James A. Donald typed:
The EFF is ultimately a business lobby group, because it gets most of its funding from businesses.
Faulty logic. A does not follow from B. I have news for you: Most nonprofits get most of their funding from businesses. In some cases, corporations offer funding because the organization exists to represent their corporate donors (such things are variously called industry associations, trade groups, and in some cases PACs.) Others give to organizations that are centered on a written mission statement, rather than on the flexible interests of the donors, and the give because it 1) improves their market or customer base in various ways, and 2) allows them to claim philanthropy and charity, which are marketable traits. There's a very large difference between organizations that exist to represent the interests of members and donors, whatever those interests happen to be at the moment, and organizations with specific mission statements. It doesn't do well to confuse the two. It's the difference between the Business Software Alliance and the Free Software Foundation, between the Telephone Association of America and Voters' Telecom Watch.
It is therefore potentially subject to the same corruption as other business lobbies.
This is assumption not fact. The facts are that EFF accepts donations from companies that support our mission. If they expect to get some kind of trade association style "representation" for that, they are deluded. What they get is our work to help the Net grow and flourish, which is good for their business. That's the perq they get. Nothing else. If you don't believe this, I invite you to ask all of the RBOCs whether they give us money any more. They used to, but didn't listen and expected us to act like their PAC, particularly on Digital Telephony. Instead of fighting for RBOCs' "rights" we fought for YOURS. They don't fund us any more. We don't care. Our mission doesn't bend to attract funders. It's stayed the same since day one. You may think EFF didn't do a good job on DigTel, but we didn't do Bell Atlantic's dance, that's for sure. And why don't you ask our boardmember Tim O'Reilly whether EFF has asked him to stop combatting MicroSoft attempts to license how many IP connections people can make with NT Server, because it hurts our chances of getting money from Bill Gates. EFF has certainly be *pressured* to behave like a PAC, and this was one of our many reasons for leaving DC. It became increasingly difficult to fund a DC-based organization that was *not* a membership-controlled lobbying organization. We're betting on one thing: That the software, online commerce, and related industries, centered on Silicon Valley, can be dragged into the politics that are threatening to stomp them. It's been observed multiple times by several commentators that some key differences between this industry and older industries are 1) lack of philanthropy - almost no charitable organization support is seen from the computer industry at all, and 2) participation in the political process - there really hasn't been much action of any kind from the computer industry in legislative or legal issues in general, only on specific stuff like their particular intellectual property rights, even though some of the political issues cropping up on the Hill threaten their entire market. Most analysis concludes that these two lacking features are due to youth of the industry, and lack of anyone pushing them into action. So, we're pushing. If we fail, we won't be here in 1997. EFF does not want to be a PAC. We *can't* be a PAC. We don't have the necessary skill set (we have a membership coordinator, we have civil liberties attorneys, etc. We do not have professional lobbyists, nor do we have an on-staff media and PR communicator, as some examples.) We'd like to see the industry recognize that what we're doing is vital for them, and to support it, but also to get their own trade associations going and working and actually engaged in the political process (for one thing, that further reduces any desire to try to get EFF to play that role, which we will not do. Less wasted time and effort pushing us, and less of the same from us pushing back.) I hope this explains the situation fairly clearly.
To be a successful lobby group, the EFF needs to get its fingerprints on legislation, so that it can make threats and promises to businessmen in the computer industry.
EFF isn't interested in being "a successful lobby group". That's CDT's job. You may have missed some of the history here: CDT's core staff is our former policy staff. They split off because they wanted to do lobbying work, and EFF didn't.
Our interests, and the EFF's interest are opposed with no apparent mutual good possible.
That's absurd. I suppose you think ITAR and the CDA are good things? If not, then our work to defeat them is mutual good.
In order to be well funded, the EFF needs government regulation of the net. The kind of regulation that would be
That's absurd, too. I suppose there's a hidden grain of logic there: EFF would have little or no reason to exist without some kind of bad action on the part of government when it comes to the Net. This is true. We all would be really happy if that weren't the case and there was no need for an EFF. The day the government stops censoring and EFF can go away will be the happiest day of my life if it ever happens. Hell, I could be making 3x my current salary in the commercial sector. If you think I do this because I enjoy working 12 hour days fighting the largest government on earth, for a paycheck that only barely covers the bills, you have another think coming. At any rate, there is no logical connection whatsoever between the grain of truth here, and your conclusion (that EFF must be working to *increase* government control to keep itself alive). There are many assumptions that one is required to make before arrival at that conclusion from the data, and some of these conclusions are not only contradictory, but precluded by other observable facts. [...]
most effective in ensuring large donations would be regulation that compels internet businessmen to lobby the government. for example regulations that make impossible, inconsistent, and contradictory requirements on those who provide software, [...]
In other words you are claiming EFF authored the Communications Decency Act? [...]
of business, for example legislation that requires case by case approval of software, or legislation that compels the businessman to invade his customers privacy, and also prohibits him from invading that privacy unless he has a waiver issued by the state.
In other words, you are claiming EFF is not really behind the Bernstein v. US Dept. of State suit to get rid of the only existing US "legislation that requires case by case approval of software"? -- <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech@eff.org </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation </A><P> Online Activist </HTML>