3 ms·

The EFF has been yelling that Big Tech is a major threat for like three decades now. The dystopia seems not to have arrived. Until now, when it seems to be ro

by ajross 1y ago

The EFF has been yelling that Big Tech is a major threat for like three decades now. The dystopia seems not to have arrived. Until now, when it seems to be rolling out as offical administration policy. In point of fact, nonsense like "Big Tech Bad" became part of the general antiestablishment mania that got us into this mess! Google and Meta kept our stuff mostly private, it's the nuts we voted for who were the real threat, and we voted for them because the EFF and other thought leaders told us not to trust the people who turned out to have been the good guys. And I've mostly had it. The EFF turns out to have been a click farm milking sincere but mostly irrelevant outrage into an engine for social destruction. No thanks.

dredmorbius 1y ago
Would you happen to have any notable examples of EFF's treating Big Tech as the enemy (or major threat if you prefer) during its first five or ten years? That would be 1994--1999 or 1994--2004, roughly. I ... was well aware of the EFF for at least the latter half of that period, and this doesn't seem to correspond well with my recollection, though I suppose one could argue that Jackson Games cast AT&T as Big Evil Tech. The defendant in the case however was the US Secret Service, a federal government entity. The Church of Scientology was of course another notable early non-government focus. But largely at least through 2000, and for much of the decade of the 2000s, EFF's principle focus was law and policy, not abusive tech giants. Rather than abandoning the former, the EFF seems now to consider both as significant concerns. Even key EFF staffers themselves (e.g., Doctorow, Cohn) acknowledge this shift.
- ajross 1y ago
  Touche. Should have said two decades. You got me. But I really don't see how that's responsive. I haven't seen the EFF weigh in once on the legality or privacy concerns of a just-hired unvetted contractor walking around with the entire IRS on his MacBook, or of the trolling of law enforcement data that disappeared a thousand people into cages in some Salvadoran jungle. Instead, the EFF seems more concerned with making sure we all buy iPhones instead of Pixels. Spare me, basically. I know what I care about. The EFF doesn't represent my interests. Which sucks, because they used to.
  - dredmorbius 1y ago
    "EFF Sues DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management to Halt Ransacking of Federal Data" (February 11, 2025) EFF and a coalition of privacy defenders have filed a lawsuit today asking a federal court to block Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing the private information of millions of Americans that is stored by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and to delete any data that has been collected or removed from databases thus far.... <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/eff-sues-doge-and-office-personnel-management-halt-ransacking-federal-data https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/eff-sues-doge-and-offi...> "EFF Sues OPM, DOGE and Musk for Endangering the Privacy of Millions" (February 11, 2025) (Concerns same action.) "The Dangers of Consolidating All Government Information" (June 5, 2025) The Trump administration has been heavily invested in consolidating all of the government’s information into a single searchable, or perhaps AI-queryable, super database. The compiling of all of this information is being done with the dubious justification of efficiency and modernization–however, in many cases, this information was originally siloed for important reasons: to protect your privacy, to prevent different branches of government from using sensitive data to punish or harass you, and to perserve the trust in and legitimacy of important civic institutions. Just three of several DDG results at eff.org for 'doge "government efficiency"': <https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=site%3Aeff.org+doge+%22government+efficiency%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=site%3Aeff.org+doge+%22gove...> (there are numerous dupes, mostly of these three items best I can tell). I hope this somewhat restores your faith in EFF, and if not, I'd appreciate hearing why, if you care to say.
    - ajross 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - dredmorbius 1y ago
        FWIW, it seems you're difficult to convince. What degree or type of evidence would you find convincing to shift your views of either the EFF's past stance, or its present focus?

by ajross 1y ago

dredmorbius 1y ago

Would you happen to have any notable examples of EFF's treating Big Tech as the enemy (or major threat if you prefer) during its first five or ten years? That would be 1994--1999 or 1994--2004, roughly. I ... was well aware of the EFF for at least the latter half of that period, and this doesn't seem to correspond well with my recollection, though I suppose one could argue that Jackson Games cast AT&T as Big Evil Tech. The defendant in the case however was the US Secret Service, a federal government entity. The Church of Scientology was of course another notable early non-government focus. But largely at least through 2000, and for much of the decade of the 2000s, EFF's principle focus was law and policy, not abusive tech giants. Rather than abandoning the former, the EFF seems now to consider both as significant concerns. Even key EFF staffers themselves (e.g., Doctorow, Cohn) acknowledge this shift.

ajross 1y ago
Touche. Should have said two decades. You got me. But I really don't see how that's responsive. I haven't seen the EFF weigh in once on the legality or privacy concerns of a just-hired unvetted contractor walking around with the entire IRS on his MacBook, or of the trolling of law enforcement data that disappeared a thousand people into cages in some Salvadoran jungle. Instead, the EFF seems more concerned with making sure we all buy iPhones instead of Pixels. Spare me, basically. I know what I care about. The EFF doesn't represent my interests. Which sucks, because they used to.
- dredmorbius 1y ago
  "EFF Sues DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management to Halt Ransacking of Federal Data" (February 11, 2025) EFF and a coalition of privacy defenders have filed a lawsuit today asking a federal court to block Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing the private information of millions of Americans that is stored by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and to delete any data that has been collected or removed from databases thus far.... <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/eff-sues-doge-and-office-personnel-management-halt-ransacking-federal-data https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/eff-sues-doge-and-offi...> "EFF Sues OPM, DOGE and Musk for Endangering the Privacy of Millions" (February 11, 2025) (Concerns same action.) "The Dangers of Consolidating All Government Information" (June 5, 2025) The Trump administration has been heavily invested in consolidating all of the government’s information into a single searchable, or perhaps AI-queryable, super database. The compiling of all of this information is being done with the dubious justification of efficiency and modernization–however, in many cases, this information was originally siloed for important reasons: to protect your privacy, to prevent different branches of government from using sensitive data to punish or harass you, and to perserve the trust in and legitimacy of important civic institutions. Just three of several DDG results at eff.org for 'doge "government efficiency"': <https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=site%3Aeff.org+doge+%22government+efficiency%22&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ftsa&q=site%3Aeff.org+doge+%22gove...> (there are numerous dupes, mostly of these three items best I can tell). I hope this somewhat restores your faith in EFF, and if not, I'd appreciate hearing why, if you care to say.
  - ajross 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - dredmorbius 1y ago
      FWIW, it seems you're difficult to convince. What degree or type of evidence would you find convincing to shift your views of either the EFF's past stance, or its present focus?