4 ms·

The EFF apparently cares a great deal about government surveillance but does not comment on corporate surveillance. Is it a coincidence that some of the 6 star

by ronaldx 12y ago

The EFF apparently cares a great deal about government surveillance but does not comment on corporate surveillance. Is it a coincidence that some of the 6 star corporations who supposedly "have our back" are funding the EFF? Sigh. A lot of the EFF's work seems to go into defending Google's rights rather than defending individuals' rights. This is bizarre behaviour for a privacy advocacy group. See also: https://twitter.com/EFF/status/466727797713825793 https://twitter.com/EFF/status/466727797713825793 I find that I can no longer support the EFF's work.

harkyns_castle 12y ago
I'm finding the same.
emiliobumachar 12y ago
Focusing on governments seems like a good focus. They are much more powerful, have a much darker history of abusing that power, and opting out of giving info to businesses is much more realistic, while still hard.
- forgottenpass 12y ago
  There are a handful of private services for which the market is both cornered by a handful of participants and a necessity to modern life. Opting out of those is about as easy as opting out of laws, both of which require a form of essentially going off grid or on the lam. Also, it is important to realize that the consolidation of data by businesses is exactly what makes it so easy for government to show up and say "I'll have some of what he's having." Businesses leverage their power over people to get at data they otherwise wouldn't like to share. Governments leverage their power over businesses to get at data they otherwise wouldn't like to share. You can argue that the power in question is different, and that's an important piece of the conversation to have. But overstating that facet becomes a smokescreen for an "it's OK for me to do, but don't do it to me" argument.
- anon1385 12y ago
  >Focusing on governments seems like a good focus. They aren't really focusing on governments plural, just government singular: the US government. To comply with US law these American companies must provide information about non-US users to the US government, without any warrants. The 'warrant for content' star is meaningless to non-US citizens. >opting out of giving info to businesses is much more realistic This EFF report is only talking about government surveillance through corporations. If you opt out of using Google (note: this isn't possible if you use the web) then it doesn't matter if governments are requesting your data from Google because Google has nothing to tell them. Solving corporate surveillance would solve all of the of government surveillance that this EFF report is concerned with. The text on the page is pretty misleading as well. It starts off ok: >We entrust our most sensitive, private, and important information to technology companies like Google, Facebook, and Verizon. Collectively, these companies are privy to the conversations, photos, social connections, and location data of almost everyone online. But then they ignore what they just said and focus only on government data requests, instead of asking the most relevant question which is what do the companies do with that data that might impact users privacy. Is the company selling a profile about me to health insurers? This page won't tell me, yet the page is giving these companies an EFF badge of approval for 'privacy'. Further on they say: >In the face of unbounded surveillance, users of technology need to know which companies are willing to take a stand for the privacy of their users. Again this is misleading. Standing up to government data requests is not the same as 'taking a stand for the privacy of their users', since the company may also be selling the information to anybody willing to pay for it. Standing up to one type of request (that has no economic benefit to the company) doesn't tell us how the companies act when it comes to protecting the data in other ways (where they have a direct economic incentive to mine the data and to sell the data). The text continues on in a similar way, constantly implying that government data requests are the only thing that could possibly violate privacy. I can only agree with the other commentators that are calling this report a corporate propaganda exercise. Some people have implied that it's just because these companies are funders of the EFF. I'm not sure it's a simple as that. The EFF has always involved some people with pretty extreme political views that are very pro-corporate. The 'Freedom' in their name has always been as much about freedom for corporations as it was about freedom for individuals. That is probably why this page acts like corporate surveillance can't exist; by definition (according to their politics) only the government can spy on you. Everything else is just 'the market'. I doubt many people reading the page will be aware of the extreme political view behind the design of this report, which is of course the sign of well executed propaganda.
magicalist 12y ago
No, they spend an enormous time commenting on actions by private companies, including corporate surveillance. Maybe you've just paid attention for the last few days? Meanwhile reliable critics of Google like Cory Doctorow have also been criticizing the ruling by the European Court of Justice, and if you read the link in that tweet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/hidden-in-plain-sight https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/hidden-in-plain-sight you'll see that the implications of that ruling actually are troubling. I think on the contrary, implying that being troubled by the ruling is equivalent to "defending Google's rights rather than defending individuals' rights" is disingenuous and intellectually lazy. You can disagree with them, but it shouldn't be hard to empathize here: imagine someone who strongly believes in an American-style right to free speech; surely it's not beyond the realm of possibility that that person can't be both a vociferous defender of individual's rights while also worried about how this ruling will itself erode those rights?
- ronaldx 12y ago
  If you believe that an (American style) right to free speech overrides the right to individiual privacy, you are not a privacy campaigner. If you believe that Google and Facebook deserve full marks on any measure of privacy, and that deserves to be one of your key press releases, you are not a privacy campaigner. I empathise with these attitudes amongst proponents of free speech, yes, even though I don't agree. If Cory Doctorow supports this, I disagree with him but I am not outraged. However, I don't empathise here: not at all. Here, I am outraged. EFF put 'privacy' as one of their key areas of work and they are amongst the best known privacy campaign groups. When the European principles of Data Protection are upheld correctly (which rarely happens), the EFF creates a campaign which is against that ruling and in favour of Google's right to ignore the principles. They are speaking out against a fundamental of privacy: a basic principle regarding processing personal data. IMHO that is extremely anti-privacy. Both of these points significantly harm real privacy campaigning, from a group which places itself as one of the defenders of privacy. It is wrong.
aestra 12y ago
They do comment on corporate surveillance. https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy >Your Web searches about sensitive medical information might seem a secret between you and your search engine, but companies like Google are creating a treasure trove of personal information by logging your online activities, and making it potentially available to any party wielding enough cash or a subpoena.
- ronaldx 12y ago
  This is exactly what I object to: they present themselves as privacy campaigners on their front pages, but when push comes to shove they roll in favour of Google and against the individual's right to privacy. This harms privacy campaigning.

by ronaldx 12y ago

harkyns_castle 12y ago

I'm finding the same.

emiliobumachar 12y ago

Focusing on governments seems like a good focus. They are much more powerful, have a much darker history of abusing that power, and opting out of giving info to businesses is much more realistic, while still hard.

forgottenpass 12y ago
There are a handful of private services for which the market is both cornered by a handful of participants and a necessity to modern life. Opting out of those is about as easy as opting out of laws, both of which require a form of essentially going off grid or on the lam. Also, it is important to realize that the consolidation of data by businesses is exactly what makes it so easy for government to show up and say "I'll have some of what he's having." Businesses leverage their power over people to get at data they otherwise wouldn't like to share. Governments leverage their power over businesses to get at data they otherwise wouldn't like to share. You can argue that the power in question is different, and that's an important piece of the conversation to have. But overstating that facet becomes a smokescreen for an "it's OK for me to do, but don't do it to me" argument.
anon1385 12y ago
>Focusing on governments seems like a good focus. They aren't really focusing on governments plural, just government singular: the US government. To comply with US law these American companies must provide information about non-US users to the US government, without any warrants. The 'warrant for content' star is meaningless to non-US citizens. >opting out of giving info to businesses is much more realistic This EFF report is only talking about government surveillance through corporations. If you opt out of using Google (note: this isn't possible if you use the web) then it doesn't matter if governments are requesting your data from Google because Google has nothing to tell them. Solving corporate surveillance would solve all of the of government surveillance that this EFF report is concerned with. The text on the page is pretty misleading as well. It starts off ok: >We entrust our most sensitive, private, and important information to technology companies like Google, Facebook, and Verizon. Collectively, these companies are privy to the conversations, photos, social connections, and location data of almost everyone online. But then they ignore what they just said and focus only on government data requests, instead of asking the most relevant question which is what do the companies do with that data that might impact users privacy. Is the company selling a profile about me to health insurers? This page won't tell me, yet the page is giving these companies an EFF badge of approval for 'privacy'. Further on they say: >In the face of unbounded surveillance, users of technology need to know which companies are willing to take a stand for the privacy of their users. Again this is misleading. Standing up to government data requests is not the same as 'taking a stand for the privacy of their users', since the company may also be selling the information to anybody willing to pay for it. Standing up to one type of request (that has no economic benefit to the company) doesn't tell us how the companies act when it comes to protecting the data in other ways (where they have a direct economic incentive to mine the data and to sell the data). The text continues on in a similar way, constantly implying that government data requests are the only thing that could possibly violate privacy. I can only agree with the other commentators that are calling this report a corporate propaganda exercise. Some people have implied that it's just because these companies are funders of the EFF. I'm not sure it's a simple as that. The EFF has always involved some people with pretty extreme political views that are very pro-corporate. The 'Freedom' in their name has always been as much about freedom for corporations as it was about freedom for individuals. That is probably why this page acts like corporate surveillance can't exist; by definition (according to their politics) only the government can spy on you. Everything else is just 'the market'. I doubt many people reading the page will be aware of the extreme political view behind the design of this report, which is of course the sign of well executed propaganda.

magicalist 12y ago

No, they spend an enormous time commenting on actions by private companies, including corporate surveillance. Maybe you've just paid attention for the last few days? Meanwhile reliable critics of Google like Cory Doctorow have also been criticizing the ruling by the European Court of Justice, and if you read the link in that tweet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/hidden-in-plain-sight https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/hidden-in-plain-sight you'll see that the implications of that ruling actually are troubling. I think on the contrary, implying that being troubled by the ruling is equivalent to "defending Google's rights rather than defending individuals' rights" is disingenuous and intellectually lazy. You can disagree with them, but it shouldn't be hard to empathize here: imagine someone who strongly believes in an American-style right to free speech; surely it's not beyond the realm of possibility that that person can't be both a vociferous defender of individual's rights while also worried about how this ruling will itself erode those rights?

ronaldx 12y ago
If you believe that an (American style) right to free speech overrides the right to individiual privacy, you are not a privacy campaigner. If you believe that Google and Facebook deserve full marks on any measure of privacy, and that deserves to be one of your key press releases, you are not a privacy campaigner. I empathise with these attitudes amongst proponents of free speech, yes, even though I don't agree. If Cory Doctorow supports this, I disagree with him but I am not outraged. However, I don't empathise here: not at all. Here, I am outraged. EFF put 'privacy' as one of their key areas of work and they are amongst the best known privacy campaign groups. When the European principles of Data Protection are upheld correctly (which rarely happens), the EFF creates a campaign which is against that ruling and in favour of Google's right to ignore the principles. They are speaking out against a fundamental of privacy: a basic principle regarding processing personal data. IMHO that is extremely anti-privacy. Both of these points significantly harm real privacy campaigning, from a group which places itself as one of the defenders of privacy. It is wrong.

aestra 12y ago

They do comment on corporate surveillance. https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy >Your Web searches about sensitive medical information might seem a secret between you and your search engine, but companies like Google are creating a treasure trove of personal information by logging your online activities, and making it potentially available to any party wielding enough cash or a subpoena.

ronaldx 12y ago
This is exactly what I object to: they present themselves as privacy campaigners on their front pages, but when push comes to shove they roll in favour of Google and against the individual's right to privacy. This harms privacy campaigning.