EFF in the News
The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls the proposal "the most extreme, anti-Internet, anti-privacy, anti-free speech copyright proposal in U.S. legislative history."
"There are myriad reasons why individuals may wish to use a name other than the one they were born with," Jillian York wrote on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's blog in July.
The groups—the Competitive Enterprise Institute, TechFreedom, Public Knowledge, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation—argued that it's not clear how the measure will "affect the due process and free speech rights of law-abiding Internet users around the world, user security, and the ability of entrpreneurs to create new products and invent new industries."
Hundreds of sites have been joining American Censorship Day, taking place tomorrow, November 16, including the EFF, Boing Boing, Reddit, Creative Commons, Hype Machine, and many, many, many more. The momentum is building really fast!
Or, put more simply: "This bill gives Hollywood a chance to kick that pesky Internet off their lawn," said Corynne McSherry, Intellectual Property Director at The Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) doesn't think that the digital advertising industry can efficiently regulate itself and has issued a statement saying that the self-regulatory principles for multisite data recently published by the Digital Advertising Alliance will suffer from a lack of enforcement.
Is this the sort of thing that ought to be dealt with inside the university instead of calling in the FBI?" asks Marcia Hofmann, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "I think I would have ordered an internal investigation to try to understand exactly what happened and then I would have considered my options from there."
The libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, the Center for Democracy & Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the left-leaning Public Knowledge and TechFreedom lodged a friend-of-the-court brief with the high court in a case in which an appeals court has ruled the FCC’s decency regulations are “unconstitutionally vague” and produced a “chilling effect” on First Amendment speech.