4 ms·

>s, which itself is scaremongering relative to what the bill itself says I hate that valid criticism of a bills effects as described by lawyers and legal exper

by criley2 11y ago

>s, which itself is scaremongering relative to what the bill itself says I hate that valid criticism of a bills effects as described by lawyers and legal experts is trashed as "scaremongering". It's not scaremongering and just because the bill appears benign to your laymans eyes does not mean it is in fact benign in a court or regulators eyes.

rayiner 11y ago
Legal analysis can be in an academic context or an advocacy context. When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith. The EFF's analysis is generally of the advocacy sort. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's important to recognize that.
- SEMW 11y ago
  > When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. While the context isn't academic legal analysis, the EFF has no reason to advocate against the bill unless they sincerely believe it to be bad, based on the legal advice they've been given.
  - tacos 11y ago
    Any activist organization that accepts donations has a motivation to keep their name in the news. And all of these types of organizations overstep on occasion. In this case I found the EFF to be on point whereas the Engadget article reads like a BoingBoing post on a bender.
    - themartorana 11y ago
      Might be because the thought of a consumer ISP being paid from all sides and deciding for you what is important on the Internet is terrifying and really, really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it.
      - tacos 11y ago
        When a "terrifying" bill that "really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it" generates a whopping total of 60 comments on HN, then you've made my point for me. I'm not blaming the EFF; I'm not saying Citizens shouldn't rise up. I'm stating that the EFF needs to find an alternate strategy because constantly crying wolf fatigues even their most hardcore audience.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    That's not the point. A lawyer advocating for a client will often genuinely believe in their cause. They're still advocating. Unlike an academic article, the lawyer's brief will be entirely one-sided; the lawyer will leave out valid, well-supported arguments that don't strengthen their case.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  And it's of course important to consider the "worst case" implementation of laws. If a law is written to allow the government to do $bad_thing and their defense is "Don't worry, that won't happen," it should be cause for alarm. It doesn't take long to go from "These are emergency measures for use in extraordinary terrorism cases" to "Drug dealers are the terrorists in our cities" to "The children of this neighborhood are being terrorized by drivers going 30 in a 25." All of that to say, if a law is supposed to have a narrower effect than what the EFF is warning about, it'd be better to have the law written more narrowly.
- criley2 11y ago
  > The EFF's analysis is generally of the advocacy sort. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's important to recognize that. This is a really subtle and effective way to attack EFF as uncredible, and I don't respect that. Let's recognize some other important things: - the EFF is not an advocacy-only organization, but fights dozens of actual legal battles every single year - As a highly effective, currently-practicing, often-winning legal organization who uses advocacy as a part of their legal efforts, they are bound by realism when talking. The idea that the EFF exaggerates for advocacy is offensive and frankly, I'm calling it a "lie" unless you can source that. They are not fast-talking liars. They fight these battles in actual courts all across the country -- and win. That demonstrates that their arguments are more that pop-advocacy, they're the well reasoned arguments of lawyers winning cases. Frankly, the EFF doesn't take up a cause they don't legally believe in.

by criley2 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

Legal analysis can be in an academic context or an advocacy context. When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith. The EFF's analysis is generally of the advocacy sort. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's important to recognize that.

SEMW 11y ago
> When a lawyer is advocating for a client, he's giving the most one-sided presentation that he can make in good faith. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. While the context isn't academic legal analysis, the EFF has no reason to advocate against the bill unless they sincerely believe it to be bad, based on the legal advice they've been given.
- tacos 11y ago
  Any activist organization that accepts donations has a motivation to keep their name in the news. And all of these types of organizations overstep on occasion. In this case I found the EFF to be on point whereas the Engadget article reads like a BoingBoing post on a bender.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    Might be because the thought of a consumer ISP being paid from all sides and deciding for you what is important on the Internet is terrifying and really, really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it.
    - tacos 11y ago
      When a "terrifying" bill that "really is the end of the Internet as we know and love it" generates a whopping total of 60 comments on HN, then you've made my point for me. I'm not blaming the EFF; I'm not saying Citizens shouldn't rise up. I'm stating that the EFF needs to find an alternate strategy because constantly crying wolf fatigues even their most hardcore audience.
- tptacek 11y ago
  That's not the point. A lawyer advocating for a client will often genuinely believe in their cause. They're still advocating. Unlike an academic article, the lawyer's brief will be entirely one-sided; the lawyer will leave out valid, well-supported arguments that don't strengthen their case.
wlesieutre 11y ago
And it's of course important to consider the "worst case" implementation of laws. If a law is written to allow the government to do $bad_thing and their defense is "Don't worry, that won't happen," it should be cause for alarm. It doesn't take long to go from "These are emergency measures for use in extraordinary terrorism cases" to "Drug dealers are the terrorists in our cities" to "The children of this neighborhood are being terrorized by drivers going 30 in a 25." All of that to say, if a law is supposed to have a narrower effect than what the EFF is warning about, it'd be better to have the law written more narrowly.
criley2 11y ago
> The EFF's analysis is generally of the advocacy sort. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's important to recognize that. This is a really subtle and effective way to attack EFF as uncredible, and I don't respect that. Let's recognize some other important things: - the EFF is not an advocacy-only organization, but fights dozens of actual legal battles every single year - As a highly effective, currently-practicing, often-winning legal organization who uses advocacy as a part of their legal efforts, they are bound by realism when talking. The idea that the EFF exaggerates for advocacy is offensive and frankly, I'm calling it a "lie" unless you can source that. They are not fast-talking liars. They fight these battles in actual courts all across the country -- and win. That demonstrates that their arguments are more that pop-advocacy, they're the well reasoned arguments of lawyers winning cases. Frankly, the EFF doesn't take up a cause they don't legally believe in.