SO disappointed in EFF

[hidden]

et. al.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...book-millions/

"The EFF, known for its online freedom initiatives including ongoing litigation accusing the National Security Agency of vacuuming all of Americans’ electronic communications without warrants, stands to reap $1 million from the deal. That amounts to almost one-fourth of its $4.3 million annual budget last year. The group’s executive director, Shari Steele, told the federal judge presiding over the matter that the group backed the settlement. (.pdf)
"The group’s legal director, Cindy Cohn, explained in a telephone interview that the San Francisco-based group supported the plan for budgetary reasons.
“We haven’t taken a position on this settlement, whether it’s a good idea or not,” Cohn said. “In general, EFF is happy to receive cy pres money."

"In “Sponsored Stories,” if a Facebook user clicks the “like” button for a product or service with a Facebook page, that user’s profile picture and name may be automatically used in advertisements for that product or service that appear in the their friends’ Facebook pages. Facebook also reserves the right to show such ads on sites other than Facebook."

“This is an improvement over existing policy, and is better than anything else that we are going to get. You sign away your rights to your face when you sign up for Facebook.”

[LockBox]

Oh, Hidden. You have no idea how much I agree with you. The whole thing has broken my heart. I know several working at EFF who aren't happy with this. Money not only 'talks' it 'rules'...

I've been closer, over the years, to EPIC. They opposed this thing without reservation. I've always felt a more sincere and passionate feeling towards these issues from EPIC than from EFF. Though, EFF has done some wonderful work. And, like you, I'm heart sick.

Come support us at EPIC and check out the board of directors. Looking at the board, you shouldn't be surprised by the strong opposition to the FB settlement.

[Hungry Man]

Uh, they say

1) they haven't taken a stance

2) they insult facebook and say you sign away your rights when you sgn up for them

where's the disappointment?

[LockBox]

Hungry Man,

This was seen as somewhat of a precedent-setting agreement when it comes to the opt-in/opt-out debate.

They haven't taken a stance? When you allow this weak, weak settlement to continue without raising a voice against it - it's a stance. A classic "watch what we say - not what we do" situation. If they weren't going to be the beneficiaries of millions on this settlement, there's no doubt in my mind that EFF and a few others would have continued to fight for a stronger agreement.

Facebook bought a weak agreement. Is there really any question?

[Pinga]

Originally Posted by Hungry Man

where's the disappointment?

They're not doing their job!

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION - MISSION STATEMENT
July 10, 1990

(...)

Raise public awareness about civil liberties issues arising from the rapid advancement in the area of new computer-based communications media. Support litigation in the public interest to preserve, protect, and extend First Amendment rights within the realm of computing and telecommunications technology.

(...)

https://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/SJG/?f=eff_creation.html

[PaulyDefran]

I know nothing about their finances, but if on the scale of "horribleness", this FB thing is a "2", but gets them money to go after a whole lot of "9"s....I don't know. Going broke for principle helps no one in the future. I didn't really follow that FB thing, so maybe it's also a "9"...if so, bummer.

PD

[hidden]

THIS is what EFF told the court:

'"The group’s executive director, Shari Steele, told the federal judge presiding over the matter that the group backed the settlement. (.pdf)"

THIS is what they told you:

"We haven’t taken a position on this settlement, whether it’s a good idea or not,”

Which one counts?

How can I trust any future pronouncements?

"I only took money for sex just those few times you found out about, dear."

[hidden]

I've been an enthusiastic believer in EFF since I heard that Mitch Kapor and John Perry Barlow were protecting the future of the web with this new organization. Wow! The perfect partnership of digital business capitalism and Deadish free-form libertarianism. What can go wrong?

By chance, I wore my EFF cap to the neighborhood cook-out a few weeks ago, provoking a few "What's that?" questions so I could praise their work, and rant a little about the strangulation of freedom on line (to the slow of foot.)

Next time the cap gets sauced and grilled.

[noone_particular]

I haven't read thru all the brain numbing legal noise on this issue. This is Facebook we're talking about. Anyone who cares at all about their privacy and personal info shouldn't be there to begin with.
Regarding EPIC as compared to the EFF, I couldn't help but notice this:

But he also petitioned the court to include his group among those awarded parts of the purse.

People seem to expect perfection from these groups. Sadly, they also have to survive in the real world. No matter how much you dislike the idea, money is the only language that's really heard. No matter how distasteful it may be, you almost have to play their game to survive. The bigger you get and the more your costs go up, the worse it gets. Trying to be completely upright and honest only gets you screwed.

[hidden]

"In violation of Facebook's requirement that members be at least 13 years old to open an account, about 7.5 million users in the U.S. are under the age of 13, and about 5 million are under the age of 10, Consumer Reports said in a report released today. That's out of 20 million U.S. minors in total who actively used Facebook last year, Consumer Reports said."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/und...ry?id=13565619

"In “Sponsored Stories,” if a Facebook user clicks the “like” button for a product or service with a Facebook page, that user’s profile picture and name may be automatically used in advertisements for that product or service that appear in the their friends’ Facebook pages. Facebook also reserves the right to show such ads on sites other than Facebook."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...-millions/all/

I'm sure all those ten-year-olds are studying the privacy docs carefully and taking the many right steps to protect their privacy. Well anyway, their parents will help. When asked. ......... Asked? ............ Get serious!

The insidious thing, to me, is the extermination of the whole concept of the right to privacy, starting from childhood. Remember, no expectation, no Right.

[chronomatic]

I don't see this as a big deal. EFF has to pay its bills somehow.

[mirimir]

If Facebook were a government entity, I'd agree that EFF had sold out. If joining Facebook were a requirement for Internet access, imposed by ISPs, I'd agree that EFF had sold out. But joining Facebook is entirely voluntary. It was designed for Harvard brats to share drunken antics, and to mock each other, and it has remained remarkably true to that vision. It would have been misguided and wasteful for EFF to reject the settlement, in some vain attempt to force Facebook to meet its standards.

[Pinga]

Originally Posted by mirimir

But joining Facebook is entirely voluntary.

A lot has been written on privatisation of public space lately. Large parts of cities like London that used to be public are now in private hands. This goes hand in hand with increased surveillance and limitation of basic rights. A similar thing is happening on the internet; discourse is increasingly taking place in places that appear public, but are in fact privately owned. So firstly, I would like to argue that the political economy of Facebook is an important and highly relevant issue, and secondly that given the prominence of Facebook in the public sphere, joining it can no longer be considered 'voluntary' in many cases.

[LockBox]

Originally Posted by Pinga

A lot has been written on privatisation of public space lately. Large parts of cities like London that used to be public are now in private hands. This goes hand in hand with increased surveillance and limitation of basic rights. A similar thing is happening on the internet; discourse is increasingly taking place in places that appear public, but are in fact privately owned. So firstly, I would like to argue that the political economy of Facebook is an important and highly relevant issue, and secondly that given the prominence of Facebook in the public sphere, joining it can no longer be considered 'voluntary' in many cases.

Pinga's right. This is so true and very sad. There are even employers now who expect you to have a Facebook for them to browse around (the public parts of course).

I don't have a Facebook account and never will, but it's quickly becoming, especially for those under 30 - a 'social' requirement.

Sickening, but true. Privatization of public space. Perfect example.

[hidden]

"Some of the stiffest objections to the Fraley suit come from lawyers in Illinois who have a rival lawsuit over “Sponsored Stories” that they say would be squelched by the Fraley settlement. They say the Fraley lawyers, who include wrongful –death suits and traffic accidents in their practice, have neglected to seek the statutory damages available for violations of consumer-protection laws in California and many other states.

"The Fraley settlement would extinguish all claims arising from any facts associated with the underlying lawsuit, a boon to Facebook given the penalties of several hundred dollars to thousands of dollars per user it theoretically could face."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfi...ay-are-allies/

***********************************

And this strange:

From Forbes:
"The judge hearing this case is Lucy Koh, who has been critical of such settlements in the past."

From Law.com:
"Before the terms were made public, Koh made it clear to both plaintiff and defense attorneys at a May 21 hearing that she would not rubber-stamp any settlement they proposed."

And then!
"One day before a scheduled hearing on Facebook Inc.'s settlement agreement over its "Sponsored Stories" feature, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh recused herself."
(KInda last minute, doncha think?)

Could someface have suddenly noticed this?:

From Law.com:
"Koh is connected to several organizations that are set to receive money as part of the settlement agreement, which could have prompted her recusal."

**************************************

More disgusto tomorrow.

[Pinga]

Keep up the good work!

With pictures:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...-millions/all/

[vasa1]

Originally Posted by hidden

...
From Forbes:
"The judge hearing this case is Lucy Koh ...

Same one in the Apple v/s Samsung litigation.

[hidden]

Definitely the judge for complex technical cases:

"In her 65-page ruling denying Apple's request for a preliminary injunction against Samsung, Koh attempted to redact nearly two dozen sentences or short fragments. But because of a formatting characteristic in the prior electronic version, the redacted material can be viewed by copying text from the PDF and pasting it into another document."

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters...ecret_details/

******
Defender of the public's right to know:

"Koh and U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal, who oversees certain procedural motions in the case, are newcomers to the federal bench and were both previously intellectual property lawyers representing companies at large law firms.

"During an October hearing on the proposed injunction, Koh, unprompted, asked Apple and Samsung if they wanted to seal the courtroom. When the lawyers said such a step wouldn't be necessary and that they would not mention confidential material during the hearing, Koh commented, "I guess if you all can be careful not to disclose anything that requires sealing, then we can still have that with the open public."

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/1...7B00QR20111202

********

Well, at least she's protecting America (and they love her for it):

"Most recently we were appalled to see her go from a stance of not enough evidence of irreparable harm to a full preliminary ban on sales of the Galaxy Tab. "

http://www.decryptedtech.com/news/pe...p-at-changeorg

**********

More to come.

[vasa1]

Another one to watch is Motz.

[Pinga]

The State of Washington says that early next week it will become the first state in the nation to offer voter registration via Facebook.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2012...-via-facebook/

[noone_particular]

The states or the nation as a whole have no business tying voting, voter registration, etc to Facebook. This needs to be opposed loudly before they start having people vote via Facebook (with the results being sold or made available to govt, employers, etc). We already allowed the voting process (now Diebold's "intellectual property") itself to get sold down the river with the voting machines. We can't afford more failures like that.

[LockBox]

Originally Posted by Pinga

http://arstechnica.com/business/2012...-via-facebook/

Absurd! What's next? Drive-thru registration at McDonald's?