4 ms·

EFF's brand and marketing portrays a wholesome organization fighting for the people. That is sometimes the case, but notice the positions they take either benef

EFF's brand and marketing portrays a wholesome organization fighting for the people. That is sometimes the case, but notice the positions they take either benefit or don't affect telecoms, whose interests they surreptitiously exist to advocate. It took me many years to realize this. You may disagree with me which is fine, but keep this in mind over time as you observe their positions and see for yourself.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Why does that matter with regard to armed robots?
- user3939382 4y ago
  Because this post is another example where they always make themselves out to be the good guys but they have an agenda like anyone else.
  - marcinzm 4y ago
    So what is your argument in this case? That no one is allowed to portray themselves as the good guy unless they're 100% perceived as good by everyone?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    What is wrong with their argument?
  - johnhenry 4y ago
    Healthy skepticism is always good, but are there organizations that go out of their way to make themselves not look like "good guys"?
  - wan_ala 4y ago
    Having opinions on dystopian armed robots != being a bad organisation. Also isn't being pro-privacy an agenda too? They have always opposed the US government.
melony 4y ago
- wanderingstan 4y ago
  > There is nothing honest nor good about the EFF. I don’t know much about the EFF but have met several people working there who are certainly trying to do good. Your statement seems at odds with the HN values of thoughtful discussion.
- Steltek 4y ago
  Dredging up a 25 year old article as "proof"? Who's actually lacking the critical thinking here?
easygenes 4y ago
This statement to me seems to have no basis in reality and no supporting examples. The EFF is a non-profit whose interests often directly clash with that of telecoms, particularly when it comes to advocacy of online privacy vis-a-vis E2E encryption and general anti-tracking lobbying and awareness initiatives. Their patent-busting activities are fairly focused on telecom-held patents which are overly stifling of innovation. Their general stance against telecom-enabled broad government surveillance also indirectly harms telecom bottom lines. I could go on, really. I am genuinely curious if you can provide clear counterexamples which appear motivated by alignment to telecom interests though. Edit: In the name of playing devil's advocate, I went searching for examples that could be construed as benefiting telecom interests. The only one I can point to from recent history is their initiative to enable "Broadband for All", which includes advocacy for public funds to go into building out fiber infrastructure. While this may benefit telcos, it also seems unambiguously to be in the public interest and particularly benefits rural and underprivileged populations at the cost of wealthy urbanized ones. [1] I also looked for evidence of meddling in their financials, but found only a transparent 501(c)(3) which has maintained a grassroots funding, with most funds coming from small individual donors. They are also a top scoring non-profit on Charity Navigator for their financials. [2] 1: https://annualreport.eff.org/#broadband https://annualreport.eff.org/#broadband 2: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/043091431 https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/043091431
- user3939382 4y ago
  Here's some more info on this https://thebaffler.com/salvos/all-effd-up-levine https://thebaffler.com/salvos/all-effd-up-levine https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/facebook-google-donate-heavily-to-privacy-advocacy-groups https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/face... They've accepted millions of dollars in donations from organizations and their executives' foundations that they're ostensibly a watchdog for. Their being okay with the conflict of interest is reason enough for me not to trust them.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Why does that matter with regard to armed robots?

user3939382 4y ago
Because this post is another example where they always make themselves out to be the good guys but they have an agenda like anyone else.
- marcinzm 4y ago
  So what is your argument in this case? That no one is allowed to portray themselves as the good guy unless they're 100% perceived as good by everyone?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  What is wrong with their argument?
- johnhenry 4y ago
  Healthy skepticism is always good, but are there organizations that go out of their way to make themselves not look like "good guys"?
- wan_ala 4y ago
  Having opinions on dystopian armed robots != being a bad organisation. Also isn't being pro-privacy an agenda too? They have always opposed the US government.

melony 4y ago

wanderingstan 4y ago
> There is nothing honest nor good about the EFF. I don’t know much about the EFF but have met several people working there who are certainly trying to do good. Your statement seems at odds with the HN values of thoughtful discussion.
Steltek 4y ago
Dredging up a 25 year old article as "proof"? Who's actually lacking the critical thinking here?

easygenes 4y ago

This statement to me seems to have no basis in reality and no supporting examples. The EFF is a non-profit whose interests often directly clash with that of telecoms, particularly when it comes to advocacy of online privacy vis-a-vis E2E encryption and general anti-tracking lobbying and awareness initiatives. Their patent-busting activities are fairly focused on telecom-held patents which are overly stifling of innovation. Their general stance against telecom-enabled broad government surveillance also indirectly harms telecom bottom lines. I could go on, really. I am genuinely curious if you can provide clear counterexamples which appear motivated by alignment to telecom interests though. Edit: In the name of playing devil's advocate, I went searching for examples that could be construed as benefiting telecom interests. The only one I can point to from recent history is their initiative to enable "Broadband for All", which includes advocacy for public funds to go into building out fiber infrastructure. While this may benefit telcos, it also seems unambiguously to be in the public interest and particularly benefits rural and underprivileged populations at the cost of wealthy urbanized ones. [1] I also looked for evidence of meddling in their financials, but found only a transparent 501(c)(3) which has maintained a grassroots funding, with most funds coming from small individual donors. They are also a top scoring non-profit on Charity Navigator for their financials. [2] 1: https://annualreport.eff.org/#broadband https://annualreport.eff.org/#broadband 2: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/043091431 https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/043091431

user3939382 4y ago
Here's some more info on this https://thebaffler.com/salvos/all-effd-up-levine https://thebaffler.com/salvos/all-effd-up-levine https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/facebook-google-donate-heavily-to-privacy-advocacy-groups https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/face... They've accepted millions of dollars in donations from organizations and their executives' foundations that they're ostensibly a watchdog for. Their being okay with the conflict of interest is reason enough for me not to trust them.