EFF Condemns Google For Circumventing Safari Privacy Protections
from the but,-i-thought-they-were-a-mouthpiece... dept
One of the common statements that we heard time and time again from SOPA/PIPA supporters in the last couple months was that all of the many civil liberties groups that worked against the bills were really "Google fronts." The key target in these attacks was almost always EFF -- a group which is pretty widely respected. It's also kind of strange, because looking over the EFF's most recent (public) financial statement (pdf), there isn't much evidence of Google support. Not only is corporate funding only about 15% of EFF's total budget, but Google isn't even listed as a company sponsor in the listing of companies which donated.Either way, I'm curious how those who continue to insist that EFF is a Google front have to say about EFF's extremely pointed, open letter to Google for its latest privacy failure -- circumventing Safari's privacy settings for millions of users to track web browsing habits of people who specifically opted-out of such tracking.
For what it's worth, this does appear to be a pretty big screw-up on Google's part -- and knowing how quickly some Google haters assume any privacy issue is nefarious and make a big deal of it, I fully expect that Google is going to end up having to pay big time for this mistake. It's worth noting, of course, that at least three other ad companies, including giant WPP, were spotted using the same technique to get around restrictions. But since there's been so much focus on Google and privacy, Google-haters will certainly make quite a lot of noise about this particular issue.
I also absolutely agree with the EFF's statement that Google not only needs to acknowledge that it can do a better job on privacy issues, it should, in fact, be expected to do a lot more concerning privacy issues (though I'm not convinced the "Do Not Track" is really the proper solution). Google's privacy efforts often seem to lag behind its open and consumer-first focus on other issues. I think that's unfortunate.
The EFF doesn't mince words on this:
Google, the time has finally come. You need to make a pro-privacy offering to restore your users' trust.Either way, I'm curious how those who continue to insist that EFF is merely a front group for Google respond to issues like this one -- which is probably an even more "core" issue for Google. EFF has been on the opposite side of Google on privacy issues in the past. Isn't it possible that EFF is an entirely separate organization from Google and has its own views on a variety of issues -- some of which align with Google and some of which do not? One would hope that issues like this would put to rest the silly claims that EFF's involvement in the SOPA/PIPA fights were really just about acting on behalf of Google.
Internet users worldwide have loved your products for years, and we've often praised your stance on free expression and transparency and your efforts to limit government access to users' information. But when it comes to consumer choice around privacy, your commitment to users has been weaker. That's bad for users, for the future of the Internet, and ultimately, for you. We need to create an Internet that gives users meaningful choice about sharing their personal data, and we need your help to do it.
It's time for a new chapter in Google's policy regarding privacy. It's time to commit to giving users a voice about tracking and then respecting those wishes.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cookies, do not track, privacy, safari, settings
Companies: eff, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"I welcome our Google Overlords, because if they ran the world, at least they'd do it right."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Translation: "If you're going to spy on me, you'll do it better than anyone else ever has!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google: "Spying isn't evil".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't you just have another article where you were pointing out (and putting down) that people talk of the mythical "they" without saying who "they" are. You're doing the same thing. Who are you talking about? Why not make that clear?
That said, it seems likely to me that "they" simply disagree with Google on privacy, but see eye-to-eye on copyright matters. Not sure why you think "they" have to be in cahoots with Google on all issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"They" = "those who continue to insist that EFF is merely a front group for Google."
I don't think it can be much clearer than it already is which seems to be the substance of Dementia's post. To further the definition though, I believe Mike is referring to the legion of trolls that come here and insist that the EFF is in Google's pocket and that the EFF is Google's private lobbying group. To be even more specific, daryl, bob, and "chubby" seem to stick out as frequent offenders...
My question to you is what do you mean when you say "it's possible that the EFF is with Google on the copyright issue"? Could you elaborate on "the copyright issue"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't difficult. What are their names? Who exactly are "they"?
At this point I'm sorry I asked. I forgot that simple questions are met with a host of hostility on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They'll continue to laugh all the way to the bank, because they know they've figured out the price for people accepting the kind of spying that has never been known in the existence of man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They" means you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But they're all named Anonymous Coward.
Thus, your question has no answer. At least no good ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's called "a series of tubes".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm really not getting the confusion here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That isn't difficult either.
>I forgot that simple questions are met with a host of hostility on Techdirt.
If you've been around long enough to come to that sort of conclusion you should have noticed how the usual shills insist that everything is a Google conspiracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um. How about "bob" below and the other AC who are working over time to try to prove some connection... but neither of whom can explain away the fact that if EFF was merely a front group for Google it wouldn't be attacking Google over this.
Didn't you just have another article where you were pointing out (and putting down) that people talk of the mythical "they" without saying who "they" are. You're doing the same thing. Who are you talking about? Why not make that clear?
The argument that bob and the AC and many others have made is that because EFF gets money from Google, they are a mouthpiece for Google. ie., EFF holds its position and does what it does because Google gives it money.
But if that's true, than EFF wouldn't then turn around and attack Google on privacy, would it? If Google is giving EFF money to be its mouthpiece, wouldn't it stop doing that when EFF attacks it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not really sure that there's more than a handful of IP extremists that support IP expansion laws (or even our current overarching IP laws), but the point is that Mike was referring those few who did claim that. So what's your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take Creative America. IP extremist organizations tried to start an astroturphing campaign to get people to sign a pro-SOPA petition and they had to inflate the number of signatures (even IP extremists seemed to have been fooled and not a single IP extremist on Techdirt mentioned the MPAA's later response before the MPAA did, so it was not at all obvious what the MPAA meant even to IP extremists) and many people who did sign the petition seemed to have been tricked into doing so and after later discovering the trick demanded that their signatures be removed. Creative America even got so desperate for signatures that it resorted to paying people to get signatures, $1 per signature that someone got. Yet anti SOPA petitions reached millions of signatures in very little time.
SOPA was initially negotiated in secret, with industry interests present, and was eventually released only after the documents leaked exactly because the government-industrial complex knows that people do not like these laws. Otherwise there is absolutely no good reason to negotiate this in secret and there is no good reason for the government established mainstream media to abuse its government established monopoly power to censor these topics from being communicated over broadcasting airwaves and cableco infrastructure and there is no good reason for the government-industrial complex (ie: the FCC) to prevent me from freely broadcasting this information over public airwaves as I please. That's censorship. Government established broadcasting (and cableco) monopolies that prevent me from freely broadcasting over public airwaves is a form of censorship.
and here is another more recent example
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120207/12140117689/portuguese-artists-association-stru ggles-to-get-even-100-members-list-favor-exorbitant-new-private-copying-levies.shtml
Mike was merely responding to a few Techdirt IP extremists and, given that there really aren't that many IP extremists (both in general and on Techdirt) even if it was just three that he was responding to, that's still a relatively large percentage of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What sort of connection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No Chubby. The argument is that you are full of shit. As in:
It's also kind of strange, because looking over the EFF's most recent (public) financial statement (pdf), there isn't much evidence of Google support.
You point to a single source in the midst of a mass of evidence of patronage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That source being the definitive yearly statement from the EFF which shows their total revenue and the sources of the *largest* amounts, with Google nowhere on the list.
In other words, even if EFF gets *some* revenue from Google, it's a tiny amount percentage wise. The idea that this influences their position is so insane that it shouldn't even enter the conversation unless you're a complete kook. Or, you know, paid to spout a particular opinion. As you actually are... unlike the EFF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you think the Consumers Union doesn't take money from companies?
But don't believe me Masnick, go read their 990. They get about 2 million plus per year from all grants. When Google lays down a half million for their building and pays lawyers and other staff salaries (probably another couple of hundred thousand) that's a pretty significant portion. But you're right no corrupting influence there. However, if the MPAA or RIAA donates $2500 to a candidate (among hundreds of thousands or millions raised) they're "bought" Right?
You're such a sanctimonious bag of shit Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are you taking about? Are you still referring to this.
"plus funding other positions"
Funding other positions ... which has to do with their influence on the EFF ... how exactly? What might be more relevant is how much they are funding the EFF, not how much they are funding other positions or organizations, especially if those other positions are positions other than ones the EFF would tend to support.
"plus funding staff attorneys"
Yes, Google hires attorneys to defend itself from lawsuits. Who are they supposed to hire, plumbers?
"plus sponsoring events"
Sure, they sponsor various events. So does just about every corporation. Again, what does that have to do with their influence on the EFF?
"plus widespread employee support"
Organizations are composed of various employees that support different charitable and other organizations. Sure, some Google employees might support the EFF, some Wal-Mart Employees might support the ACLU and others the EFF, etc... which says very little about Google's or Wal-Mart's influence on either organization or any other organization for that matter.
You act like Google is a monolithic entity, some employees may disagree with some things Google does and agree with others, very few people agree with absolutely everything their corporation does. Two people can hardly agree on anything.
"which obviously is a joke in terms of disclosure"
Yes, because people are automatically guilty until proven innocent. Just like you are guilty of bribing politicians.
"if the MPAA or RIAA donates $2500 to a candidate"
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, it must be that Hollywood accounting again, but the RIAA/MPAA donate considerably more money in campaign contributions to politicians than does Google. and there is a difference between donating money to the EFF and donating it to a candidate.
But lets not forget about all the money Disney and other MPAA members donate to the RIAA/MPAA, which are organizations that (at least almost) never criticize their corporate constituents. The EFF has no problems criticizing Google because the EFF doesn't unconditionally defend Google. Sure, the EFF and Google may agree on some positions, but that's different than saying that the EFF unconditionally defends Google, unlike the apparent relationship between the MPAA/RIAA and its members, or that the EFF's position is substantially affected by Google's influence. You have provided little evidence to support your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google pours hundreds of thousands into EFF through funding policy and legal fellowships at EFF; directing settlements (recently $1 million, see The Register article "Licking The Hand That Feeds It"); a half-million dollar matching grant, etc. The seven studios can give a grand total of $17,500 jointly to a single candidate. That's probably less than Google drops sponsoring a single EFF event. But in the bizarro world of Mike Masnick, millions of dollars of payments by Google to a so-called public interest watchdog is not corrupting- but $2500 to a politician and you own him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Of the $48.7 million in total campaign contributions given by this industry during the 2008 election cycle ..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2012&type=I&cid=N00001811 &newMem=N&recs=20
"Representative Lamar Smith 2011 - 2012"
Who donated the most to his campaign? The entertainment industry (TV/Movies/Music), donating $61,800 just to his 2011 - 2012 campaign.
The entertainment industry donates a lot more than tech to various candidates.
The fact that the most you can resort to is a made up number of dollars that Google allegedly spends on various events (not campaign contributions) that some members of the EFF (along with other organizations and individuals) may have attended along with a court ordered settlement just shows how desperate you are to make a non-existing point.
I'm not sure what the matching grant issue you are referring to is in reference to, do you have a citation?
"The seven studios can give a grand total of $17,500 jointly to a single candidate."
You really do lack reading comprehension skills. Read your link again.
and, organizations can now spend as much as they want on political ads due to a supreme court ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2012&type=I&cid=N0000 9918&newMem=N&recs=20
the only industry donating more to Patrick Leahy than the entertainment industry are Lawyers/Law Firms (which likely includes IP trolls, like intellectual ventures, including copy protection trolls). No wonder our laws are so messed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which was part of a legal settlement punishing Google and not a voluntary payment -- which, uh, kinda shoots a big fucking hole in your idiotic conspiracy theory, doesn't it?
plus funding staff attorneys
Citation please?
plus funding other positions
Citation please?
plus sponsoring events
I recognize that you're from DC and not Silicon Valley so perhaps you're too ignorant to know this, but this is what Silicon Valley does: pretty much every tech company "sponsors" events of various groups. It's meaningless in the long run. There's rarely any money involved. Sponsorship means "letting you use our space." And every company does it. If it wasn't Google, it would have been Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, CNET or someone else. All of those companies regularly let various groups use their space in exchange for putting a "sponsor" logo on the announcement. Reading corruption into that is just stupid.
plus whatever else doesn't appear in the "definitive yearly statement" (which obviously is a joke in terms of disclosure)
You think that a 501(c)3 would flat out lie on its annual statement? Not only that but a 501(c)3 made up almost entirely of lawyers? You're out of your mind.
But don't believe me Masnick, go read their 990.
Hahah. Their 990 matches their yearly report published on the site, which confirms that it's likely accurate -- contrary to your claim.
They get about 2 million plus per year from all grants. When Google lays down a half million for their building and pays lawyers and other staff salaries (probably another couple of hundred thousand) that's a pretty significant portion.
Again, the half mill was a one-time legal settlement (which similarly had Google give a bunch of money to EPIC -- a known Google antagonist), not a grant. And where is the evidence of this "staff salaries"? And, you're wrong. You ignore the fact that individual membership are the bulk of their revenue -- and not corporate grants. So, you're basically full of it.
But you're right no corrupting influence there. However, if the MPAA or RIAA donates $2500 to a candidate (among hundreds of thousands or millions raised) they're "bought" Right?
The MPAA and RIAA's sole purpose is to influence Congress as a lobbying organization. The EFF is a litigation shop, not a lobbying shop. Furthermore, the RIAA and MPAA solely represent the very few corporate sponsors they have and only support their interests. EFF's charter is to support the public interest.
If you can't tell the difference, well...
And, since you're suddenly all about full disclosure, who pays your bills?
I bet you won't say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...but i find it EXTREMELY illuminating that when techdirt's resident MAFIAA goon gets cornered, one of two things happen:
1. a short personal smear is the 'response',
or,
2. no response at all is forthcoming...
that happens nearly EVERY TIME that slimy, worm-tongued POS gets confronted with actual factuals, rational thinking, or basically *anything* which traduces the IP maximalist's playbook...
happens over and over and over...
fucker gets in his nastygrams, but then when he (presumably a male of the species) gets called out on lies and bullshit, he disappears quicker than a viable competitor to legacy media extortion rackets...
...but *that's* an honest broker ! ? ! ? ! ?
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I'm sure half a million dollars,"
Which was part of a legal settlement punishing Google and not a voluntary payment -- which, uh, kinda shoots a big fucking hole in your idiotic conspiracy theory, doesn't it?
Here's how The Register views it, accurately characterizing it as : "Google offered $8.5m to settle several class action suits last September. The Court made a preliminary settlement late last year and decided on the dispersal of money in February. The lawyers took a cut of just over $2m, leaving $6m to be spread around some 77 organisations. Only 12 made the cut.
Amongst the groups that failed to squeeze its snouts into the trough was EPIC, which complained that the selection process favored “organizations that are currently paid by [Defendant] to lobby for or to consult for the company”.
"To say the least, that's an interesting description of the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which both hit the jackpot, receiving $1m each."
"And $1m is not a trivial amount to the EFF: in 2008/09 the organisation saw gross income of $3.42m, and was left with a shortfall of over $400,000. Google's cash from this one settlement alone exceeds both individual membership fees, and individual contributions - both under $1m. You could almost describe relying on Google is a kind of business model."
Here's the link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/03/google_settlement_rewards_privacy_groups_wtf/
That was a million, not a half million. The half million I was talking about was from the Wojcicki Brin Foundation, which I guess you'll argue doesn't count because technically it's not Google, but anyone with half a brain knows really is.
https://www.eff.org/pages/eff-mission
The OTHER half million that EFF got from Google was part of a negotiated settlement. Google had a say in where some of the money was directed. So they directed it to their lapdog. Dope.
"plus funding staff attorneys"
Citation please?
Still looking for that for you. In the meantime enjoy the citation for Google Legal Fellowships:
The Google Policy Fellowship program offers law students interested in Internet and technology policy the opportunity to spend the summer contributing to the public dialogue on these issues, and exploring future academic and professional interests. Fellows will have the opportunity to work at public interest organizations at the forefront of debates on broadband and access policy, content regulation, copyright and trademark reform, consumer privacy, open government, and more. Participating organizations are based in either Washington, DC or San Francisco, CA, and include: American Library Association, Cato Institute, Center for Democracy and Technology, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Internet Education Foundation, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and Public Knowledge. Fellows will be assigned a lead mentor at their host organizations, but will have the opportunity to work with several senior staff members over the course of the summer. Fellows will be expected to make substantive contributions to the work of their organization, including conducting policy research and analysis; drafting reports and analyses; attending government and industry meetings and conferences; and participating in other advocacy activities.
"plus funding other positions"
Citation please?
Policy fellowships: http://www.google.com/policyfellowship/hosts.html#eff
Here. Eat this too: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/03/eff-seeks-students-to-code-for-liberty.ars
"plus sponsoring events"
I recognize that you're from DC and not Silicon Valley so perhaps you're too ignorant to know this, but this is what Silicon Valley does: pretty much every tech company "sponsors" events of various groups. It's meaningless in the long run. There's rarely any money involved. Sponsorship means "letting you use our space." And every company does it. If it wasn't Google, it would have been Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, CNET or someone else. All of those companies regularly let various groups use their space in exchange for putting a "sponsor" logo on the announcement. Reading corruption into that is just stupid.
And typically the pick up the tab for refreshments, entertainment and associated costs. Right? Which is money the organization would otherwise have to spend, right?
"plus whatever else doesn't appear in the "definitive yearly statement" (which obviously is a joke in terms of disclosure)"
You think that a 501(c)3 would flat out lie on its annual statement? Not only that but a 501(c)3 made up almost entirely of lawyers? You're out of your mind.
Read what I wrote Chubby. I didn't say it was a lie, those are your words. I said it was a joke in terms of full disclosure. Which it is.
"But don't believe me Masnick, go read their 990."
Hahah. Their 990 matches their yearly report published on the site, which confirms that it's likely accurate -- contrary to your claim.
See above.
"They get about 2 million plus per year from all grants. When Google lays down a half million for their building and pays lawyers and other staff salaries (probably another couple of hundred thousand) that's a pretty significant portion."
Again, the half mill was a one-time legal settlement (which similarly had Google give a bunch of money to EPIC -- a known Google antagonist), not a grant. And where is the evidence of this "staff salaries"? And, you're wrong. You ignore the fact that individual membership are the bulk of their revenue -- and not corporate grants. So, you're basically full of it.
It was a million, not a half-million. The half-million was from the Brin Foundation.
"But you're right no corrupting influence there. However, if the MPAA or RIAA donates $2500 to a candidate (among hundreds of thousands or millions raised) they're "bought" Right?"
The MPAA and RIAA's sole purpose is to influence Congress as a lobbying organization. The EFF is a litigation shop, not a lobbying shop. Furthermore, the RIAA and MPAA solely represent the very few corporate sponsors they have and only support their interests. EFF's charter is to support the public interest.
Curious. Here's a link to EFF's site where they characterize their lobbying efforts on Net Neutrality: https://www.eff.org/foia/net-neutrality-lobbying. And here's another to the Livingston Group, the lobbyists they hired: http://www.livingstongroupdc.com/science_tech_tele.php
If you can't tell the difference, well...
Sorry, what difference?
And, since you're suddenly all about full disclosure, who pays your bills?
I bet you won't say.
I can say it's none of your fucking business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
After all, despite the repeated evidence of criticism from the EFF on various actions by Google, the EFF are solely mouthpieces for Google. All that money and Google still can't get EFF to stop criticising them - sounds like a pretty shitty deal to me, but what would I know, I don't have people paying me to spread FUD about groups my employers don't like on forums, right?
I also guess that means every Google SoC participant - a programme used by many, many projects for many different things - are also now mouthpieces for Google. It's not like the SoC project you're referring to is 7 years old right? It's not like it only amounted to $5,000, I mean who would become Google's mouthpiece for as low a price as that?
Oh wait, that's all it was? $5,000 for development of a few projects 7 years ago, in which Google also gives to many other projects every year? Evil Google giving money freely to projects they won't directly benefit from. Evil EFF making use of it as many others have to help develop software. My world view is shaken to its very core.
You do realise the difference between demanding information on companies performing private lobbying to the FCC and the EFF characterising itself as being in the process of lobbying don't you? 'Cos if you didn't, that'd make you look stupid. Like you couldn't understand when someone is talking about lobbying, not characterising their own actions as lobbying. Evil EFF confusing silly AC's! What will they do next, criticise Google after being given $5,000 for 4 software projects 7 years ago?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/EFF-Lets-the-Sun-Shine-In
Christ, you really are stretching aren't you? Have you been able to find any real dirt, or just more stuff you're gonna try and spin as dirt that makes no sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I really shouldn't be surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That just is no longer true. EFF's push for expanded fair use isn't as a result of any direct legal challenge, rather it is a change in the law that they are lobbying for.
Quite simply, they have changed their tune, changed their attitude, and now speak preemptively about subjects and push for changes to the law, rather than just dealing with the back side in court.
"And, since you're suddenly all about full disclosure, who pays your bills?"
I love lines like this. What happens if the person isn't getting paid to lobby, to post, or to complain professionally? Is there any reason they should disclose their personal information, just because they express an opinion here?
Seems like you are using a double standard again to try to cow someone into not answering.
How about you? Would you care to declare all of your income, and all of the causes you have donated money to this year? Can you explain how you are going to express the lobbying expenses you incurring in 2011 against SOPA, including the value of all of the posts here? How do you handle that stuff?
To quote you, "I bet you won't say."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is a very simple minded view of the universe. I don't EFF is willing to be seen as anyone's lapdog, and as a result, when a company like Google goes fairly far over the line, they react.
A failure to react or say something would be pretty telling about EFF's true standing.
EFF is attacking Google in an area where Google can "take it". It does make it all look good, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can you provide me with an example of an area where Google can't "take it" and why, along with substantiation/citations to any of your anonymous claims against Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A failure to react or say something would be pretty telling about EFF's true standing.
EFF is attacking Google in an area where Google can "take it". It does make it all look good, doesn't it?
Confirmation bias much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let me make sure I've got this straight:
If EFF does nothing, that proves they are Google's lapdogs. If EFF does react, that proves they are trying to hide the fact they are Google's lapdogs.
And you expect us to take you seriously? This is not rational discussion, this is you being so thoroughly convinced you're right that literally nothing will persuade you otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No one ever accused Google of being stupid; they're actually very cunning. And this is a prime example.
This attempted fake notion being thrown around today that the EFF is actually angry at Google is hilarious.
The EFF is a joke and this little bit of theater is a bad example of acting.
The fact they ignore how Google generally operates is blatant to everyone but the deaf and blind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
'Cause I swear I just had a deja vu moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hello to ugly reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
hmmmmmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, at least your tin foil hat is working correctly, so far ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But still, from a company whose slogan is Do No Evil there's something seriously wrong here when an ad on a site bypasses a browser's privacy settings. So now there's one more things to guard against.
For the post's other point that the EFF and Google are and always have been joined at the hip, according to certain people, I'm sure the same people who make that argument will find ways to spin it so that the EFF and Google are still joined at the hip no matter what this open letter shows.
While the two are allies in a number of things that doesn't now and never has meant that they have never been on the opposite side of serious issues. Most often privacy in how the ad cookies get set and why and how. The EFF has taken a round or two out of facebook too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Where are your diatribes against Google then??? The most invasive corporation in the history of the world???
Where are your diatribes against the tool that runs this blog, Masnick? A douchebag that will violate anonymity whenever it suits his purposes- looking at IP addys of supposedly "anonymous" posters?
You people will never have the high ground, ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, we just all magically learned your name!
>You people will never have the high ground, ever.
Why the high ground would give you an advantage, I have no idea. It certainly hasn't stopped the RIAA/MPAA from suing kids, grandmothers, homeless people, dead people and printers. If anything, being morally responsible effectively means agreeing with the RIAA/MPAA that you are a filthy criminal, regardless of what media you do or don't consume.
What kind of lunatic wants to walk through life with that sort of mindset?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The thing (well, one of the things) I never understood about those people is how they ever expect to defeat Google after acknowledging that they have a time machine. I mean how else could Google have gone back in time to create the EFF eight years before Google even existed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
None of these organizations are fixed in stone. If the donations to the EFF dry up from Big Search, they'll find new funding from someone else. And the EFF will hang out with them and start to see how they can help. It's not all bad.
The important thing is to realize it's going on and that the EFF and these other organizations are not neutral public service organizations. They tend to bark if someone threatens their food supply. They're like everyone else.
This is not a battle between good and evil-- the way the anti-SOPA folks contend-- it's between big sumo wrestlers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/what-actually-changed-google%27s-privacy-policy
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/02/google-gets-healthy
Or this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8200624.stm
Evil, evil EFF standing up for privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they really cared about privacy, they wouldn't be applauding disclosure, they would be arguing that it should be changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can certainly make the argument that when you have a billion dollar industry on one side and individual members of the public on the other, there may not be anyone to stop the industry from crushing the public under their jackboots, whereas the public has a better chance when you have two titans in battle and the opportunity is created for public sentiment to be able to turn the tide. But the public interest does not cease to be the public interest just because it coincides with the interests of a major industry. It is not the case that the ACLU is in the pocket of News Corp. when they argue for press freedom, and so it is with the EFF and Google.
SOPA is objectively bad legislation for the numerous reasons that have been repeatedly articulated in the recent past. It is not a matter of Hollywood vs. Google. It is a matter of Hollywood vs. Us, where Us is a very large group that so happens to include Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's because the money comes from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/join-now-and-eff-gets-4x-power
Get a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's because the money comes from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation
Could you try actually responding to the point? Or is that too hard?
If EFF was simply a mouthpiece of Google, why is it attacking Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's because the money comes from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation
But if you want me to address your other point, I can only say that it's common for astroturfing groups to disagree on minor points just to preserve some illusion of distance. I'm sure the RIAA and the MPAA have some petty disagreement with some of the big content companies too.
It's about time the EFF started calling Google on the massive surveillance going on at Google. After all of these years of being willfully silent, it has gotten plain embarrassing to watch them scold the NSA and everyone else while ignoring their benefactor. But that's how business is done.
The real difference is between talk and action. It took someone 10 minutes to type up that press release. If they start blacking out their site to protest Google's surveillance, if they start writing Congress, if they start holding fund raisers to lobby against Google, then you'll start to have a point. Right now it's just cosmetics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That's because the money comes from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation
You mean like when they criticised Eric Schmidts statements?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy
An d his statements about how much information Google wants?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/05/google-ceo-we-want-all-your-personal-information
What about the criticism of the Google reader agreement, that included criticism of Google wanting to track reading?
https://www.eff.org/cases/authors-guild-v-google
Are you really going to keep claiming the EFF is in Googles pcokets? Because your claims are wearing even thinnger than they were before bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That's because the money comes from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation
This one about Schmidt praises Google for deleting some moldy log files and calls it a "first step in the right direction."
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy
The one about the new Google policy is laughable. Google is "applauded". Then the EFF explains that it's all okay because you can set up multiple accounts. Apparently disclosure is all it takes to make the EFF happy.
The one about the book settlement is a bit harsher but it only addresses a very narrow part of the debate. It complete ly ignores copyright.
BFD. Given how the EFF attacks other groups about privacy, these are like lashings with a wet noodle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's because the money comes from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation
It helps your cases if you can read, Nowhere in that link is this stated. I shouldn't be surprised that in the face of evidence, you outright lie about something that is actually linked.
And yet again, bob can't understand the difference between calling transparency a positive step to actively endorsing Googles policy.
And now this is where you really stretch things, primarily by changing the topic from privacy to copyright, making no sense in the process.
Oh yeah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's because the money comes from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2396625,00.asp
Yet I'm sure somewhere deep in the Wikipedia is a page saying something not-so-nice about Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's because the money comes from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um. So they had an event at Google. Not quite sure what you think that proves. And, again, this all seems to argue against what you're claiming. If EFF is nothing but a mouthpiece, why did EFF attack Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/0327579886.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
EFF attacked Google in an area that Google can easily extract itself from, can easily "make it better" by making a small modification, and then can get praised for being "responsive".
Meanwhile, it helps to create more distance between EFF and Google, so it is less likely that Brin's "charitable" donations won't show up on the radar.
It's a nice way of doing things. You really do need to learn more about politics and lobbying, you seem lost. That's a bad thing for an undeclared lobbyist like yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google by themselves pretty much always look like greedy guys now, trying to push, push, push. Money donated to EFF through foundations and other third party methods helps to finance a group to stand in front and take the heat.
This example is just EFF giving Google a little heat in an area they can easily handle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't forget that facebook does the same thing and even had a link on their now-deleted best practices page about how to do it!
For those curious about what it had here is the google cache(search for safari): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kpIZ0J5ubvkJ:developers.facebook.com/docs/best- practices/+facebook+safari+cookies&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.eff.org/pages/eff-mission
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obligatory XKCD: Conspiracy Theories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obligatory XKCD: Conspiracy Theories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminds me of Scientology tactics: dig up ANYTHING you can from your opponent, and then hype it up as much as you can.
Kinda sad really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's also kind of strange, because looking over the EFF's most recent (public) financial statement (pdf), there isn't much evidence of Google support. Not only is corporate funding only about 15% of EFF's total budget, but Google isn't even listed as a company sponsor in the listing of companies which donated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except...
Now... What policy should a software system use when a user chooses two opposing choices... Can't blame Google entirely for this. Safari's settings were precisely chosen to try and block Google (and other ad networks) from being able to what Google users want.
If I used Safari ever (which I don't) then Google's behavior is what I would have wanted.
but... lets all bash Google, and not realize that they only did this because the browser wasn't working the way Google users would expect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or is this a case of "stuff they like, stuff they don't"? Seems they are being fussy about how much freedom there is out there. If the browser can do it, then Google should be free to do it, plain and simple. That would match up with EFF's stated desire to get rid of anti-circumvention deals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess you got your answer. The trolls are very, very hungry ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I seriously doubt anyone actually though this Safari behavior was a feature not a bug. If you develop for the web, a ridiculous amount of time is spent working around individual browser quirks. You rarely actually sit down and think: "Well maybe it's a feature that our application won't work in a major but quirky web browser out of the box."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]