Rule 41 Proposes to Grant New Hacking Powers to the Government

Re:Rule 41 Proposes to Grant New Hacking Powers to the Gover... by studentrob on Sunday May 01, 2016 @11:39AM (#11606570)

> It would give the reader an inaccurate depiction of what the lawsuit is really about

Yeah. Part of the EFF's job is educating us. When they add such slant they lose credibility in my book. They're still great at keeping tabs on government actions that impact tech.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rule 41 Proposes to Grant New Hacking Powers to the Gover... by rayiner on Sunday May 01, 2016 @12:30PM (#11606791)

EFF is an advocacy organization. They're like Sierra Club or PETA.[1] They're not in the business of neutral analysis; they're in the business of pursuasion. Their job is not to provide the most reasonable take; it's to give up no ground to their opponents.

[1] Both of which are organizations I hold in high esteem, so that's not a negative comparison.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rule 41 Proposes to Grant New Hacking Powers to the Gover... by studentrob on Sunday May 01, 2016 @08:51PM (#11608591)

> Their job is not to provide the most reasonable take; it's to give up no ground to their opponents.

That sounds like a lawyer's perspective. You could say that about anyone working towards any particular goal. Please pardon my disagreement.

One of the EFF's jobs is to educate technologists. When they use slanted language, they lose some readers/"students".

The EFF has many roles, including educating and lobbying the government. Totally fine if you want to call it advocacy too. I often find myself digging for extra facts after reading their slanted positions. I wish they'd do full reporting of both sides more often. C'est la vie.

[ Parent | on HN ]