Google openly choose the collective noun for sheep as the name of a technology for labelling humans; I don't think the EFF's response should be the primary source of discomfort here.
This made me laugh, and you're not wrong exactly, but I will note that "flock" is also used for birds, and birds are frequently used as a metaphor for freedom just as much as sheep are used as a metaphor for mindless group-following behaviour.
You should really investigate your biases if the first thought that comes to your mind is that Google chose flock because it thinks customers are sheep.
My first thought was birds, so perhaps I might turn that around and recommend a reciprocal investigation. Because only on further reflection did I see the darker side, and realise the likes of Google do not get to make the “oh-we-didn’t-realise-that” argument.
I suspect part of that might be a reaction to us (as in the population in general) getting used to privacy violations. It takes a bit more drama to get our attention in a world where we are all willing to voluntarily carry a personal tracking device 24/7...
EFF has been taken over by privacy zealots. They used to be more focused on what their name says: freedom. That is, fighting censorship and regulation of the internet.
Yeah, but privacy used to be a part of the mission, with the understanding that privacy was a good thing but not the only thing. It seems like over the years the focus has shifted to privacy being the ultimate goal, and every other aspect of the mission happens in the name of privacy. And there's no acceptance of the idea that some well-informed people are willing to make a decision to sacrifice some privacy in exchange for convenience or cost, anybody who considers sacrificing some of their own privacy is treated as a moron who needs to be protected from themselves.
They’ve definitely zeroed in on it. I think it is understandable, though, from their position—privacy seems most acutely at-risk, at least stateside, and the vast majority of people affected aren’t among those well-informed.
The EFF needs to get to the point that politicians seriously consider fighting them. Its the only real way to effect change in the US. As we have seen multiple times, the other folks keep introducing bills over and over again. That needs to be a hard stop and the only way to get there is fear because logic just doesn't work for tech.
is more than a little ironic to me. I suppose it's like people saying you can't 'out-logic' a judge through a technicality, or that the law does not mean they are Perfect Laws of Logic; they're designed to be interpreted by judges.
I admire the EFF though, and I support what they advocate for. I was going to say I'd like them to be more pragmatic, but I suppose their hardline opinions are most of the reason they exist as an advocacy organization.
Logic is fine for technical folks and a lot of general public, it doesn't work very well in the political arena where waving the bloody shirt is the norm. Logic is a poor weapon in an emotional debate and doesn't work worth a damn.
To your actual point, though, I think you've totally nailed it. I'm not sure if emotion and politics are permanently inextricable, but from my limited, unfortunate experience, it seems as though any kind of logical argument doesn't or can't (!) sway anyone (myself, of course, included!)
