
EFF Plugs the Senate's USA Freedom Act, Loses More Credibility - cinquemb
http://belowgotham.com/index.htm#2014-11-11
======
colinbartlett
If the EFF is not worthy of my support, then I don't know who is. I've been a
donor and supporter for a while now and no other organization has aligned more
with my ideals than they have.

Sure, the bill they support might not be perfect but I trust the EFF to put
their weight behind practical measures and laws that are at least a step in
the right direction.

~~~
declan
I've followed the EFF since the 1990s (and once had an @eff.org mailing
address) so I may have some insight. Seth, one of their technologists who
posts here, would have more:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=schoen](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=schoen)

The danger when dealing with advocacy organizations and DC is that they "go
native." It's a variant of the principal-agent problem: advocacy groups cease
to act in the best interest of their members/funders. They become enamored of
their own press releases, their own ability to have a "seat at the table," or
better yet to convene everyone around their table to draft a backroom deal--
even if the resulting law is better than no law at all.

The late Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and ALEC, talked
about this a lot in the context of conservative groups and GOP politicians.
Whatever you think of his politics, Weyrich's insight was correct. I wrote
about this in the CISPA context in 2012 here:
[http://www.cnet.com/news/advocacy-group-flip-flops-twice-
ove...](http://www.cnet.com/news/advocacy-group-flip-flops-twice-over-cispa-
surveillance-bill/)

Now back to EFF: post-CALEA the group moved from its DC lobbyist row offices
(which I remember fondly) to SF to avoid being part of that DC deal-cutting
swamp. They intentionally haven't reopened a DC policy office--I think only
David Sobel is in DC and he does FOIA not policy--though they easily could
have.

So I'd say your faith in EFF is well-placed. EFF is working in your interests
and the interests of its other members, the snide aside in the linked article
notwithstanding.

Now even honorable organizations make mistakes, and I believe EFF is being too
enthusiastic about a deeply flawed bill. I would side with the Sunlight
Foundation and other groups opposing it. But no organization is going to agree
with all of its members 100% of the time, and if you like everything else they
do, there's no reason to cease your support now.

------
opendais
In case anyone was looking for the actual text of the bill:

[https://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/usa-freedom-act_-
intro...](https://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/usa-freedom-act_-
introduced-10-29-131)

I'd honestly say this being said so close to the election is playing politics
rather than "lose credibility". Republicans taking control of both houses of
Congress. The Freedom Act is likely better than whatever a Republican
controlled legislative branch will pass.

~~~
declan
> The Freedom Act is likely better than whatever a Republican controlled
> legislative branch will pass

In terms of passing new legislative initiatives (modulo some appropriations
stuff), the legislative branch is _already_ effectively Republican-controlled
because of the GOP House.

The big Senate changes are probably Udall's departure and Feinstein and Leahy
losing their committee chairs. Udall's successor is also pro-reform but
without the seniority. As for Leahy, there's a reason why the Sunlight
Foundation and the other groups have been critical of his bill.

For background I wrote this last year:

[http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-senate-oversight-bill-may-
handc...](http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-senate-oversight-bill-may-handcuff-u-s-
companies/) ...the Vermont Democrat also authored the 1994 Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is now looming over Web companies,
as well as the deeply unpopular Protect IP Act. Leahy had introduced
significant portions of the Patriot Act under the name Enhancement of Privacy
and Public Safety in Cyberspace Act (PDF) more than a year before the
September 11 attacks happened...

~~~
opendais
> The big Senate changes are probably Udall's departure and Feinstein and
> Leahy losing their committee chairs.

Which is a side effect of them losing control of the Senate and falls under
"Republican control" creating the change.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-
eye/wp/2014/11/0...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-
eye/wp/2014/11/05/what-does-the-gop-senate-takeover-mean-for-committee-
leadership/)

If you'd like, I could list out the side effects of Republican senate control
such as the impact on appointments as well if you'd like? I just assumed it
was common knowledge.

~~~
declan
That's why I said "new legislative initiatives" and not "appointments."

~~~
opendais
I think you completely missed the point of why I pointed out an example of
another side effect. :/

I'm going to drop it.

------
nl
Yeah, no.

Reading the Sunlight Foundation opposition to the same bill, it's clear that
they see benefits in the bill, but think the problems are bigger than the
benefits. The EFF goes the other way.

That doesn't make them less credible, it mens their priorities are different.

(And it's completely unclear what Google funding of EFF has to do with
anything discussed there)

~~~
scottjad
> (And it's completely unclear what Google funding of EFF has to do with
> anything discussed there)

"grants broad immunity to corporations that are undercutting our right to
privacy"

------
tzs
The ACLU is also supporting it.

