
EFF's 100-Day Plan - sinak2
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/our-100-day-plan
======
hackuser
Unlike the vast majority of end users, many HN readers have inside influence
over the technology threats - even if it's just lobbying for addressing them
in your company and spreading the word to others. That gives us even more
responsibility than most citizens. Here are EFF's recommendations:

* Tech Companies, Fix These Technical Issues Before It’s Too Late

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/11/tech-companies-fix-
the...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/11/tech-companies-fix-these-
technical-issues-its-too-late)

The U.S. (and other countries) will only be free if its citizens make it that
way.

------
vinhboy
This reminded me to donate.

A lot of people in Trump's camp relentlessly defends the 2nd Amendment, but in
my opinion, that is just a purposeful distraction to the real weapon we should
be defending: a free and open internet.

Now this also means defending against disinformation (ie. fake news), which is
not something I saw on the EFF's plan.

It's honestly very scary now that Theil and Palantir is in bed with them.

~~~
leereeves
> a free and open internet.

> defending against disinformation

Pick at most one.

~~~
sophacles
Disagree - The tools for hyperbole, opposing viewpoints, and factually false
information do not prevent people from publishing it. Aggregators (facebook,
HN et al) choosing to promote more vetted info is not the same as preventing
people from publishing it.

In fact I would go so far as to say that pushing for allowing anyone to
publish on a free and open internet is necessary for defending against
disinformation. The alternative is censoring (in a generic sense, not
necessarily a law sense) things, which can heighten disinformation
dramatically.

~~~
leereeves
I agree that a free and open Internet is the best defense against
disinformation.

It's a lousy defense. Massive amounts of disinformation will be shared (are
shared) on a free Internet.

But "defending against disinformation" sounds like the excuse the government
will use for censorship.

------
leereeves
TLDR: The same as it has been.

> Make no mistake: privacy, liberty, and accountability are not partisan
> issues.

> We’ve seen digital rights come under threat no matter which party controls
> the Oval Office.

~~~
akjainaj
>Make no mistake: privacy, liberty, and accountability are not partisan
issues.

I don't think they believe that. Or at least they didn't whine so much about
Obama, who was horrible for digital privacy. And Hillary would've continued
that legacy, but of course they didn't whine about that either.

~~~
geofft
> _And Hillary would 've continued that legacy, but of course they didn't
> whine about that either._

As Mr. President would say, "Wrong."

Here they are whining about her eeemaaails:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/foilies-2016-recognizi...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/foilies-2016-recognizing-
worst-government-responses-public-records-requests/#selfserver)

------
alacombe
> 2\. We will test and leverage the Freedom of Information Act.

Wait... isn't Obama's administration already the worst ever when it comes to
FOIA denials ?

~~~
burkaman
Obama isn't president anymore, so that isn't really relevant.

~~~
wang_li
It's the same civil service though.

