Jump to content

Talk:Electronic Frontier Foundation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Biased lead-in?

The EFF is unquestionably a friend of Wikipedia's and of what we do, but the lead-in on this article is far too political. Anybody else notice that? --Rschmertz 21:10, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll try to make a minor adjustment to remedy that. --Holdek

I made a minor insertion to improve NPOV. GL12 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

EFF position on patents

EFF is an anti-Intellectual Property group, and is anti-Patent. I think the entire article should be more evenhanded, and not just have one small criticism section. Many people would be conflicted. For example, they're protecting the rights of "bloggers" to disseminate trade secrets, but they're also hurting Apple (beloved by most of the EFF anti-Microsoft zealots) in their ability to use their "surprise" marketing techniques that have been successful in the past. swirsky

Of course, it's also highly biased to label the EFF as anti-IP and anti-patent. I don't recall them ever taking positions flat out against IP and patents. Perhaps only against abuse by the owners of said things? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 23:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to say EFF is anti-IP. Rather, they're pushing for recognition of different types of IP, (beyond "All Rights Reserved",) and the preservation of historical public exemptions for IP, such as allowing use in educational settings, or for critical commentary. See any of Lessig's writings on Creative Commons for examples. Andrewcr67 22:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur, my readings from the EFF are that they take stands and edumacate the public on how IP endeavors threaten things like "fair use," and consumer rights. DRM and other IP efforts sometimes take extraordinary liberties in limiting what consumers can do with media, and the EFF takes stands on those efforts (like the Sony Free Rootkit giveaway of 2005). That doesn't make the EFF "anti-Intellectual property," IMHO. --David Spalding 04:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Apple v. Does

Editors of Electronic Frontier Foundation are invited to help expand Apple v. Does.—Christiaan 01:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Steve Jackson

Is there no detailed wikipedia article on the Steve Jackson Games legal case? This page mentions it in a bullet point, linking to Steve Jackson Games. That page mentions it, only briefly enough to say that they won. Surely there's more to write about it? Steve Jackson Games vs. U.S. Secret Service. Ojw 18:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Steve Jackson Games's website correctly states that the SJG search and seizure was not in fact part of Operation Sundevil. What has confused some folks is that the SJG search (and certain related searches) happened at about the same time as Operation Sundevil. So, unless there's any objection, I will come back in a bit and change the entry to conform to the (admittedly somewhat confusing) facts. Mike Godwin, 12 December 2005.
I'm not sure that's been clarified in the article here, though I did make the change in the Steve Jackson Games article.68.92.148.78 20:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Craig Neidorf

While I'm here, the article on Craig Neidorf (which is, yes, mostly by me) says that Bell v. Neidorf (or whatever the case was formally named) was also one of the catalyst cases in the formation of the EFF. This is based on my perhaps-a-bit-shaky interpretation of what I found on various websites about the case; is it accurate? DS 13:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It is correct that the Neidorf case was also one of the seminal cases leading to the formation of EFF. Mike Godwin 12 December 2005

EFF vs Sony

Would it be a good idea to put up an article about the EFF taking Sony to court over RootKit

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/14/sony_anticustomer_te.html http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/17/sony_rootkit_roundup.html http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/21/sony_rootkit_drm_rou.html

I havn't got the time right now but these sites have alot of information on the case which links to the original EFF site references so its a useful resource for someone else writing up this article.

Outcome of Major Litigation

The EFF itself only indexes its legal victories. In the interest of being unbiased, I think it would be worthwhile to highlight high profile victories and losses here. (Reference: [1]) Magnus

I have attempted to add fairly neutral descriptions of several famous EFF losses. Note that the EFF still lists several cases as "victories" when they were subsequently lost on appeal. I have attempted to correct that in at least 2 locations. -anonymous.

The timeline entry "August 19, 2004: defeat in MGM vs. Grokster" is misleading, since Aug 19 was the date of the Ninth Circuit win. The Supreme Court reversed in 2005. -anonymous

Note that _Register_ article being discussed severely flawed. Just for example, Eldred v. Ashcroft was not an EFF case. I don't think it meets encyclopedia standards of accuracy, so I'm removing it (not as shield from criticism, but it just doesn't seem to fit where it is) -- Seth Finkelstein 06:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

EFF Disambiguation

There is another think tank based in Washington State with the initials EFF, so I added a disambiguation page for it (it no longer redirects here automatically). If anyone knows of any other uses of the abbreviation, please add them to the disambiguation page. Also, if anyone who is more familiar with the Electronic Frontier Foundation would like to revise my description of it, please do so. Juansmith 04:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


EFF vs AT&T

An article [2] came out today regarding a brief filed by EFF against AT&T regarding AT&T redirecting internet traffic to the NSA. Should probably add once verified.

Added EFF logo CompIsMyRx 05:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Self promotion"

I just left the following on Anarchopedia's talk page about recent edits:

(I don't work for the EFF.) I'd hate for the EFF page to get to a WP:3RR violation. However, your reverts/edits[3] aren't correct. I don't care so much about the blue ribbon, however the following things are incorrect (I can source all of this):

  • EFF defends legal threats that are without base, misdirected or factually incorrect. To just say "legal threats" is not correct.
  • EFF as a 501(c)(3) can only spend 10% of its efforts on lobbying, so that's not as big of a part of what they do. Plus, you can't "lobby" a court; you can write an amicus brief.
  • EFF doesn't support all new technologies... AOL's Goodmail and DRM are examples of new technologies which EFF has lobbied against.
  • I don't know what to say about the revert of the fair use as that is a stated goal of EFF and can't be seen as "self promotion". -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I get some help here? I'd rather not push a WP:3RR violation. -- Joebeone (Talk) 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Baseless?

Re: the edit

defending the individual and new technologies from the chilling effects of baseless or misdirected legal threats

with comment "(wether they are misdirected or not depends on one's personal opinion)"

Hasn't that been misinterpreted? (i.e. it's not describing specific legal threats as misdirected, but rather saying that EFF aims to defend against legal threats that it considers to be misdirected or baseless).

As for remvoving the phrase Chilling Effects as POV, that's the name of an EFF website [4]... Ojw 12:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement here... I've tried to modify the language a bit more. I don't think this is POV. -- Joebeone (Talk) 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Maybe put {{Infobox_Organization}} or {{Infobox_NPO}}?

Steve Wozniak?

From John Gilmore's site ( www.toad.com/gnu ):

  • Things I've Started
  • The Electronic Frontier Foundation (with Mitch Kapor, John Perry Barlow, and Steve Wozniak)

I don't see Woz mentioned in the article, though. Any comments? Steiger 04:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In The Hacker Crackdown, Bruce Sterling wrote, "Kapor is a very bright man. He has a rare combination of visionary intensity with a strong practical streak. The Board of the EFF: John Barlow, Jerry Berman of the ACLU, Stewart Brand, John Gilmore, Steve Wozniak, and Esther Dyson, the doyenne of East-West computer entrepreneurism -- share his gift, his vision, and his formidable networking talents. " (Part 4) There's more about the formation of the EFF, but my eyes are tired and it's getting hard to scan the eBook version. (I know,... "Waa, waa, waa." ;) ) --David Spalding 04:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Crook

EFF is suing Michael Crook of "forsake the troops" fame. I know we went the rounds over and over again on whether he was notable or not, but can we PLEASE open a Wiki page about him NOW?

A volunteer editor is able to create a new page about him ... like maybe ... YOU? ;) Also, please sign your comments with 4our tildes. --David Spalding 23:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: Having read a few articles about Crook [5] [6], I have to question whether the 'Pedia needs a page about this goon. I don't profess to understand his motives or his actions, but they seem to be irrational and mischievious attempts to get attention and notoriety. Why encourage him? Does this reference "need" to have him listed, when the Web is already populated with news about his antics? He doesn't seem like a notable Internet personage, any more than OURFIRSTTIME.COM is a historic web site. I'm new here, so y'all feel free to educate me. ;) David Spalding 05:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I noted the following intro to a paragraph in that section:

"The EFF has been criticized by anti-spam militants for its official opposition..."

That's at best vague (what is a militant? One who doesn't like spam in their email box, one who really hates spam in their email box, or one who believes spammers should have their fingers cut off with a dull, rusted razor blade?) and at worst inflammatory. However, it is POV and should not be there, so I've removed it. JimZDP 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories vis-a-vis San Francisco

I am adding the category "Organizations in San Francisco" in connection with the SFBAProject for lack of a better category. If anyone has any ideas, by all means....

EFF and the EU

Hi there. I m a member of the germanWP and traveld here to get some further informationes to an articel. By studying the list of cases and activitys i found out that the whole european "battle against patents" is not mentioned. Okay, its probably not on the focus of a US-based organisation but by forming a coalition with some european organisationes (eg. FFII) they prevent a whole continent from softwarepatents. As you can see by this lines my english is worse so i dont append it myself but some native one should do it ;-). blessings from the germanWP. --84.155.72.122 10:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hacker crackdown

There's some good info in The Hacker Crackdown [7] which could be used in this article. --h2g2bob (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Global Network Initiative

Perhaps there should be a separate article about the Global Network Initiative. The section here could form a part of the start of it. Since lots of other groups seem to be involved, might make more sense than having it on this page (or is the EFF the primary force behind this). Main question I see is if there are enough sources to establish notability yet. Zodon (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely there should be a separate article, and I have started it at Global Network Initiative. The former redirect to the EFF article is inappropriate: the GNI is not a branch of the EFF, but rather an independent organization with many sponsors other than the EFF. Notability of the GNI is unquestionable: it is sponsored by many notable MNCs (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc.) as well as NGOs like the EFF and the HRW and universities like Berkeley and Harvard. Additionally, there are currently already 931,000 Google hits for "global network initiative". —Lowellian (reply) 07:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Surprised to see there's nothing in this article criticizing the EFF, especially after seeing debate over the article's neutrality in the Talk archives. Looked back and saw there used to be a criticisms section but it was removed because of WP:NOR. I agree with its removal, as it was poorly written and some of it was irrelevant, but I'm sure at least some of it would be acceptable if proper sources were found. Here's the section before it was removed:

Criticisms
This article is written in the style of a debate rather than an encyclopedic summary. It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and make it more accessible to a general audience. Please discuss this issue on the talk page.
The EFF has a strong base of supporters who prioritize wholesale changes to law (including legalizing potentially unauthorized trading of copyrighted files over peer-to-peer networks, implying some change of the copyright laws) over stopping abuses of the law (such as stopping abusive patents and DMCA complaints). By the same token, the EFF does not officially condone the trading of copyrighted material. Likewise the EFF has helped defend Skylink and OPG against DMCA abuse. It also began its so-called Patent Busting Project.
The EFF has been criticized by anti-spam individuals and groups for its official opposition to certain anti-spam techniques that do not deliver all wanted messages to the end-user. The EFF argues that the decision as to what is spam and what is not resides with the recipient, not intermediaries such as ISPs, and that there are efficient spam filters available to the end-user. It further argues that the problem resides in those creating spam rather than the lack of effective filters.
Prior to the EFF's defense of 2600: The Hacker Quarterly magazine in 2001, the hacker community criticized EFF as "missing in action" with regards to their legal troubles.

The part about Hacker Quarterly is interesting, but I'm not sure how easy it'd be to verify. It did remind me of a jab someone took at the EFF in Freedom Downtime. Let me see if I can find it.

Here we go: (Regarding hackers cooperating with federal searches & seizures and pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit because they don't have the resources to fight in court) "I think if people had the resources, or if there were an organization dedicated to helping people, to providing the resources,--something that's much more than just a dummy front such as the EFF--an organization that's actually truly willing to help in those matters, that we'd see a lot more progress." -Lewis DePayne, friend and co-defendant of Kevin Mitnick, Freedom Downtime (Starting around 0:50:40)

I'm not sure what the reasoning behind him saying that was, possibly because of the 2600 stuff or perhaps they sought their help in the Mitnick case. Interestingly, 2600 is the distributor for that documentary, which was filmed around the time of EFF's defense of 2600. OzW (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a couple of issues here. To start, EFF has been through major management shifts, and there have been times in the past when it was more oriented to corporate-interest lobbying. I have an old law.com article which discusses this, that the "former chair and executive director, respectively -- wanted to forge ties with the business community. Such ties "are a way to ensure funding, but they make it hard to do civil liberties work for people who the business [community] doesn't approve of," Godwin said.". Plus, in general, civil-liberties organizations have very limited resources, so have to be very strategic about what cases they accept. It's interesting history. But I think it would be extremely difficult to write it according to Wikipedia's processes. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting read. I understand EFF's need to pick and choose which battles are worth fighting with their limited resources, especially with the broad scope and rapidly changing issues in digital rights. I guess that brings up a bigger issue, that the article doesn't make any mention of the organization's focus past the early 90s. Timeline of Electronic Frontier Foundation actions is a decent outline, but this article could use a concise summary of their overall efforts past the "early cases" section. The article you linked would definitely help with the first 10 years. Though I'm not sure how to go about organizing the info. Maybe the leadership changes would be a good way to section it? Or should that be kept separate? OzW (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the natural way to organize broad shifts would be "eras" - founding, move to DC, move to SF, etc. These sometimes are connected to leadership changes, but not exclusively. For example, 9/11 had an effect by profoundly shifting the entire civil-liberties world. But I worry that Wikipedia writing constraints would frown on this as too much synthesis for an article -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Did EFF decline after 1992?

Here's a comment I read on Slashdot:

EFF sold out to corporate interests when Mitch Kapor lost interest (he was hoping for a Cabinet spot in the Clinton administration), and when Jerry Berman took over and moved them to Washington DC, where he promptly sold all their credibility for whatever money and resume fodder he could scrounge and got them to sign off on the "TeleCommunications (utter lack of ) Privacy Act". They've never completely recovered from that.

Completely unsubstantiated opinion which has no place in the article, but I thought I'd note it here just in case this opinion is actually common, in which case it might be worth investigating if people in the field concur that there was indeed a big change in EFF around 1992. Gronky (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there have been tensions between corporate interests and civil-libertarian interests over EFF's history. That's absolutely true. See, for example, this article about one shift - "The new hires and change in strategy reflect a renewed focus on taking battles to court -- a decision that came after an internal struggle over the direction of the group and the subsequent departure of its executive director and board chairwoman.". Though it's difficult to write about this well on Wikipedia, since it requires expert knowledge and much of it is documented in primary sources (i.e. people's direct accounts). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
There seem to be enough facts to add something about the change. My time's up though. Might be back next year. Thanks for the link. Gronky (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Current intro reads like an ad for EFF

The current intro[8] is a copy and paste of EFF promotion material.

It should be shorter, mention their most prominent work, who pays the piper, etc. Gronky (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted a chunk from the intro. Here's the page before my edit: [9]. It's was basically the EFF's manifesto, with a link to EFF's own website as a reference. Completely unencyclopaedic promotional material. Gronky (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In the news again

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—119.140.15.70 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and those coordinates appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, please re-post your message with a clear explanation of the problem. Deor (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

Unfortunately, this article is not neutral. It does not contain any information on notable opponents to the EFF. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific regarding what perspectives/criticisms/critics should be covered that aren't (i.e. those for which mentioning wouldn't be WP:UNDUE)? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with ViperSnake, I have nothing against EFF but is there really nothing negative about them at all??? I hear people say they don't like the EFF but why? Whatever it is, it isn't in the article, seems weird. 173.61.40.108 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have now removed the {{Too few opinions}} template that had been in place since October 2014. I don't think there is reason to keep it in the article if there are no reliable sources that would warrant it. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested article for Shari Steele

I've just listed Shari Steele at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession#Activists, if anyone fancies working on an article about her. She's clearly notable and there's plenty of good content at EFF biog, her goodbye blogpost, EFF staff's goodbye-to-her post, TOR's welcome post and Wired’s coverage of TOR's hire, but the EFF biog has been deleted from here for copyvio 3 times now (as the former CC-NC licence is not GFDL-compatible). It looks like EFF have relicensed it CC-BY (which is compatible here), but we don't want a single-source biog from an organisation that has a clear conflict of interest in any case. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

History of the organization and its advocacy efforts

If anyone has any sources which purport to document the history of the organization or tell any of its stories from start to end, then please share. I was looking for histories and found this, which has some parts of a story.

  • Lebkowsky, Jon (no date given). "TechnoPolitics". weblogsky.com. Retrieved 12 December 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to believe the article's claim that the organization was founded on a need to protect Internet civil rights -- in 1990. 97.91.254.54 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Electronic Frontier Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Shahid Buttar

KalHolmann, please discuss here before reverting again.

There's clearly enough information about Shahid Buttar in the sources I gave to warren a mention.

If you think it should be in a different section, or only some of the sources should be included, fine, but please edit, rather than revert.

Benjamin (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin please stop playing games. It's not up to me to conform your contributions to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You must do so yourself. KalHolmann (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you at least tell me which sources you deem unacceptable? Benjamin (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
How about this one?[1] Benjamin (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: I'd say throw it into his own bio page if he's notable enough to meet WP:GNG. Since this is the EFF page, keep topic specific to activism by the EFF itself. Shaded0 (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Would a list of major staff be appropriate? Benjamin (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Potentially, depends how it's written largely and if it adds value to the article. That's somewhat of a subjective scope, so go based upon consensus of the folks in the discussion. Make sure to avoid giving staff Undue weight, again also a bit subjective. But GNG and UNDUE are the two bugbears to be aware of. Shaded0 (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
No. The article already includes an External Link to EFF's Official Website, where with one additional mouse click an interested reader can find the complete list of staff—each with bio and contact info. We don't need to replicate EFF's official site here. KalHolmann (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/21/taser-wants-to-build-an-army-of-smartphone-informants/

Adding references to the section Expansion and development

I have started the process of adding references to the section Expansion and development.

As founder of Electronic Frontiers Australia I may have a conflict of interest in this article.

However COI policy does not preclude me from adding references to reliable sources, so this I will do.

The references that I have found and have started to add contain more information than is currently in the article. I will leave it to others to add this additional information.

If and when I have found references for all of the information in this section, I will post again here to ask someone else to check and remove the refimprove template.

Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I have stopped working on this. But before I do, just because I have stopped, does not mean that there are not more sources to be found. For example see: [10] and https://www.britannica.com/topic/Electronic-Frontier-Foundation for starters. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Russian cyberespionage

Should we add these from an AP News article?

"The U.S. runs multiple programs aimed at strengthening democracy and boosting pro-Western sentiment in Russia’s backyard and in parts of the world where America and Russia are vying for influence. Often they are run by contractors or nonprofit groups. By penetrating the programs, the Russians could determine who the organizations are working with and learn details about their security measures.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation often helps train at-risk civil society groups both in the U.S. and abroad. " ? Zezen (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the article? I'm uncertain of the context of the EFF in this article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
It went up on AP 11 hours ago, and a bunch of sources published it, as is usual with stuff from AP. Here is one:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mariia-butina-studied-u-s-groups-cyberdefenses-n925471
More later after I actually read it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
"After the spring semester, [Russian ASgent] Butina and three other students signed on to the work-study project, according to people familiar with the work, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.
One of the organizations that Butina contacted, the prominent digital rights organization Electronic Frontier Foundation, had frequent contact with Internews on cybersecurity issues before and had previously been a Russian target. But Butina did not mention Internews in a June 14, 2017, encrypted email reviewed by the AP.
In the email, addressed to cybersecurity director Eva Galperin, she wrote: 'My name is Maria Butina and I'm the captain of an American University student group doing research on U.S (civil society organizations) and their cyber security challenges. We have several questions about cyber security concerns facing human rights organizations and your expertise would be very beneficial,' "
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation often helps train at-risk civil society groups both in the U.S. and abroad. In recent years, it also has turned its attention to the scourge of state-sponsored malicious software, publishing reports on suspected government-backed hacking campaigns in Kazakhstan, Syria and Lebanon.
In 2015, the organization said Google had alerted it to a knockoff EFF site 'almost certainly' operated by the infamous Russian cyberespionage ring now widely known as Fancy Bear. U.S. authorities say the hackers — who rattled the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign by releasing tens of thousands of Democrats' emails — are members of Russia's military intelligence agency."
...so the Russian "Fancy Bear" hackers/Russia's military intelligence agency targeted the EFF with a fake website and an unsuccessful attempt to get a spy inside the EFF.
Might be worth adding to the article, but I would wait a couple of days and see if any more info turns up. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Simonm223 Zezen quoted two things from the AP article, implying that the EFF somehow has US Government ties, but that's not at all what the AP article says. It says that [A] The U.S. runs multiple programs aimed at strengthening democracy in Russia's backyard, and [B] The Electronic Frontier Foundation also strengthens democracy by training at-risk civil society groups. And the Russians have targeted both. The EFF has no US government ties. In fact, the EFF is a bit of a thorn in the US government's side regarding NSA spying on US citizens.
Full disclosure: I contribute to the EFF on a regular basis. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: I was replying to Zezen's comment and asked to see the article because I was skeptical of what was being presented. I did not propose any tie between the US government and the EFF. I generally support net neutrality. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize for getting the wrong person. I have stricken my comment above. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
No problem. For what it's worth, I agree with your assessment; EFF may have shared cybersecurity information with an agency that is in turn supported by the US state department, but this article presents not even the slightest hint of a suggestion that EFF is being directly supported by the US state department or is operating at its behest. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how this information is relevant at all. Butina and others targeted all sorts of entities and all sorts of people read the EFF. --Nemo 17:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"Santa Clara principles" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Santa Clara principles. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Warrant to search media inside a DVR

Is a warrant to seize the DVR enough for law enforcement to obtain the media (video) inside the DVR, or do they need another warrant to obtain the media? Warrant states DVR not video inside the DVR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajunlady123 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Typically a legal warrant, in the United States at least, which mentions an electronic device also includes the content of that device. A search warrant for a laptop would also include the contents of the laptop, for example. 172.58.43.35 (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Founders

On the right, there is an image collage of "founders Kapor, Gilmore and Barlow". In the article it says "formed in July 1990 by John Perry Barlow and Mitch Kapor" and "offers of financial support from John Gilmore and Steve Wozniak". So, shouldn't the image collage either include Wozniak or go without Gilmore? (I've barely read the article, this is just a quick comment, maybe I'm right and this comment it's useful in some way.) --82.171.13.139 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I just edited the founders in the infobox to remove Woz. Source seems to distinguish him from the others.Ponydepression (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Free speech/criticism

I think EFF's stance on hate speech needs to be mentioned, this article reads like and ad.

Sources: 1, 2 Juanuwuwu (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

EFF's stance on hate speech is, per that press release, "All fair-minded people must stand against the hateful violence and aggression that seems to be growing across our country." The proposition you seem to be objecting to is that they also said "But we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with." Without taking a position on whether or what to include in the article, I don't think this suggestion is well-formed. lethargilistic (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're insistent on a POV tag, but what are you proposing be added to the page, exactly? The sources provided don't say they support hate speech in any way and Lethargilstic's press release above quickly disabuses any notion that they do. The sources you provided do say that the EFF cautioned that this line of action described in the article that these organizations took was dangerous ground. CloudFlare, which the EFF commented on even said "We wholeheartedly agree with the concerns raised by the EFF" so even in your own sources this doesn't come across as particularly controversial, so what's the POV issue here? - Aoidh (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Abusive parents?

"and solicits a list of what it considers abusive patents" When did the EFF say that?

If no one responds in 7 days, I think it'll be best if I remove that bit.

CryingInTheShower (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Not abusive parents, but abusive patents. It's talking about patent misuse as in the intellectual property known as a patent, not a parent as in a child's parents. - Aoidh (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Haha, sorry. Sometimes I gotta be more careful.
CryingInTheShower (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_Frontier_Foundation/Archive_1&oldid=1237379868"