EFF in the News
But critics argue that they’re harming innovation by filing frivolous lawsuits and making it difficult to create new products without fear of litigation. “This is a classic example of patents as an attack on innovation,” says Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Daniel Nazer. “There’s nothing to suggest that this guy contributed anything to the [Bluetooth] technology we used today.”
"The marketplace in which these institutions exist is structurally dysfunctional," says Peter Eckersley, the technology products director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He notes that it doesn't matter which certificate one buys, from pricey, high-end ones to the cheapest out there: "In all of those cases, you get the security of the worst CA," as every CA can issue a certificate for every domain.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation called Superfish “horrifically dangerous” and a “security catastrophe.”
Writing for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Joseph Bonneau says the software is 'horrifically dangerous'.
He added: 'Lenovo has not just injected ads in a wildly inappropriate manner, but engineered a massive security catastrophe for its users.'
“They have made it very clear that they don’t want to share how enforcement works because they think people will game the system,” said Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) activist Nadia Kayyali, who has discussed the policy with Facebook in private meetings.
Kayyali said this was ironic because people are using the existing system to target groups.
“If you continue to have ‘this account is using a fake name’ as a reporting option, that seems like you are encouraging people to just be harassing people by filing these reports as opposed to dealing with the behavior itself,” said Kayyali. “So they should really just get rid of the policy.”
Kayyali said groups including LGBT youth, abuse survivors and political activists were particularly harmed by the policy.
From an Electronic Frontier Foundation press release:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), together with Durie Tangri LLP, is defending a photo hobbyist against an outrageous patent suit from a company that claims to hold the rights to online competitions on social networks where users vote for the winner.
Securing a defendant’s cooperation by threatening him or her with a mountain of charges is nothing new, says Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Hanni Fakhoury. But that’s usually accomplished by first charging the defendant and then allowing him or her to reduce punishment by working as an informant or offering information. “I’ve represented many defendants who were propositioned by the government to come into a room and cooperate,” says Fakhoury.
In this case, Salinas’ claims—if they’re at all true—could represent the opposite: a vindictive indictment after a refusal to cooperate. “To proposition him first and punish him after is much rarer and would be much more problematic,” says Fakhoury. “If this is true, it’s very troubling and very improper.”
Can Twitter make progress in confronting extremists' abuse of the social media platform? Jillian York from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Soraya Chemaly of The Investigative Fund weigh in.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which is representing the anonymous companies, announced Tuesday that the firms – a telecom and internet company – wish to share their identities as well as release the “details of their fights against NSLs.” But ongoing legal proceedings have made it necessary for the organizations to remain unidentified.
Those stipulations were good enough for Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, and Yahoo, who agreed to those parameters. Twitter, however, decided to sue the government in October. Tuesday's brief, filed by lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who are representing the two companies, notes that any company receiving less than 1,000 letters are arbitrarily silenced by the government.
"The Department of Justice has simply decided that some service providers, who have received 1,000 or more NSLs, can participate—vaguely and partially—in public debates as recipients of NSLs," Kurt Opsahl and Andrew Crocker, lawyers with the EFF, wrote in the brief. "Meanwhile, providers who receive fewer than 1,000 NSLs remain barred from saying whether they have received any NSLs at all."
"Such measures are over broad and intrinsically arbitrary, since they are imposed without any consideration of the specific risks posed by providers' reporting on the NSLs they have received," they added. "The First Amendment requires more."