31–40 of 48 posts
Yeah, because the EFF is going to be unbiased when it comes to explaining legislation. I'm so sick of how partisan the EFF has become.
What does "unbiased" mean in the context of a group that has a stated advocacy purpose? Why would we expect or want anything else? You're free to act or not upon the EFF's urging - but at least they're honest about their goals.
What's honest about that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "unbiased" mean in the context of a group that has a stated advocacy purpose? Why would we expect or want anything else? You're free to act or not upon the EFF's urging - but at least they're honest about their goals.
They misrepresent views and lie about legislation. What's honest about that?
FWIW, I've read some other articles about this bill, and my opinion of it has improved slightly since reading the EFF brief here.
This page, content-wise, doesn't appear to have a clear message. EFF -- if you're listening -- it would be great to stake a very clear position on this bill at the very top of your statement. Something like "We urge you to support the USA Freedom Act." Since neither the name of the bill itself, nor anything on the page, makes it clear that the "Freedom Act" is an act against the digital surveillance of US citizens, s…
The first sentences are: "The USA Freedom Act, the leading contender for NSA reform, is set for a vote this week. The bill has some problems, but is a major step forward for surveillance reform. That's why we're asking you to call your Senator and urge them to support the USA Freedom Act." How much more clear do you want it?
Since I have enough information to determine that I don't want the Freedom Act to pass, why would I click through to the article?
Wait, why is a bill even needed? Aren't current laws and the constitution itself already enough? If they are breaking the law now, why should we believe they won't disregard the Freedom Act?
The bill isn't all it's cracked up to be. It creates new legal basis for some surveillance activities that are arguably illegal, immunizes companies who participate in mass surveillance, and (most problematically), reauthorizes the Patriot Act. See: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/09/15/sunlight-ellsb...
I've noticed this quite a bit recently.. Maybe I'm just older and it has being going on forever. Bills on the surface that look like they are accomplishing what you want, but when you read between the lines they actually give the nod to stuff you don't want to be happening at all. Secret courts? Advocate. Now secret courts are more OK because apparently we reviewed them and decided they are fine with an advocate. Thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hashes would make it a lot easier to detect sneaky last-minute changes.
At the same time, though, you lose the thread if you miss any "X is the next version of Y" update. Probably HR-number-hash would be ideal.
HR3361.4 HR3361.5 HR3361.6
etc
Easier for everyone to understand, not just geeks...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They misrepresent views and lie about legislation. What's honest about that?
What misrepresentation? What lies? FWIW, I've read some other articles about this bill, and my opinion of it has improved slightly since reading the EFF brief here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow a bill that isn't the exact opposite of what its name would imply. Admittedly I was not encouraged when I saw the phrase "USA Freedom".
Names of bills nowadays have little to do with their content. Maybe we should just get rid of names altogether and refer to them by SHA hashes of their content... "Some moron amended bill f7eed03, now it's bill f5ba821. Do you know how much I had to tweak the language in order to generate a hash that looks like 'freedom'?"
https://github.com/BenKallos/legislation
It's a unique approach to governing that I wish more would follow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They misrepresent views and lie about legislation. What's honest about that?
What misrepresentation? What lies? FWIW, I've read some other articles about this bill, and my opinion of it has improved slightly since reading the EFF brief here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "unbiased" mean in the context of a group that has a stated advocacy purpose? Why would we expect or want anything else? You're free to act or not upon the EFF's urging - but at least they're honest about their goals.
They misrepresent views and lie about legislation. What's honest about that?