4 ms·

Why is the EFF arguing for less freedom on how computers can be used? The EFF should be against the government restricting computing freedom.

Jabrov 4mo ago
The letter is more about privacy, not freedom. They're arguing X is a massive privacy risk and should not get any exemptions.
- charcircuit 4mo ago
  >EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world. The EFF's mission statement supports them prioritizing freedom and innovation over privacy.
  - WCSTombs 4mo ago
    As far as I know, EFF has always championed privacy.
  - majormajor 4mo ago
    Are you claiming that privacy can never be a prerequisite for freedom and/or justice? It's trivially easy to see cases where freedom+justice+innovation can conflict with each other (it's even trivially easy to see where they can conflict with each other specifically for innovations involving the reduction of privacy, ye olde panopticon.) So it's also trivially simple to understand that at some point you're gonna have to pick one over another. And note that freedom is the first word in that list.
    - charcircuit 4mo ago
      >And note that freedom is the first word in that list. Which is why I would like the EFF to support freedom.
  - hn_acker 4mo ago
    > The EFF's mission statement supports them prioritizing freedom and innovation over privacy. What about the sentence right before the mission statement? [1] > The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world. > The EFF's mission statement supports them prioritizing freedom and innovation over privacy. For as long as I've known about EFF (which is less than a decade, I admit), EFF has never seemed to prioritize "innovation" over privacy. As for freedom, privacy often is a prerequisite. [1] https://www.eff.org/about https://www.eff.org/about
reaperducer 4mo ago
Why is the EFF arguing for less freedom on how computers can be used? The EFF should be against the government restricting computing freedom. Basic human decency?
- sieabahlpark 4mo ago
  [dead]
- numpad0 4mo ago
  So not privacy?
solid_fuel 4mo ago
The EFF does not blindly take the stance that "anything should be allowed as long as you do it with a computer". Their input here is very reasonable, and in standing with their principles.
- schoen 4mo ago
  The novel thing for EFF here, as I see it, isn't the idea that some uses of computers are illegal. Rather, it's the suggestion that tech companies have a duty to police or restrict users' use of their technology. When I worked at EFF we argued in about 20 different contexts that tech companies are not responsible for user activity even if they know that some of it is unlawful in some way, and that tech companies do not have a duty to restrict users in order to deter some kind of unlawful behavior. We said that about copyright infringement (again and again and again, including before the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster), about counterfeiting, about housing discrimination, about distribution of existing child porn, about manufacture of weapons, about evading law enforcement surveillance, and about every kind of tort in content moderation (the intermediaries do not have a duty to prevent people from publishing content that civilly harms others). Oh, also money laundering with cryptocurrency mixer code. And prostitution. In every case EFF's position was that there might be unlawful ways to use technology but the technology developer or operator didn't have a duty to prevent or discourage it, or to design the technology to prevent or discourage it, or to help the government or private parties catch people doing something unlawful. I know there are several different legal doctrines in play there and some of them may have limitations in terms of actual knowledge (although EFF usually also argued for defining this narrowly!), so maybe one could argue that if Grok obtains actual knowledge of some improper use that it might have a duty to prevent that use in that case. But it would have been historically exceptional for EFF to say that there was a general duty to design technology to deter or detect any form of unlawful use. There may also be a distinction in several of the relevant legal doctrines between inventing a technology (or making it available to others to use themselves on their own devices) versus hosting it on a cloud service, where the operator has more knowledge and more control than in other settings. EFF still historically preferred in basically every case to try to minimize the technology creator's or operator's liability for what users did.
dimator 4mo ago
i don't know how you're equating "computing freedom" with regulation of privacy guards. should FTC not care about that? can you elaborate?
WhaleClub 4mo ago
[dead]
croes 4mo ago
Their are two kinds of freedoms, freedom to and freedom from. And they often contradict. People should have freedom from abuse of their images, your freedom to abuse them Edit: fixed "freedom of" to "freedom from", thanks to Alpha3031
- Alpha3031 4mo ago
  Not really that important but I think the latter is more commonly referred to as "freedom from" rather than "freedom of"? I'm not 100% sure if I parsed that correctly.
Y-bar 4mo ago
Privacy is a facet of freedom. It gives the ability to speak and communicate without fear of being censored or surveillance (edit to add: and when there is censorship & surveillance it gives helps regain some of said freedom). It supports other freedoms like voting and freedom of association. It reduces the ability of others to harass or threaten or stalk you, making your daily life easier. It allows for whistleblowing against illegal acts of companies or government entities. Journalists and their sources often need it as part of their ability to freely do their jobs.
camgunz 4mo ago
Privacy is a requirement for freedom. You would act differently if everyone/the government knew everything you were thinking/saying/doing. The watchers would also act differently (think about all the accusations of incompetence when people post violent things on Facebook and then go on shooting sprees).

Jabrov 4mo ago

The letter is more about privacy, not freedom. They're arguing X is a massive privacy risk and should not get any exemptions.

charcircuit 4mo ago
>EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world. The EFF's mission statement supports them prioritizing freedom and innovation over privacy.
- WCSTombs 4mo ago
  As far as I know, EFF has always championed privacy.
- majormajor 4mo ago
  Are you claiming that privacy can never be a prerequisite for freedom and/or justice? It's trivially easy to see cases where freedom+justice+innovation can conflict with each other (it's even trivially easy to see where they can conflict with each other specifically for innovations involving the reduction of privacy, ye olde panopticon.) So it's also trivially simple to understand that at some point you're gonna have to pick one over another. And note that freedom is the first word in that list.
  - charcircuit 4mo ago
    >And note that freedom is the first word in that list. Which is why I would like the EFF to support freedom.
- hn_acker 4mo ago
  > The EFF's mission statement supports them prioritizing freedom and innovation over privacy. What about the sentence right before the mission statement? [1] > The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world. > The EFF's mission statement supports them prioritizing freedom and innovation over privacy. For as long as I've known about EFF (which is less than a decade, I admit), EFF has never seemed to prioritize "innovation" over privacy. As for freedom, privacy often is a prerequisite. [1] https://www.eff.org/about https://www.eff.org/about

reaperducer 4mo ago

Why is the EFF arguing for less freedom on how computers can be used? The EFF should be against the government restricting computing freedom. Basic human decency?

sieabahlpark 4mo ago
[dead]
numpad0 4mo ago
So not privacy?

solid_fuel 4mo ago

The EFF does not blindly take the stance that "anything should be allowed as long as you do it with a computer". Their input here is very reasonable, and in standing with their principles.

schoen 4mo ago
The novel thing for EFF here, as I see it, isn't the idea that some uses of computers are illegal. Rather, it's the suggestion that tech companies have a duty to police or restrict users' use of their technology. When I worked at EFF we argued in about 20 different contexts that tech companies are not responsible for user activity even if they know that some of it is unlawful in some way, and that tech companies do not have a duty to restrict users in order to deter some kind of unlawful behavior. We said that about copyright infringement (again and again and again, including before the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster), about counterfeiting, about housing discrimination, about distribution of existing child porn, about manufacture of weapons, about evading law enforcement surveillance, and about every kind of tort in content moderation (the intermediaries do not have a duty to prevent people from publishing content that civilly harms others). Oh, also money laundering with cryptocurrency mixer code. And prostitution. In every case EFF's position was that there might be unlawful ways to use technology but the technology developer or operator didn't have a duty to prevent or discourage it, or to design the technology to prevent or discourage it, or to help the government or private parties catch people doing something unlawful. I know there are several different legal doctrines in play there and some of them may have limitations in terms of actual knowledge (although EFF usually also argued for defining this narrowly!), so maybe one could argue that if Grok obtains actual knowledge of some improper use that it might have a duty to prevent that use in that case. But it would have been historically exceptional for EFF to say that there was a general duty to design technology to deter or detect any form of unlawful use. There may also be a distinction in several of the relevant legal doctrines between inventing a technology (or making it available to others to use themselves on their own devices) versus hosting it on a cloud service, where the operator has more knowledge and more control than in other settings. EFF still historically preferred in basically every case to try to minimize the technology creator's or operator's liability for what users did.

dimator 4mo ago

i don't know how you're equating "computing freedom" with regulation of privacy guards. should FTC not care about that? can you elaborate?

WhaleClub 4mo ago

[dead]

croes 4mo ago

Their are two kinds of freedoms, freedom to and freedom from. And they often contradict. People should have freedom from abuse of their images, your freedom to abuse them Edit: fixed "freedom of" to "freedom from", thanks to Alpha3031

Alpha3031 4mo ago
Not really that important but I think the latter is more commonly referred to as "freedom from" rather than "freedom of"? I'm not 100% sure if I parsed that correctly.

Y-bar 4mo ago

Privacy is a facet of freedom. It gives the ability to speak and communicate without fear of being censored or surveillance (edit to add: and when there is censorship & surveillance it gives helps regain some of said freedom). It supports other freedoms like voting and freedom of association. It reduces the ability of others to harass or threaten or stalk you, making your daily life easier. It allows for whistleblowing against illegal acts of companies or government entities. Journalists and their sources often need it as part of their ability to freely do their jobs.

camgunz 4mo ago

Privacy is a requirement for freedom. You would act differently if everyone/the government knew everything you were thinking/saying/doing. The watchers would also act differently (think about all the accusations of incompetence when people post violent things on Facebook and then go on shooting sprees).