Profile

Cover photo
Verified name
Electronic Frontier Foundation
2,185,782 followers|25,457,327 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTube

Stream

 
It's International Day Against DRM! EFF calls for an end to unfair laws that lock down your stuff. #DayAgainstDRM
Ending the scourge of DRM has long been an important goal for EFF, and the need has only increased in recent years. As the evidence mounts that we're already deep into what EFF Special Consultant Cory Doctorow has dubbed the War On General Purpose Computing, efforts like the Free Software Foundation's International Day Against DRM take on a new meaning.
60
17
Wilfried Klaebe (Wonka)'s profile photoJohannes Self's profile photoJason Belgarde's profile photoJohn Barbieri (eleete)'s profile photo
3 comments
 
Amen!
Add a comment...
 
The Senate has unveiled the PATENT Act—an anti-troll bill. Here's what we like and what we want to see improved.
Will this be the year we pass patent reform? With both houses of Congress finally introducing strong bills to target patent trolls, we sure hope so.
93
18
Taryne Rightley's profile photogeorge oloo's profile photoEsterline Research & Design's profile photoMichael Perez's profile photo
2 comments
 
Lawyers/judges/Patent tribunals are not scientists, these jerks do not know the difference between discovery and so-called invention. The word used to put up a wall against further science with some words based on predicated scientific discovery.

Patent law is all about how much money lawyers/judges can get from clients. It has little to do with science.

Writing a computer program then using it as an invention would be the same as making a statement of words, then being allowed to be the only one to use the words. Programming languages are still languages, and nothing more. A writer of code has to follow a math platform, yet the math platform is not considered a discovery which it is, and under laws of ignorance used In Patents it is sometimes called an invention.

The only thing we have here are inventions, creative laws. LIES and more LIES, based on LIES that have gone on since lawyers...judges...BANKSTERS...politicians elevated themselves into virtual nobility, above the laws they enact used to fleece the people they rule over. The most horrible monarchy imaginable, which if left to survive will end our species, denature earth, enact laws that do not permit us to adapt to change in a world where time changes all things.

The academic caste system that created their legality is a series of academic ventures used as a class separation vehicle.

Our Bankster cartel is the MOB.

Our ruse of government is used to enact predatory laws and further separate classes of people in a world where we would be little different from one another if we had lived peach others lives.

There are no special people. Absolute truth is all there is. We are all ruled by words of preliterate scribes used by ancient kings to enslave common people in an effort to empower their clan into perpetuity. Monarchy is their game, Anarchy is their end game .

We can become great, adapting to time, elevating our magnitudes of literacy, quality of life, perhaps surviving the next great ice age a reoccurring cycle of our 250 or so million years orbit around galactic center. But we have to remove the stone of law in our path so we san be what we can be, a species of respect for things we are unaware of.

Making decisions " OPINIONS "without access to the variables is our demise, it empowers a few people too stupid to understand what they do.

They are the stone in our path to absolute truth. We know so little and are not allowed to discover more. The people who rule us must be replaced with direction based on an awareness of the variables that surround us.

Our current government is; satanic. Demonic, fools, predatory monsters, and have to be removed from from powering we are to survive time.

There is a better way-----TRUTH---- in all things, if we are incapable of describing an element of time the. How can we make judgement ?
Add a comment...
 
A message from EFF's new Executive Director, Cindy Cohn, on the next chapter in the fight for civil liberties.
This article appeared in EFFector, EFF's almost-weekly newsletter about cutting-edge tech policy issues. Subscribe by entering your email address in the box on the right-hand column of this page.
56
7
Snowandrews-TheOther's profile photoJEFF IBITZ (RED)'s profile photo
Add a comment...
 
Mayweather or Pacquiao? Regardless of who wins, Internet intermediaries are the losers.
Two men are going to fight this weekend, and HBO and Showtime have already thrown the first punch in the legal fight over online streaming of the match. Taking advantage of an increasingly abused loophole in copyright law, they have just won a court order requiring a host of third parties to block access to sites that may stream the fight.
86
19
Paul Arnote's profile photoHossein Mosh's profile photoJohn C. Reid's profile photoDeven Matlick's profile photo
5 comments
 
You. Shouldn't. Send t h is to me,
Add a comment...
 
“This information is all collected and stored by a third party...and once the third party has the data, as the user you don’t have
any control over it.” -- EFF Senior Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch in Wired.
104
23
Ted Murray's profile photoArien Huckeba's profile photoMike Noyes's profile photoCliff Wells's profile photo
14 comments
 
Third-party doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
The third-party doctrine is a United States legal theory that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy." A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant. Libertarians typically call this government activity unjustified spying and a violation of individual and privacy rights.
Add a comment...
 
Every year, the U.S. Trade Representative releases a report making arbitrary demands to its trading partners that they increase copyright and patent protection and enforcement. This year's report released today, is as bad as ever and it continues to miss crucial perspectives. This time, those missing voices answer back.
The United States Trade Representative (USTR) has released its Special 301 Report for 2015 today, and true to form, it is another one-sided and harmful missive to the rest of the world that names and shames countries for not mirroring, or even exceeding, the United States’ restrictive copyright rules.
41
8
Terry Sanderson's profile photoBradford Benn's profile photoElectrotechnology&GeneralEngineeringStudents's profile photoKevin R. (Kevin96AT)'s profile photo
 
Why do we even have an office of the trade representative? All this office seems to do is violate the separation of powers.
Add a comment...
Have them in circles
2,185,782 people
junqin zhang's profile photo
Roberto Santos's profile photo
Ali Raza's profile photo
Emma Malay's profile photo
Harvey Reed's profile photo
g odbayar's profile photo
PABLO ENRIQUE SALAMANCA GOMEZ's profile photo
mai moua's profile photo
miguel chaparro's profile photo
 
The European Parliament is considering a range of awful proposals that would limit or impose costs on our freedom to link—a fundamental element of the open Web. Digital rights groups launch the Save the Link network today to speak out against such proposals.
For those seeking to censor information online, the weakest link is often precisely that—the humble hyperlink. Censoring or imposing costs or conditions on linking to information can be just as effective, and often easier, than controlling the information at its source. But without the freedom to link, the World Wide Web falls apart into a mass of disconnected threads.
91
34
mojca mojca's profile photoJames Krieger's profile photoScott Fernandez's profile photoJohn Barbieri (eleete)'s profile photo
6 comments
 
+James Mason
Voting out the rulers who go against the wishes of the populace is great in theory and is how a republic is supposed to work however since in the USA you can only vote for John Jackson or Jack Johnson and they both have the same agenda (staying in power at the expense of others) it doesn't work. I don't see how it will be any different in the EU.
Add a comment...
 
Inmates and their loved ones who use JPay’s email service to communicate lose their intellectual property rights under the company’s terms of service. 
JPay, a company that provides digital communications systems to corrections facilities in at least 19 states, is charging inmates and their families an unusual fee to stay in touch: the intellectual property rights to everything sent through its network.
54
9
Irreverent Monk's profile photochuck grinnell's profile photoTK Reed's profile photoTaryne Rightley's profile photo
2 comments
 
I seem to recall a similar clause being discovered in Google Drive (I think, maybe Dropbox or Box instead)'s ToS stating they had rights to anything uploaded. But that was just to allow them to be able to make mirrored backups and store our files on multiple servers.

Or it could be required to allow JPay to provide the prison officials access to a copy of all correspondence. Their snail mail letters get censored, I'd imagine email would as well.
Add a comment...
 
Big content remains in denial about the defeat of SOPA, and is trying to resuscitate it by stealth.
Last week the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (IACC) held their spring conference in San Diego, to share intelligence about the latest strategies for combatting “counterfeiting” (by which they mean trademark infringement) and “piracy” (by which they mean copyright infringement). EFF's Jeremy Malcolm attended as an invited panelist, giving us the opportunity to assert our views that anti-piracy campaigns should not infringe users' righ...
82
20
Snowandrews-TheOther's profile photoSnow Andrews's profile photoMark McKibben's profile photoKen Miller's profile photo
4 comments
 
While that is true, we have the vigilance of the Internet on our side.  We also now are showing, as a people in the general sense, that we can not be pushed too far.  Ferguson has lead to Baltimore.  There have been protests in many cities.  This is a kind of wake up call for those who think that their power is infinite.  It is not.  They should take that to heart.
Add a comment...
 
People should be able to learn about their ancestors and relatives and about possible risks for genetic diseases without fear that their data will be shared with the cops without their consent. 
The New Orleans Advocate recently published a shocking story that details the very real threats to privacy and civil liberties posed by law enforcement access to private genetic databases and familial DNA searching.
117
36
Jackie M's profile photoDon Peterson's profile photoWilliam Audette's profile photoKerry O'Connor's profile photo
4 comments
 
The real problem is with using science to justify charges, when the science actually says there is not a match.

+Giggle Play It is doubtful you do not leave any DNA where you go, unless you wear a plastic suit and don't breathe directly on anything. Sounds boring.
Add a comment...
 
April's Stupid Patent of the Month: Notorious troll Eclipse IP's "method" of updating delivery information.
Imagine you’re on your way to deliver a case of beer to a party. Before you get there, your boss sends you a text: They want 2 cases now. You read the text while driving (don’t do that), so you deliver an extra case when you arrive. Having successfully completed that task, you leave for your next delivery. Congratulations! You might get sued by the owner of April’s stupid patent of the month.
71
16
Ronald Bruintjes's profile photoMichael Barclay's profile photo
Add a comment...
 
EFF told an appeals court this week that evidence obtained through illegal military Internet surveillance of civilians shouldn’t be used in court.
For years, with seemingly little to no oversight, the Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) has been monitoring vast amounts of non-military U.S. Internet traffic and communications, looking for evidence of criminal activity. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit correctly held this “extraordinary” and illegal surveillance violated the Posse Comitatus Act ("PCA") and suppressed evidence gathered by NCIS on a civilian.
62
12
Arlena Furo's profile photoSnow Andrews's profile photoBradford Benn's profile photoKirk Larsen's profile photo
 
😎😎😎
Add a comment...
People
Have them in circles
2,185,782 people
junqin zhang's profile photo
Roberto Santos's profile photo
Ali Raza's profile photo
Emma Malay's profile photo
Harvey Reed's profile photo
g odbayar's profile photo
PABLO ENRIQUE SALAMANCA GOMEZ's profile photo
mai moua's profile photo
miguel chaparro's profile photo
Story
Tagline
Defending your civil liberties in a digital world.
Introduction
From the Internet to the iPod, technologies are transforming our society and empowering us as speakers, citizens, creators, and consumers. When our freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense. EFF broke new ground when it was founded in 1990—well before the Internet was on most people's radar—and continues to confront cutting-edge issues defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights today. From the beginning, EFF has championed the public interest in every critical battle affecting digital rights.

Blending the expertise of lawyers, policy analysts, activists, and technologists, EFF achieves significant victories on behalf of consumers and the general public. EFF fights for freedom primarily in the courts, bringing and defending lawsuits even when that means taking on the US government or large corporations. By mobilizing more than 150,000 concerned citizens through our Action Center, EFF beats back bad legislation. In addition to advising policymakers, EFF educates the press and public.

EFF is a donor-funded nonprofit and depends on your support to continue successfully defending your digital rights. Litigation is particularly expensive; because two-thirds of our budget comes from individual donors, every contribution is critical to helping EFF fight—and win—more cases.