the slippery slope leads.

> Are they pretty effective

Charity Navigator gives them 4 out of 4 stars: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/043091431.

That is not a measure of how effective they are, but a summary of whether they are filing the necessary disclosure forms and whether their administrative fees are too high or not.

If the EFF lost every single case and donated half their money to their political opponents, then this rating would still be unchanged provided they disclosed everything and didn't take much of a cut for overhead.

AFAIK Charity Navigator takes into account how much money goes to fund raising, management etc, which I would count as efficiency. It's definitely not everything of course.

I've taken the opposite view ever since EFF has started wasting time on protests, appeals and letters on this specific issue. Instead of treating this company with the same scrutiny it treats other companies with (point out what's wrong, offer alternatives, chase legislation) it's instead spending time on these stunts as someone called it.

At this point, the cat is out of the bag, and has been out of the bag for several years, it's just hitting 'close to home' now. Withdrawals and delays that are effected as a result of these will not make any difference.

This isn't a good fight but a form of denial and while I've been a regular supporter of theirs for several years, I now question where their priorities lie.

I’ve seen the word “stunts” (plural) used a few times in the comments but what other things has the EFF done recently that would qualify as a stunt?

This particular thing was very clearly and deliberately a “stunt” but to me it feels more like the exception than the norm for the sort of thing EFF typically does?

Admittedly I’m fairly new to EFF so have only really been paying attention to them for a year or two.

I would assume the other one is the protests outside their HQs?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/09/dont-stop-now-join-eff...

If not stunt, perhaps some other word may be suited for it. My comments on it would still be the same.

EFF is an non-profit activism organisation that stands up for freedom and civil liberties (amongst other things).

So organising a peaceful protest seems to me to be fully within their remit and entirely appropriate?

It’s about as fundamental as you can get when it comes to exercising people’s rights to stand up for what they believe in, peacefully but firmly.

Despite the fact that their areas of focus are in the digital realm, sometimes you can’t beat the power of in-person organising IRL.

Edit: I’d be interested to hear what you think they should be doing that they’re not. (Genuinely, not trying to bait you!)

I don’t see anything wrong with these awareness raising events but what else could they be doing from your perspective?

> I now question where their priorities lie.

Informing and legally fighting for the user — seemingly the "informing the user" will be more cost effective in the Apple case.

They have billions of dollars for legal costs...

some political groups value activism and appearance over substantial gains

The Institute for Justice has a similar/related set of objectives: https://ij.org/

You seem to have written an internet top comment that is not only positive and hopeful, but also devoid of cynicism. Please remove yourself from the building and leave your badge at the reception. As a security measure, you will be followed to your car. Don't come back ever again. Thanks!

Sorry about that. Won’t do it again.

EDIT: Ah the sad irony of you being downvoted for this comment... I guess the balance has been restored! Sigh...

Don't bother. Feeling helpless all the time is a good way to avoid frustration, joy, or anything worth feeling, really. It is also incredibly easy. If you look for reasons to feel bad you're surely going to find them. Hope is reserved for the courageous. Have a wonderful weekend. Cheers!

>Every time I read about what the EFF is doing I get the sense that their priorities are clear, they’re fighting a good fight and in my case they’re generally acting in line with the values/beliefs I hold around the areas they get involved with.

I no longer feel this way. They got heavily partisan in the last few years and their statements on online censorship are weak and incoherent.

Why is their website on censorship (https://onlinecensorship.org/) abandoned and only contains examples from one side of the political spectrum?

Why are their lawyers participating in pro-censorship industry panels?

Where was EFF when New York Post's reporting on Hunter Biden laptop was censored by Twitter and Facebook? That was completely unprecedented, probably the biggest case of big tech censorship ever. (And yes, that reporting was accurate, contrary to what many here probably have heard: https://rumble.com/vmteq5-new-proof-emerges-about-the-hunter... .)

Where is EFF when YouTube relentlessly deletes educational videos, congressional testimonies and interviews with doctors when they say something "prohibited" about Covid-related topics?

Sucks that people here are downvoting you for speaking the truth. Seems the HN userbase has its own ingrained biases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com