4 ms·

I wish the EFF would explain more clearly why digital rights for users are important. Technology in the hands of the few and powerful can lead to authoritariani

by mehrzad 11y ago

I wish the EFF would explain more clearly why digital rights for users are important. Technology in the hands of the few and powerful can lead to authoritarianism, which is part of what makes their work so important. Right now their site only explains that digital rights promote human freedoms. Maybe they don't want to sound too "radical," but for people looking to donate, shouldn't they explain why better privacy, free expression, and digital rights laws are valuable? Love their work though!

studentrob 11y ago
Couldn't agree more. More succinct education with facts, rather than FUD, backing up certain viewpoints is needed. For example I found their open letter to the President about encryption to be too much about math to really attract the kind of reader whose opinion we want to change.
tryitnow 11y ago
I agree. And I think your point touches on one of the problems I have with EFF. I think they're too adverse to upsetting right leaning libertarians by sounding "radical." But the problem with that is you kind of have to sound radical to explain to people why digital rights are important. Frankly, it's marginalized groups that have the most to fear. Groups that by nature are unpopular. But once you're positioned as defending unpopular groups well then, that may make your more conservative donors uneasy... Honestly, I just personally don't have a lot to fear from state and corporate power. But the Muslims who live across the street? Or the queer couple on the next block? Yes, those folks have some very legitimate reasons to fear surveillancs. I guess I could sum up my problem with EFF by saying that they look and act like people like me. Indeed my social circles intersect with quite a few EFF employees. But people like me really aren't the first targets of authoritarians, so it's going to be hard to get beyond an abstract, theoretical fear of privacy violations.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I don't actually agree; looking at the recent history, and even current events, the intelligentsia and non-aligned influential people have always been targeted. Their position might grant them more "deference", but on the other hand, they are also more likely to have surveillance used to discredit them. You even have a recent case of a Ron Paul-admiring right-wing libertarian being convicted of "domestic terrorism by trying to devalue the currency": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_von_NotHaus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_von_NotHaus

by mehrzad 11y ago

studentrob 11y ago

Couldn't agree more. More succinct education with facts, rather than FUD, backing up certain viewpoints is needed. For example I found their open letter to the President about encryption to be too much about math to really attract the kind of reader whose opinion we want to change.

tryitnow 11y ago

I agree. And I think your point touches on one of the problems I have with EFF. I think they're too adverse to upsetting right leaning libertarians by sounding "radical." But the problem with that is you kind of have to sound radical to explain to people why digital rights are important. Frankly, it's marginalized groups that have the most to fear. Groups that by nature are unpopular. But once you're positioned as defending unpopular groups well then, that may make your more conservative donors uneasy... Honestly, I just personally don't have a lot to fear from state and corporate power. But the Muslims who live across the street? Or the queer couple on the next block? Yes, those folks have some very legitimate reasons to fear surveillancs. I guess I could sum up my problem with EFF by saying that they look and act like people like me. Indeed my social circles intersect with quite a few EFF employees. But people like me really aren't the first targets of authoritarians, so it's going to be hard to get beyond an abstract, theoretical fear of privacy violations.

icebraining 11y ago
I don't actually agree; looking at the recent history, and even current events, the intelligentsia and non-aligned influential people have always been targeted. Their position might grant them more "deference", but on the other hand, they are also more likely to have surveillance used to discredit them. You even have a recent case of a Ron Paul-admiring right-wing libertarian being convicted of "domestic terrorism by trying to devalue the currency": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_von_NotHaus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_von_NotHaus