Specifically, the EFF frequently champions the document Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace, written by one of its founders, John Perry Barlow. This document says:
"Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather."Specifically, Barlow is talking about a then recent act of Congress:
In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.That 1996 Act adds sections to the telcom laws, such as this portion:
Title II is amended by inserting after section 221 (47 U.S.C. 221) the following new section:Today, though, the EFF cites this section as to why the FCC should regulation Internet privacy:
`SEC. 222. PRIVACY OF CUSTOMER INFORMATION.
The Commission has the Statutory Authority Under Both Section 222 and Section 705 to Protect Consumer Privacy.So which is it? Does the EFF repudiate the law, and want government to avoid regulating cyberspace? Or does the EFF use that law to encourage government to regulate cyberspace? Both have their pros and cons, but you really can have only one.
Of course, EFF supporters claim both. It's fascinating watching their doublethink follow the precise lines described by Orwell. They have no problems believing both ideas simultaneously. This shows that the real danger of totalitarianism isn't the evil dictators who impose it from above, but the willing populace (like EFF supporters) who champion it from below.
In any case, it's JPBarlow's document that was correct. The world is rapidly moving to SSL by default, defeating broadband provider's ability to invade their customer's privacy. That broadband providers are invading customer privacy is mostly just a strawman argument by the EFF, fearmongering in an attempt to pass unneeded regulation.
6 comments:
I would venture to say that your thesis could be generalized to be 'The non-profit political organisations of the anglosphere are Orwellian as fuck'.
'Orwellian as fuck' could be generalized to 'Accepting all that implies their narrative as truth, in defiance of reality'. I use the word narrative to describe their convenient illusion that they believe to be reality.
One of the ways to highlight that a law is stupid or unjust is to enforce it, oruse or use it in ways not envisioned buy creators, against them. The GPL uses copyright law to help subvert copyright law.
One of the ways to highlight that a law is stupid or unjust is to enforce it, oruse or use it in ways not envisioned buy creators, against them. The GPL uses copyright law to help subvert copyright law.
Here is how I think about it. There are two camps: the do-gooder camp and the leave-us-be camp. The do-gooders think "something should be done about..." and proceed to work towards fixing all the world's ills. The leave-us-be camp seriously want to get on with their lives and work around all the restrictions the do-gooders impose. The leave-us-be camp do not join movements, go to rallies, or form non-profits to support a cause.
All political parties rely on both camps to get elected. Libertarians of course appeal directly to the leave-us-be camp with Republicans right behind them. The Dems do too with: keep the government our of our bedrooms!
So every two/four years the leave-us-be camp elects a bunch of do-gooders to office, because there will never be a true leave-us-be politician.
"The world is rapidly moving to SSL by default, defeating broadband provider's ability to invade their customer's privacy."
Until Symantec makes Bluecoat a trusted CA. Let's hope that never -- oh, wait. Oops.
So, I was going to give $1,500 a year to EFF. This seems to be a garbage idea. Who wants it? Or who should I give it to?
Post a Comment