4 ms·

I'm only about halfway through, but the whole style of this article is already setting off alarms for me. It's a lot of innuendo as opposed to explanation of wh

I'm only about halfway through, but the whole style of this article is already setting off alarms for me. It's a lot of innuendo as opposed to explanation of why things are bad or problematic. The idea for EFF was hatched in 1990 by two millionaires, software mogul Mitch Kapor and John Perry Barlow, songwriter for the Grateful Dead and the wealthy heir to a ranching estate in Wyoming. Barlow, who died earlier this year, is today best known for penning the “Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace,” a barely comprehensible but much-applauded rant against the evils of government influence over the internet that he typed out on an Apple laptop in some posh hotel in Davos. So, the fact he had money, was in Switzerland, and used an Apple laptop are somehow relevant here? It feels like she's trying to use his wealth as an indicator of his character here. The next paragraph talks about how they first met: Kapor and Barlow had met on a digital message board platform run by cult hippy entrepreneur Stewart Brand, of Whole Earth Catalog fame. The two of them traded stories about government witch hunts and botched investigations into totally normal cyberspace activities—things like hacking into computers and circulating stolen source code. Even if entirely true, I have a sneaking suspicion that the people in question could add details that made it sound a bit less nefarious. And then it goes on with what they were doing whenthe EFF was actually thought up, which was during a quick drop-in using one's "Bizjet" to the ranch that started all this. There's recounting history so people have context, and then there's recounting history so to put people into a desired context, whether it's all that accurate or not. This smacks of the latter. Berman was a Beltway insider who in the 1980s was at the center of a push to turn the ACLU into a big business lobby and an ally of intelligence agencies and right-wing political interests. Among other things, the Berman-era ACLU defended Big Tobacco from regulations on advertising and worked with the National Rifle Association to fight electronic collection of arrest data by the Department of Justice for background checks to deny firearms licenses. So, the ACLU defends companies that traditional EFF supporters sometimes dislike? Is this supposed to be news? Isn't that one of the reasons they have a lot of respect, because they stand on principle of the issues, not on how liked the people are, as that's the only way to make sure your liberties are always respected, not just when you're part of an acceptable group? Among Berman’s personal achievements: working with the CIA on an early version of a bill that criminalized disclosing the names of CIA agents—a law that was later used to prosecute and jail CIA officer John Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on the Agency’s use of waterboarding as a torture and interrogation technique. Oh, and now we're criticizing a man for the how a law that he supported was later used to ill effect? I was getting an uneasy feeling about the presentation style for the first quarter of the article, the second quarter is where all this popped out. I'm only about halfway through, so I guess I'll see how it turns out, but my expectations of any sort of fair or rational argument are definitely lower than when I began.

throwawayjava 8y ago
Yeah, the beginning really misses the mark. But two of the things you didn't like I think are actually very reasonable. > "...totally normal cyberspace activities—things like hacking into computers and circulating stolen source code." > Even if entirely true, I have a sneaking suspicion that the people in question could add details that made it sound a bit less nefarious. No, I think this is fair. The EFF has always been a huge advocate for watering down the CFAA. That's actually one of the main reasons I've donated to EFF in the past. And FWIW I think this is a tactical error on the part of Yasha Levine. The constituency most likely to be swayed by her message is going to be turned off by this sort of tough-on-crime, throw-everyone-in-jail BS. This piece would be 1000% more likely to resonate with its target audience if it started by acknowledging all of the good work that the EFF does, and then went on to ask why the EFF hasn't taken a stronger stance on some of the private sector abuses of some of its core values (such as digital privacy). > So, the ACLU defends companies that traditional EFF supporters sometimes dislike? Is this supposed to be news? I think the point the author is trying to make is that there's a precedent for civil rights advocacy organizations being co-opted by corporate interests. Which is actually a reasonable thing to point out.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > This piece would be 1000% more likely to resonate with its target audience if it started by acknowledging all of the good work that the EFF does, and then went on to ask why the EFF hasn't taken a stronger stance on some of the private sector abuses of some of its core values (such as digital privacy). I agree it would resonate more, but I think that would be counterproductive to the goal, as it would promote critical thinking about the topic. to me, nothing about this article seems to indicate that want to promote critical thinking or a nuanced opinion of the EFF. It's all about driving a specific point home, slowly, and with extreme bias, which is that the EFF is all about supporting a specific corporate agenda instead of a set of principles. > I think the point the author is trying to make is that there's a precedent for civil rights advocacy organizations being co-opted by corporate interests. Which is actually a reasonable thing to point out. And it chose to make that point by insinuating the ACLU was co-opted by big tobacco and the NRA, simply because it weighed in on cases in their favor. What I was trying to get at, is they very much have a reputation of a "I may hate what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" stance, which fits perfectly well with the actions in question, at least in the detail presented. If there actually is a precedent as you say, then it should be pointed out, but with actual details, not innuendo. This article insinuates quite a bit, while saying almost nothing.

throwawayjava 8y ago

Yeah, the beginning really misses the mark. But two of the things you didn't like I think are actually very reasonable. > "...totally normal cyberspace activities—things like hacking into computers and circulating stolen source code." > Even if entirely true, I have a sneaking suspicion that the people in question could add details that made it sound a bit less nefarious. No, I think this is fair. The EFF has always been a huge advocate for watering down the CFAA. That's actually one of the main reasons I've donated to EFF in the past. And FWIW I think this is a tactical error on the part of Yasha Levine. The constituency most likely to be swayed by her message is going to be turned off by this sort of tough-on-crime, throw-everyone-in-jail BS. This piece would be 1000% more likely to resonate with its target audience if it started by acknowledging all of the good work that the EFF does, and then went on to ask why the EFF hasn't taken a stronger stance on some of the private sector abuses of some of its core values (such as digital privacy). > So, the ACLU defends companies that traditional EFF supporters sometimes dislike? Is this supposed to be news? I think the point the author is trying to make is that there's a precedent for civil rights advocacy organizations being co-opted by corporate interests. Which is actually a reasonable thing to point out.

kbenson 8y ago
> This piece would be 1000% more likely to resonate with its target audience if it started by acknowledging all of the good work that the EFF does, and then went on to ask why the EFF hasn't taken a stronger stance on some of the private sector abuses of some of its core values (such as digital privacy). I agree it would resonate more, but I think that would be counterproductive to the goal, as it would promote critical thinking about the topic. to me, nothing about this article seems to indicate that want to promote critical thinking or a nuanced opinion of the EFF. It's all about driving a specific point home, slowly, and with extreme bias, which is that the EFF is all about supporting a specific corporate agenda instead of a set of principles. > I think the point the author is trying to make is that there's a precedent for civil rights advocacy organizations being co-opted by corporate interests. Which is actually a reasonable thing to point out. And it chose to make that point by insinuating the ACLU was co-opted by big tobacco and the NRA, simply because it weighed in on cases in their favor. What I was trying to get at, is they very much have a reputation of a "I may hate what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" stance, which fits perfectly well with the actions in question, at least in the detail presented. If there actually is a precedent as you say, then it should be pointed out, but with actual details, not innuendo. This article insinuates quite a bit, while saying almost nothing.