EFF Flew a Plane over Apple's Headquarters(eff.org)
eff.org
EFF Flew a Plane over Apple's Headquarters
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/09/why-eff-flew-plane-over-apples-headquarters
116 comments
Are they pretty effective?
Most proposals they object to are trying to solve real problems. I almost never see the EFF propose better ways to solve those problems. They just raise objections to everyone else's proposed solutions.
And those objections are often just low effort implausible slippery slope arguments. It is pretty easy to make a slippery slope argument for pretty much anything that has it leading to a dystopian nightmare.
Legislators and policy makers tend to pay more attention to people with solutions, even bad solutions, than to people who just object to everything, especially when those objections are low quality.
Most proposals they object to are trying to solve real problems. I almost never see the EFF propose better ways to solve those problems. They just raise objections to everyone else's proposed solutions.
And those objections are often just low effort implausible slippery slope arguments. It is pretty easy to make a slippery slope argument for pretty much anything that has it leading to a dystopian nightmare.
Legislators and policy makers tend to pay more attention to people with solutions, even bad solutions, than to people who just object to everything, especially when those objections are low quality.
> I almost never see the EFF propose better ways to solve those problems. They just raise objections to everyone else's proposed solutions.
That's not their job though, providing solutions and listening to citizen and NGO feedback is the job of the politicians.
That's not their job though, providing solutions and listening to citizen and NGO feedback is the job of the politicians.
If you don't propose an alternative then people will see you as just an irritating contrarian.
If the EFF doesn't suggest something the people who propose the ideas the EFF objects to will continue to have all the influence over politicians.
1) free software is viable. The alternatives to practically everything exist technologically.
2) can you provide an example of a 'slippery slope' that did not come to fruition? Rhetorical devices and hyperbole are exactly how you make abstract technical concerns feel real to an average 65 year old congressperson
2) can you provide an example of a 'slippery slope' that did not come to fruition? Rhetorical devices and hyperbole are exactly how you make abstract technical concerns feel real to an average 65 year old congressperson
blitzar(3)
> Most proposals they object to are trying to solve real problems. I almost never see the EFF propose better ways to solve those problems.
To start, if the problem is 'doing something wrong' vs 'status quo', simply stopping the 'doing something wrong' is a proposal
Nevermind the many concrete recommendations which do occur- support for net neutrality is one clear example i can recall from memory, I'm sure they are others.
Also:
https://www.eff.org/cases
has clear examples of cases impacting policy which eff have been involved in
and:
https://www.eff.org/pages/tools
has some very important tools for internet privacy, some of which which have made a huge impact
To start, if the problem is 'doing something wrong' vs 'status quo', simply stopping the 'doing something wrong' is a proposal
Nevermind the many concrete recommendations which do occur- support for net neutrality is one clear example i can recall from memory, I'm sure they are others.
Also:
https://www.eff.org/cases
has clear examples of cases impacting policy which eff have been involved in
and:
https://www.eff.org/pages/tools
has some very important tools for internet privacy, some of which which have made a huge impact
> I almost never see the EFF propose better ways to solve those problems.
Why does their need to be a better solution in the case of the Apple CSAM phone scanning debacle? The solution is to just not do it.
If Apple is so worried about illegal material being uploaded to iCloud, they can just modify their iCloud encryption logic to give themselves access and scan the material on their own servers when it's uploaded. They have access to the unencrypted content either way, so it's fundamentally no less private. Actually, it's more private because at least Apple wouldn't be giving themselves access to content on my private property.
Why does their need to be a better solution in the case of the Apple CSAM phone scanning debacle? The solution is to just not do it.
If Apple is so worried about illegal material being uploaded to iCloud, they can just modify their iCloud encryption logic to give themselves access and scan the material on their own servers when it's uploaded. They have access to the unencrypted content either way, so it's fundamentally no less private. Actually, it's more private because at least Apple wouldn't be giving themselves access to content on my private property.
> Are they pretty effective?
One particular area where I get the impression they have a specific measurable impact is in their legal support on certain cases:
https://www.eff.org/legal-victories
Then there is (for example) their practical solution of how to help increase HTTPS adoption with their excellent software tool, CertBot, which helps automate LetsEncrypt certificates:
https://certbot.eff.org
I’d note that it seems to be exceptionally rare for a politically active organisation to be able to both campaign on issues at a high level AND produce technically viable and relevant software tools. Those are two wildly different areas of expertise, and yet they do this, with a clear overarching narrative.
In terms of proposing more specific solutions to problems they protest against, I don’t have a strong view on whether you’re right to emphasise this or not. Maybe there is more they could do here. But in terms of the larger question of “are EFF effective?” I’d say they are demonstrably having a positive impact.
Is it enough? I don’t know. How do you measure it… Can they do better? Almost certainly.
One particular area where I get the impression they have a specific measurable impact is in their legal support on certain cases:
https://www.eff.org/legal-victories
Then there is (for example) their practical solution of how to help increase HTTPS adoption with their excellent software tool, CertBot, which helps automate LetsEncrypt certificates:
https://certbot.eff.org
I’d note that it seems to be exceptionally rare for a politically active organisation to be able to both campaign on issues at a high level AND produce technically viable and relevant software tools. Those are two wildly different areas of expertise, and yet they do this, with a clear overarching narrative.
In terms of proposing more specific solutions to problems they protest against, I don’t have a strong view on whether you’re right to emphasise this or not. Maybe there is more they could do here. But in terms of the larger question of “are EFF effective?” I’d say they are demonstrably having a positive impact.
Is it enough? I don’t know. How do you measure it… Can they do better? Almost certainly.
Look at who really funds the EFF.
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/all-effd-up-levine
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/all-effd-up-levine
Interesting article. Very long. But revealing.
And disappointing. (Truth usually is.)
Then the issue arises, who is worth supporting, that will truly defend our digital privacy?
I'm not one to normally ask for a TLDR; but that article is a dense 10,000 words...
I'm open to new information... so if you know something I don't, is there a more concise answer to "who really funds the EFF"?
I'm open to new information... so if you know something I don't, is there a more concise answer to "who really funds the EFF"?
I’d say section on the history of its creators/Silicon Valley is more important to understanding the problem, but here’s a couple of relevant paragraphs:
> One likely explanation, Glaser reasoned, was that most of these groups depended on funding from the very same corporations that they should be criticizing. Over the past years, EFF has taken millions in funds from Google and Facebook via straight donations and controversial court payouts that many see as under-the-radar contributions. Hell, Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s foundation gave EFF at least $1.2 million.
> But the reason for EFF’s silence on the Facebook surveillance and influence scandal goes deeper—into the business model of the internet itself, which from the outset has framed user privacy as being threatened by ever-imminent government censorship, as opposed to the protection of users and their data from wanton commercial intrusion and exploitation. Put simply, the lords of the internet care very little about user privacy—what they want to preserve, at the end of the day, is their own commercial license against the specter of government regulation of any kind.
> One likely explanation, Glaser reasoned, was that most of these groups depended on funding from the very same corporations that they should be criticizing. Over the past years, EFF has taken millions in funds from Google and Facebook via straight donations and controversial court payouts that many see as under-the-radar contributions. Hell, Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s foundation gave EFF at least $1.2 million.
> But the reason for EFF’s silence on the Facebook surveillance and influence scandal goes deeper—into the business model of the internet itself, which from the outset has framed user privacy as being threatened by ever-imminent government censorship, as opposed to the protection of users and their data from wanton commercial intrusion and exploitation. Put simply, the lords of the internet care very little about user privacy—what they want to preserve, at the end of the day, is their own commercial license against the specter of government regulation of any kind.
Google.
That's an interesting summary, missing a lot of good writing and references. Also could explain this latest fly over from a cynical point of view.
"You guys are protesting incorrectly" is among the most useless things you could write. It's Kaepernick all over again but for the tech crowd.
I disagree. Disagreements with Kaepernick were largely that his actions were socially unaccaptable and uneffective. But it was his choice and he didn't need anyone to enable him to do that. (I think Kaepernick was effective personally).
If you think the EFF is not an effective organization, it might be worthwhile explaining your opinion so as the influence charitable donations that could be spent differently. I think the EFF misses the mark pretty frequently, personally. But they're net positive.
If you think the EFF is not an effective organization, it might be worthwhile explaining your opinion so as the influence charitable donations that could be spent differently. I think the EFF misses the mark pretty frequently, personally. But they're net positive.
In recent years slippery slopes have proven more and more to be real...
All you have to do is look at the extension of domestic surveillance laws to see where the slippery slope leads.
> Are they pretty effective
Charity Navigator gives them 4 out of 4 stars: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/043091431.
Charity Navigator gives them 4 out of 4 stars: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/043091431.
That is not a measure of how effective they are, but a summary of whether they are filing the necessary disclosure forms and whether their administrative fees are too high or not.
If the EFF lost every single case and donated half their money to their political opponents, then this rating would still be unchanged provided they disclosed everything and didn't take much of a cut for overhead.
If the EFF lost every single case and donated half their money to their political opponents, then this rating would still be unchanged provided they disclosed everything and didn't take much of a cut for overhead.
AFAIK Charity Navigator takes into account how much money goes to fund raising, management etc, which I would count as efficiency. It's definitely not everything of course.
I've taken the opposite view ever since EFF has started wasting time on protests, appeals and letters on this specific issue. Instead of treating this company with the same scrutiny it treats other companies with (point out what's wrong, offer alternatives, chase legislation) it's instead spending time on these stunts as someone called it.
At this point, the cat is out of the bag, and has been out of the bag for several years, it's just hitting 'close to home' now. Withdrawals and delays that are effected as a result of these will not make any difference.
This isn't a good fight but a form of denial and while I've been a regular supporter of theirs for several years, I now question where their priorities lie.
At this point, the cat is out of the bag, and has been out of the bag for several years, it's just hitting 'close to home' now. Withdrawals and delays that are effected as a result of these will not make any difference.
This isn't a good fight but a form of denial and while I've been a regular supporter of theirs for several years, I now question where their priorities lie.
I’ve seen the word “stunts” (plural) used a few times in the comments but what other things has the EFF done recently that would qualify as a stunt?
This particular thing was very clearly and deliberately a “stunt” but to me it feels more like the exception than the norm for the sort of thing EFF typically does?
Admittedly I’m fairly new to EFF so have only really been paying attention to them for a year or two.
This particular thing was very clearly and deliberately a “stunt” but to me it feels more like the exception than the norm for the sort of thing EFF typically does?
Admittedly I’m fairly new to EFF so have only really been paying attention to them for a year or two.
I would assume the other one is the protests outside their HQs?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/09/dont-stop-now-join-eff...
If not stunt, perhaps some other word may be suited for it. My comments on it would still be the same.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/09/dont-stop-now-join-eff...
If not stunt, perhaps some other word may be suited for it. My comments on it would still be the same.
EFF is an non-profit activism organisation that stands up for freedom and civil liberties (amongst other things).
So organising a peaceful protest seems to me to be fully within their remit and entirely appropriate?
It’s about as fundamental as you can get when it comes to exercising people’s rights to stand up for what they believe in, peacefully but firmly.
Despite the fact that their areas of focus are in the digital realm, sometimes you can’t beat the power of in-person organising IRL.
Edit: I’d be interested to hear what you think they should be doing that they’re not. (Genuinely, not trying to bait you!)
I don’t see anything wrong with these awareness raising events but what else could they be doing from your perspective?
So organising a peaceful protest seems to me to be fully within their remit and entirely appropriate?
It’s about as fundamental as you can get when it comes to exercising people’s rights to stand up for what they believe in, peacefully but firmly.
Despite the fact that their areas of focus are in the digital realm, sometimes you can’t beat the power of in-person organising IRL.
Edit: I’d be interested to hear what you think they should be doing that they’re not. (Genuinely, not trying to bait you!)
I don’t see anything wrong with these awareness raising events but what else could they be doing from your perspective?
some political groups value activism and appearance over substantial gains
> I now question where their priorities lie.
Informing and legally fighting for the user — seemingly the "informing the user" will be more cost effective in the Apple case.
They have billions of dollars for legal costs...
Informing and legally fighting for the user — seemingly the "informing the user" will be more cost effective in the Apple case.
They have billions of dollars for legal costs...
[deleted]
The Institute for Justice has a similar/related set of objectives: https://ij.org/
You seem to have written an internet top comment that is not only positive and hopeful, but also devoid of cynicism. Please remove yourself from the building and leave your badge at the reception. As a security measure, you will be followed to your car. Don't come back ever again. Thanks!
Sorry about that. Won’t do it again.
EDIT: Ah the sad irony of you being downvoted for this comment... I guess the balance has been restored! Sigh...
EDIT: Ah the sad irony of you being downvoted for this comment... I guess the balance has been restored! Sigh...
Don't bother. Feeling helpless all the time is a good way to avoid frustration, joy, or anything worth feeling, really. It is also incredibly easy. If you look for reasons to feel bad you're surely going to find them. Hope is reserved for the courageous. Have a wonderful weekend. Cheers!
> Have a wonderful weekend.
You too :)
You too :)
>Every time I read about what the EFF is doing I get the sense that their priorities are clear, they’re fighting a good fight and in my case they’re generally acting in line with the values/beliefs I hold around the areas they get involved with.
I no longer feel this way. They got heavily partisan in the last few years and their statements on online censorship are weak and incoherent.
Why is their website on censorship (https://onlinecensorship.org/) abandoned and only contains examples from one side of the political spectrum?
Why are their lawyers participating in pro-censorship industry panels?
Where was EFF when New York Post's reporting on Hunter Biden laptop was censored by Twitter and Facebook? That was completely unprecedented, probably the biggest case of big tech censorship ever. (And yes, that reporting was accurate, contrary to what many here probably have heard: https://rumble.com/vmteq5-new-proof-emerges-about-the-hunter... .)
Where is EFF when YouTube relentlessly deletes educational videos, congressional testimonies and interviews with doctors when they say something "prohibited" about Covid-related topics?
I no longer feel this way. They got heavily partisan in the last few years and their statements on online censorship are weak and incoherent.
Why is their website on censorship (https://onlinecensorship.org/) abandoned and only contains examples from one side of the political spectrum?
Why are their lawyers participating in pro-censorship industry panels?
Where was EFF when New York Post's reporting on Hunter Biden laptop was censored by Twitter and Facebook? That was completely unprecedented, probably the biggest case of big tech censorship ever. (And yes, that reporting was accurate, contrary to what many here probably have heard: https://rumble.com/vmteq5-new-proof-emerges-about-the-hunter... .)
Where is EFF when YouTube relentlessly deletes educational videos, congressional testimonies and interviews with doctors when they say something "prohibited" about Covid-related topics?
Sucks that people here are downvoting you for speaking the truth. Seems the HN userbase has its own ingrained biases.
Why EFF did this is to get journalists to get a story to write about the issue. Nobody involved cared whether anyone at Apple saw it.
Yes. People forget that non-profits have marketing budgets too.
[deleted]
Exactly, and for around $1000 they got good bang for the buck. A reasonable expense for lots of publicity about an important issue.
> EFF did this is to get journalists to get a story to write about the issue.
Except exactly 0 articles were written outside of them writing an article about it themselves. Where is the 'lots of publicity'? They generate just as much when they write and article about anything in general.
Except exactly 0 articles were written outside of them writing an article about it themselves. Where is the 'lots of publicity'? They generate just as much when they write and article about anything in general.
>Except exactly 0 articles were written outside of them writing an article about it themselves
It was also covered by MacRumors: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/24/eff-apple-park-banner-c...
It was also covered by MacRumors: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/24/eff-apple-park-banner-c...
Ahh finally found one! Btw that was published after it hit the front page here.
See? Story seeding in progress. This thread is welcomed to the media ecochain.
I am rather disapointed to see HN has more power to seed a story than the EFF.
If an organisation writes an article to promote a cause, and it gets picked up and commented on by other websites... isn't it that original organisation who "seeded" the story?
Maybe you're right. My point was that having one banner towing flight is not an outrageous expense of money or CO2.
[deleted]
There's still time. Also it made the front page of Hacker News. So I'd say that's a success.
Exactly. Most people who deeply agree with eff probably wouldn't even use an iDevice.
Actually, for those who have a strong concern about user privacy, there have been strong reasons to use Apple. Just a few years ago (2016) Apple spent an enormous amount of money and reputation going to court against the US government arguing that guarding the privacy of their users even from the FBI was vital even in a case involving terrorism.
But this on-device scanning proposes to undermine that.
But this on-device scanning proposes to undermine that.
I think comparing EFF targets against Apple actions gives us strongly mixed results. Strongly - because you're dead on. Apple set the bar with protecting users there.
Also strongly because Apple set itself up as a supervillian over right to repair & closed ecosystems - and as an IP bully cage fighter.
Also strongly because Apple set itself up as a supervillian over right to repair & closed ecosystems - and as an IP bully cage fighter.
You think they use a Google tracking device instead?
Great way to protest. If they go through I will never have any Apple product again, that’s for sure.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I am already on traditional phone and my iPhone is used only for banking apps in adequate scenario.
Moved my company away from macOS to ARCH. Personally I don't have to wait to see the results of an systemic marketing and pr over product people approach.
Just read today Tim internal memo on The Verge.
Quote: There was much to celebrate, from our remarkable new product line-up to our values driven work around climate change, racial equity, and privacy.
Thanks. I am out of this.
Moved my company away from macOS to ARCH. Personally I don't have to wait to see the results of an systemic marketing and pr over product people approach.
Just read today Tim internal memo on The Verge.
Quote: There was much to celebrate, from our remarkable new product line-up to our values driven work around climate change, racial equity, and privacy.
Thanks. I am out of this.
I've mentioned in another comment as well, whether they go through or not isn't relevant nor will it make this problem actually disappear. The cat is already out of the bag (and has been) in terms of showing what giving up privacy to a closed company will do. If not today, then another day, another egregious action will occur. It's a story as old as time, yet we collectively never learn. By next time though, a carefully coordinated PR message may be part of the 'deployment'.
> The cat is already out of the bag (and has been) in terms of showing what giving up privacy to a closed company will do. If not today, then another day, another egregious action will occur.
I think we differ in our thoughts about what should be done about this, but you’re not wrong here.
I think we differ in our thoughts about what should be done about this, but you’re not wrong here.
'During Apple’s event, a plane circled the company’s headquarters carrying an impossible-to-miss message'
They do know that: - The event was all pre-recorded - Nobody was there to see it. People were either at home or inside watching the keynote.
They should have picked a better time to spend the money.
They do know that: - The event was all pre-recorded - Nobody was there to see it. People were either at home or inside watching the keynote.
They should have picked a better time to spend the money.
As @teddyh pointed out:
> Why EFF did this is to get journalists to get a story to write about the issue. Nobody involved cared whether anyone at Apple saw it.
> Why EFF did this is to get journalists to get a story to write about the issue. Nobody involved cared whether anyone at Apple saw it.
Can you direct me to a single article about this? (no the link for this thread, from their own website does not count)
Ahh finally found one! Btw that was published after it hit the front page here, turns out that HN has more PR power than the EFF.
>turns out that HN has more PR power than the EFF
...what? the EFF is why this is on HN right now
...what? the EFF is why this is on HN right now
‘This’ is a discussion about whether the EFF is worth supporting. I’m not sure that is what they are trying to promote.
'this' is on HN right now becuase rastafang posted it.
I do not pretent to know what their motivation in doing so is, but I for one appreciate them bringing it to attention, 3 days after the EFF published it, in turn 7 days after the actual event itself.
It was unnoticed at the event itself, barely noticed when they wrote a story about it and is only now noticed thanks to being upvoted on here.
I do not pretent to know what their motivation in doing so is, but I for one appreciate them bringing it to attention, 3 days after the EFF published it, in turn 7 days after the actual event itself.
It was unnoticed at the event itself, barely noticed when they wrote a story about it and is only now noticed thanks to being upvoted on here.
The only thing that will prevent Apple from introducing on-device scanning is people voting with their feet.
Nothing else will persuade them to stop this madness.
Nothing else will persuade them to stop this madness.
given the 0-days, it's not just apple scanning your phones
Unless the images are reversed, the writing would be backwards for anyone actually at the headquarters.
The first image is not reversed but maybe it was taken exactly for the purpose of being publicized with the Apple building being visible in the background.
https://www.google.de/maps/@37.3365725,-122.013226,437m/data...
https://www.google.de/maps/@37.3365725,-122.013226,437m/data...
As stated, they probably made several approaches, some with the message facing the evil building, others for the documentation of the event in the images you see.
Great. Thinking about the building and now Cash's "Earning Ring of Hires" is my new head pest.
Off topic, but that HQ building genuinely looks like something from a dystopian sci-fi film.
I wonder how they got FAA permission to fly a private plane low over densly populated ara.
Do a search for either skywriting or air/sky tours, for a major city like NYC or SF, and you'll find companies offering planes and helicopters pretty low across the city for personal or promotional reasons. Not even that expensive, at least on the non-premium tours. Though a pretty nasty business in my opinion, both for wasting fuel on private flights and for making noise over lots of people in the city who get no benefit from having machines rumbling above their heads.
Unless you're talking about specifically thinking it looks too low in the photos, in which case I would assume it's just a case of their doing a good job planning the positions for two different flights to get great photos of one from the other that are framed well around the Apple locations.
Unless you're talking about specifically thinking it looks too low in the photos, in which case I would assume it's just a case of their doing a good job planning the positions for two different flights to get great photos of one from the other that are framed well around the Apple locations.
There’s surprisingly little regulation for GA aircraft. Curious what rule you think they were breaking?
There's a minimum flight altitudes over populated areas of 1000ft in the US.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119
If it counted as not a "congested area" than that drops to 500 feet.
It's a city. It's congested.
Here's a fun (?) fact: the FAA explicitly refuses to define the term "congested." In one case, they actually claimed that an area with one person was congested. Not sure if that held up on appeal. In any event, they've stated their desire to retain "enforcement flexibility" which, to me, is kinda BS. I've flown over a lot of areas where it wasn't obvious whether it counted as congested or not, and that 500' made a difference. (Next to a mountain, for example.)
This area, though, is definitely congested.
Here's a fun (?) fact: the FAA explicitly refuses to define the term "congested." In one case, they actually claimed that an area with one person was congested. Not sure if that held up on appeal. In any event, they've stated their desire to retain "enforcement flexibility" which, to me, is kinda BS. I've flown over a lot of areas where it wasn't obvious whether it counted as congested or not, and that 500' made a difference. (Next to a mountain, for example.)
This area, though, is definitely congested.
Do you have a link to that case? Sounds really interesting.
I thought this type of advertising was quite common in the US?
It was, a few generations ago. That and blimps. I've seen little of either, over the last 20 years.
It's still somewhat common in coastal areas. Though I realize "common" leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
Authoritarians are often surprised to find out that people do actually have some limited freedoms left in the US.
When they see people exercising those freedoms they are often alarmed and quickly write their politicians to ensure those freedoms are curbed.
the parent is clearly one of those authoritarians.
When they see people exercising those freedoms they are often alarmed and quickly write their politicians to ensure those freedoms are curbed.
the parent is clearly one of those authoritarians.
Most people just have wildly incorrect ideas about flight because their only experience with it is the hellscape that is major airports. When that's all you've ever seen, it's natural not to understand that it's an extreme, not the mean.
It is funny how my original comment was downvoted to -1. The fact it has generated multiple thoughtful, polite, and informative responses shows that the question was not without the merit.
I think the fact it was downvoted was because some people precieved it as criticism of EFF. This is not true. I support EFF and personally do not use iPhone as a matter of principle. I was just curios about FAA regulations since I do not see many low-flying private airplaines over the Bay Area and asked an honest technical question.
I think the fact it was downvoted was because some people precieved it as criticism of EFF. This is not true. I support EFF and personally do not use iPhone as a matter of principle. I was just curios about FAA regulations since I do not see many low-flying private airplaines over the Bay Area and asked an honest technical question.
Upvoted to help balance you out :)
I used to train pilots for a living. Just eyeballing it from the photos but that looks like 1000' AGL to me. Plus, that building is in San Jose's airspace, which means that aircraft was in contact with and radar-identified by San Jose ATC; the FAA therefore has a radar tape for that aircraft including altitude squawks. So unless that pilot is a complete idiot, there's no way in hell they busted 91.119.
tl;dr the plane displayed the message “Apple, don’t scan our phones!”
There, saved you a click.
There, saved you a click.
Thanks. Such an unexciting topic. Right? Apple and privacy.
Who cares? Nobody.
What about MXX ultra-mega processors, they are life saving and worth reading million articles with rumors and speculations.
What about MXX ultra-mega processors, they are life saving and worth reading million articles with rumors and speculations.
So this is where my donation dollars go? To burn fossil fuel for a photo where Photoshop would suffice?
Planes make up a small percentage of fossil fuel emissions, in fact, rice production is closely behind it in pollution statistics.
That's the same argument as "we don't need to bother about our own consumption because China has coal-fired power stations".
That is a very myopic perspective. You are using a computer and internet that uses electricity that is produced using fossil fuels and all its components are produced directly of fossil fuels/oil and/or only able to be extracted from the earth by the use of fossil fuels.
You live in a house/home that was produced by the use of fossil fuels. Likely every single thing all around you wherever you are right this second is made of or with fossil fuels.
Plastics, the building, soaps, lotions, the table and chair, the lamps and lightbulbs, the cables, the microwave and oven/stove, the carpet/flooring, your clothing, any makeup you use, the toilet paper, deodorant, all your food (even produce), the packaging of your food, the preservatives that are used to feed you in your city that is so far away from food sources, … and on and on and on. … ALL use and made with fossil fuels.
You live in a house/home that was produced by the use of fossil fuels. Likely every single thing all around you wherever you are right this second is made of or with fossil fuels.
Plastics, the building, soaps, lotions, the table and chair, the lamps and lightbulbs, the cables, the microwave and oven/stove, the carpet/flooring, your clothing, any makeup you use, the toilet paper, deodorant, all your food (even produce), the packaging of your food, the preservatives that are used to feed you in your city that is so far away from food sources, … and on and on and on. … ALL use and made with fossil fuels.
Oh how far the once noble EFF have fallen.
At least my donations are being used so they can have some fun doing shit tier youtube clickbait 'stunts'. I am looking forward to the 'its just a prank bro' series.
At least my donations are being used so they can have some fun doing shit tier youtube clickbait 'stunts'. I am looking forward to the 'its just a prank bro' series.
Yeah, they should get back to raising awareness of electronic freedom issues.
Oddly 'rasing awareness' doesnt appear in what they define as their role.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.
I would rather see them fly in with a lawsuit on durring apples keynote than fly a plane overhead for a photo op.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.
I would rather see them fly in with a lawsuit on durring apples keynote than fly a plane overhead for a photo op.
It’s cool when you find an organisation whose actions line up with your view of the world like that, and appears to be pretty effective too.
Someone else commented about the cost of this “stunt”, but I can’t see it costing a huge amount to pull off in the big scheme of things, and it does make for some excellent visuals which as someone else pointed out, may give some journalists a “hook” into the story.
I don’t donate much (monthly recurring) but I’m pretty happy with what I see coming out of the EFF and am happy to support them.
By the way, if anyone is on the fence about donating, check out their site as you can get some “cool”[1] EFF swag in return for your donation too:
https://supporters.eff.org/donate/
[1] No guarantees implied or given about how “cool” others will think your swag actually is.