zlacker

The other issue is that the EFF is the minority opinion on many, many subjects. Many of the most effective NGOs have a "we agree with you, but this 10% needs to change," which is flexible enough that governments who otherwise wouldn't care pay attention.

The EFF isn't like that - for example, the idea of outlawing DRM, while popular among hackers and people here, is a total nonstarter internationally. It's about as effective as hiring the FSF to lecture Microsoft; or hiring PETA to lecture Tyson; or hiring the Amish to lecture you on electrical design. The opinions are so diametrically opposed that it's not even worth considering.

>>gjsman+(OP)
Not surprisingly, most governments have little to no respect for individual freedom and autonomy. To my understanding, this is among the best reasons not to sign such treaties with said governments, as compromising on principles surrounding fundamental human rights should be a non-starter for those that value them

>>gjsman+(OP)
So, just to clarify something here: unless they've radicalised a lot since I've left, EFF doesn't think that DRM should be outlawed. It thinks that governments shouldn't outlaw their citizens from talking about how to circumvent DRM, or criminalize the bypassing of DRM for lawful purposes. As I mentioned in my other comment, the anti-circumvention statutes of the DMCA were controversial enough to fail to pass in the US when they were introduced as part of the original 90s copyright reforms, and were only introduced in the US after they were successfully inserted into the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Those provisions have been pretty controversial ever since, and there have been multiple attempts by many groups and industries to limit the damage since then. (The Copyright Treaty itself can be interpreted to permit circumvention for purposes of fair use or other exceptions and limitations on copyright, and the limitations on individuals communicating about how to circumvent DRM may well be unconstitutional in the US -- the courts haven't really ruled on this.)

EFF and partner groups often contribute to government and international proposals (a hundred-or-so of them have been involved in the cybercrime treaty process for many years https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/joint-statement-propos... and I believe got it to a fairly good place before a last-minute push by some states to introduce more surveillance into it.)

You don't really get to hear about the compromises, because you don't really need to kick up a fuss about something that has worked out okay -- and even if you do post about the positive fine print, nobody sends such exciting documents to the front page of Hacker News.

>>dannyo+1M
Thanks for the valuable history lesson!

> even if you do post about the positive fine print, nobody sends such exciting documents to the front page of Hacker News.

>>41241226

>>gjsman+(OP)
>or hiring the Amish to lecture you on electrical design.

This actually isn't a great example: the Amish do use electricity on their farms. They just don't like to be connected to the grid, so they're big supporters of solar power. They probably know a lot more about electrical design than you think (depending on your definition of "electrical design"). They even have internet-connected computers so they can get orders from customers.

A better example might be hiring the Amish to lecture you on public transit design in dense cities. Not that they're opposed to it, but it's just something far outside their experience (they don't live in dense cities). Or back to electricity, having them lecture you about grid-scale electrical transmission, or nuclear power generation.

>>dannyo+1M
EFF getting more and more extreme in the last few years does seem to be a pretty widely held opinion on HN though.

>>gjsman+(OP)
> Many of the most effective NGOs have a "we agree with you, but this 10% needs to change,"

Isn't that exactly what the linked page suggests in this case? Most of the recommendations are things like "Limit Articles 23(2)(c) and 35(1)(c) to Articles 7 to 11 and delete Article 23(2)(b)", not "burn the thing down and start over".

>>Michae+2d1
I've been EFF adjacent since the nineties, and I think people have always claimed this, often when they have read a call-to-action that uses stronger language than they are comfortable with. I think the causality is that a strongly-worded action gets wider propagation than the more moderate analysis. EFF positions on most matters has been pretty consistent IMHO.