5 ms·

EFF Plugs the Senate's USA Freedom Act, Loses More Credibility

27 points by cinquemb 12y ago

opendais 12y ago
In case anyone was looking for the actual text of the bill: https://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/usa-freedom-act_-introduced-10-29-131 https://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/usa-freedom-act_-intro... I'd honestly say this being said so close to the election is playing politics rather than "lose credibility". Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress. The Freedom Act is likely better than whatever a Republican controlled legislative branch will pass.
- declan 12y ago
  > The Freedom Act is likely better than whatever a Republican controlled legislative branch will pass In terms of passing new legislative initiatives (modulo some appropriations stuff), the legislative branch is already effectively Republican-controlled because of the GOP House. The big Senate changes are probably Udall's departure and Feinstein and Leahy losing their committee chairs. Udall's successor is also pro-reform but without the seniority. As for Leahy, there's a reason why the Sunlight Foundation and the other groups have been critical of his bill. For background I wrote this last year: http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-senate-oversight-bill-may-handcuff-u-s-companies/ http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-senate-oversight-bill-may-handc... ...the Vermont Democrat also authored the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is now looming over Web companies, as well as the deeply unpopular Protect IP Act. Leahy had introduced significant portions of the Patriot Act under the name Enhancement of Privacy and Public Safety in Cyberspace Act (PDF) more than a year before the September 11 attacks happened...
  - opendais 12y ago
    > The big Senate changes are probably Udall's departure and Feinstein and Leahy losing their committee chairs. Which is a side effect of them losing control of the Senate and falls under "Republican control" creating the change. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/11/05/what-does-the-gop-senate-takeover-mean-for-committee-leadership/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/11/0... If you'd like, I could list out the side effects of Republican senate control such as the impact on appointments as well if you'd like? I just assumed it was common knowledge.
    - declan 12y ago
      That's why I said "new legislative initiatives" and not "appointments."
      - opendais 12y ago
        I think you completely missed the point of why I pointed out an example of another side effect. :/ I'm going to drop it.
colinbartlett 12y ago
If the EFF is not worthy of my support, then I don't know who is. I've been a donor and supporter for a while now and no other organization has aligned more with my ideals than they have. Sure, the bill they support might not be perfect but I trust the EFF to put their weight behind practical measures and laws that are at least a step in the right direction.
- declan 12y ago
  I've followed the EFF since the 1990s (and once had an @eff.org mailing address) so I may have some insight. Seth, one of their technologists who posts here, would have more: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=schoen https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=schoen The danger when dealing with advocacy organizations and DC is that they "go native." It's a variant of the principal-agent problem: advocacy groups cease to act in the best interest of their members/funders. They become enamored of their own press releases, their own ability to have a "seat at the table," or better yet to convene everyone around their table to draft a backroom deal--even if the resulting law is better than no law at all. The late Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and ALEC, talked about this a lot in the context of conservative groups and GOP politicians. Whatever you think of his politics, Weyrich's insight was correct. I wrote about this in the CISPA context in 2012 here: http://www.cnet.com/news/advocacy-group-flip-flops-twice-over-cispa-surveillance-bill/ http://www.cnet.com/news/advocacy-group-flip-flops-twice-ove... Now back to EFF: post-CALEA the group moved from its DC lobbyist row offices (which I remember fondly) to SF to avoid being part of that DC deal-cutting swamp. They intentionally haven't reopened a DC policy office--I think only David Sobel is in DC and he does FOIA not policy--though they easily could have. So I'd say your faith in EFF is well-placed. EFF is working in your interests and the interests of its other members, the snide aside in the linked article notwithstanding. Now even honorable organizations make mistakes, and I believe EFF is being too enthusiastic about a deeply flawed bill. I would side with the Sunlight Foundation and other groups opposing it. But no organization is going to agree with all of its members 100% of the time, and if you like everything else they do, there's no reason to cease your support now.
nl 12y ago
Yeah, no. Reading the Sunlight Foundation opposition to the same bill, it's clear that they see benefits in the bill, but think the problems are bigger than the benefits. The EFF goes the other way. That doesn't make them less credible, it mens their priorities are different. (And it's completely unclear what Google funding of EFF has to do with anything discussed there)
- scottjad 12y ago
  > (And it's completely unclear what Google funding of EFF has to do with anything discussed there) "grants broad immunity to corporations that are undercutting our right to privacy"
- eevilspock 12y ago
  Agreed with you up until your parenthetical, and had no choice but to downvote. :(
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tzs 12y ago
The ACLU is also supporting it.

27 points by cinquemb 12y ago

In case anyone was looking for the actual text of the bill: https://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/usa-freedom-act_-introduced-10-29-131 https://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/usa-freedom-act_-intro... I'd honestly say this being said so close to the election is playing politics rather than "lose credibility". Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress. The Freedom Act is likely better than whatever a Republican controlled legislative branch will pass.

declan 12y ago
> The Freedom Act is likely better than whatever a Republican controlled legislative branch will pass In terms of passing new legislative initiatives (modulo some appropriations stuff), the legislative branch is already effectively Republican-controlled because of the GOP House. The big Senate changes are probably Udall's departure and Feinstein and Leahy losing their committee chairs. Udall's successor is also pro-reform but without the seniority. As for Leahy, there's a reason why the Sunlight Foundation and the other groups have been critical of his bill. For background I wrote this last year: http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-senate-oversight-bill-may-handcuff-u-s-companies/ http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-senate-oversight-bill-may-handc... ...the Vermont Democrat also authored the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is now looming over Web companies, as well as the deeply unpopular Protect IP Act. Leahy had introduced significant portions of the Patriot Act under the name Enhancement of Privacy and Public Safety in Cyberspace Act (PDF) more than a year before the September 11 attacks happened...
- opendais 12y ago
  > The big Senate changes are probably Udall's departure and Feinstein and Leahy losing their committee chairs. Which is a side effect of them losing control of the Senate and falls under "Republican control" creating the change. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/11/05/what-does-the-gop-senate-takeover-mean-for-committee-leadership/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/11/0... If you'd like, I could list out the side effects of Republican senate control such as the impact on appointments as well if you'd like? I just assumed it was common knowledge.
  - declan 12y ago
    That's why I said "new legislative initiatives" and not "appointments."
    - opendais 12y ago
      I think you completely missed the point of why I pointed out an example of another side effect. :/ I'm going to drop it.

colinbartlett 12y ago

If the EFF is not worthy of my support, then I don't know who is. I've been a donor and supporter for a while now and no other organization has aligned more with my ideals than they have. Sure, the bill they support might not be perfect but I trust the EFF to put their weight behind practical measures and laws that are at least a step in the right direction.

declan 12y ago
I've followed the EFF since the 1990s (and once had an @eff.org mailing address) so I may have some insight. Seth, one of their technologists who posts here, would have more: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=schoen https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=schoen The danger when dealing with advocacy organizations and DC is that they "go native." It's a variant of the principal-agent problem: advocacy groups cease to act in the best interest of their members/funders. They become enamored of their own press releases, their own ability to have a "seat at the table," or better yet to convene everyone around their table to draft a backroom deal--even if the resulting law is better than no law at all. The late Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and ALEC, talked about this a lot in the context of conservative groups and GOP politicians. Whatever you think of his politics, Weyrich's insight was correct. I wrote about this in the CISPA context in 2012 here: http://www.cnet.com/news/advocacy-group-flip-flops-twice-over-cispa-surveillance-bill/ http://www.cnet.com/news/advocacy-group-flip-flops-twice-ove... Now back to EFF: post-CALEA the group moved from its DC lobbyist row offices (which I remember fondly) to SF to avoid being part of that DC deal-cutting swamp. They intentionally haven't reopened a DC policy office--I think only David Sobel is in DC and he does FOIA not policy--though they easily could have. So I'd say your faith in EFF is well-placed. EFF is working in your interests and the interests of its other members, the snide aside in the linked article notwithstanding. Now even honorable organizations make mistakes, and I believe EFF is being too enthusiastic about a deeply flawed bill. I would side with the Sunlight Foundation and other groups opposing it. But no organization is going to agree with all of its members 100% of the time, and if you like everything else they do, there's no reason to cease your support now.

nl 12y ago

Yeah, no. Reading the Sunlight Foundation opposition to the same bill, it's clear that they see benefits in the bill, but think the problems are bigger than the benefits. The EFF goes the other way. That doesn't make them less credible, it mens their priorities are different. (And it's completely unclear what Google funding of EFF has to do with anything discussed there)

scottjad 12y ago
> (And it's completely unclear what Google funding of EFF has to do with anything discussed there) "grants broad immunity to corporations that are undercutting our right to privacy"
eevilspock 12y ago
Agreed with you up until your parenthetical, and had no choice but to downvote. :(

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tzs 12y ago

The ACLU is also supporting it.