open letter to the EFF

[sab123]

I want to tell you why I've decided to stop donating to EFF for now: I see it doing too many wrong things. It does the right things too but too many wrong things have accumulated, and on the balance I don't think I can support it any more. Please change your policies and I'll support you again. Specifically, I have issues with the following:

"Patent trolls": I believe that your definition is completely wrong. Licensing of the patents is good in general, and also is the only way for the small inventors to make money from their inventions. It's the large corporations like Google and IBM that aim to PREVENT the others from using their inventions are the true patent trolls. On the other hand, I completely agree with your fight to invalidate the ridiculously obvious patents that should not have been granted in the first place, and to simplify the patent reviews.

"Net neutrality " is obviously a bad thing. I want the people who hog the traffic to pay extra rather than be subsidized by me. It wouldn't be an issue if the pay was per usage but in the world where it's easier to charge a flat rate than to count the traffic, there have got to be the other ways to even out the pay.

The association with Charles Manning is a very bad thing. Unlike Edward Snowden, he didn't disclose the conspiracies against the American people, all he did was disclose the valid secret information to the enemies, and deserved to rot in prison for life. No self-respecting organization would touch him with a 10-ft pole. Your celebration of the information thief Aaron Schwarz had been disturbing but now you've outdone yourselves.

In general, the association with the self-proclaimed "progressive" socialist organizations. Again, no self-respecting organization would touch them with a 10-ft pole.

And disrespect for President Trump. I can understand the criticism of his policies where you disagree with him but the personal attacks are disgusting.

Comments

[juan_gandhi]

I mostly agree with all this, but Trump. He's horrible. Remember his Pocahontas yesterday? Is not it a shame?

[sab123]

He is awesome! She claimed to be of American Indian heritage, with little factual reasons. She deserves to be reminded of that non-stop. Just as she needs to be reminded of her #metoo stories. All these lies should not be allowed to be forgotten.

[dennisgorelik]

> She claimed to be

If, instead of "she", you used "Elizabeth Warren" - your remark would be clear (instead of being a charade).

[sab123]

Inability to read the context detected :-)

[dennisgorelik]

The context was "Trump", "Racial slur" and "Pocahontas".
"Elizabeth Warren" was not mentioned even once in your post or previous comments.

You imagining things that do not exist and think that they are real.

[sab123]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winograd_Schema_Challenge

:-)

[dennisgorelik]

Pocahonta charade goes well behind basic reasoning check.

I am surprised to see how reluctant you are to learn better English writing skills. Especially considering that one of your hobbies was to write a book.

[dennisgorelik]

Why is mentioning Pocahontas to native americans - considered to be rude?

[juan_gandhi]

It's like bringing a watermelon to a party organized by your black friends.

[sab123]

I'd say that claiming the heritage without any substantial right to it is offensive, pointing it out is not.

BTW, what's wrong with the watermelon? Would bringing a watermelon to the white friends also be offensive? Why?

Is bringing vodka to Russian friends offensive? How about potatoes? Is mentioning say Gagarin or Sikorsky to Russian friends offensive?

[dennisgorelik]

I had to google that watermelon reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_stereotype

I still do not see why bringing watermelon would be offensive.

In any case, that still explains nothing about why critics refer to "Pocahontas" as "a racial slur".

[juan_gandhi]

I don't see either, but it is.

Telling Navajo people about Pocahontas is just plain plain stupid. Were he an ordinary idiot from the Appallachians, it would be okay, hillbillies. But being a president, he definitely is making a joke about "the indians". Which is insulting.

[dennisgorelik]

> making a joke about "the indians"

What is the meaning of that "Pocahontas" joke?
What is funny about "Pocahontas" remark?

[sab123]

The funny part is that random people (specifically Warren) nowadays claim to be Indinan to get into the spotlight.

[dennisgorelik]

That is a separate story. There are no longer "Indigenous Americans" in the US anymore.
They assimilated into modern American society long time ago.
There are only impersonators (even if they are actual descendants of indigenous Americans) who do these impersonations mostly to capitalize on casino operations rights that the US legal system grants to indigenous "tribes".

But even if we imagine that these "Indians" are a real thing - I still do not see how Pocahontas reference could be offensive to them.

[sab123]

Are you saying that everyone living in the reservations had long ago interbred with the others to the point that their original heritage is not noticeable?

[dennisgorelik]

> interbred with the others

Culturally interbred, not necessarily genetically.
They speak English, they do business in a classical "USA Capitalism" way and the only way they are still "Indians" is because they have some stories about their ancestors (which we all have).

[sab123]

It's the genetic part that matters here. And they keep no less cultural identity than say Russians.

[dennisgorelik]

> It's the genetic part that matters here.

Why does genetic part matter from the perspective of cultural references (such as Pocahontas)?

> they keep no less cultural identity than say Russians.

Russians become Americans in the 1st or the 2nd generation. American Indians are way past that threshold.

[sab123]

Even those that do still remember their origins. So do the Irish, Poles, Jews and pretty much everyone else. And there still are the Russian communities of Orthodox religion, going all the way back to 100 years ago. Not to mention the Jewish communities.

[dennisgorelik]

> Even those that do still remember their origins.

What does it have to do with mentioning Pocahontas?

[sab123]

Once again, in this context "Pocahontas" is Warren's nickname. Given to her for her claims of Native American heritage (as it turns out, she also has an ancestor who evicted the Indians from their ancestral lands into reservations).

[dennisgorelik]

> in this context "Pocahontas" is Warren's nickname

Do you mean that when Trump mentioned "Pocahontas", he was referring to Elizabeth Warren?

[sab123]

Yes.

BTW, the real Pocahontas is a great example of peaceful relations between the natives and an English colony.

[dennisgorelik]

How do you know that when Trump mentioned "Pocahontas", he was referring to Elizabeth Warren and not to actual Pocahontas?

Scratch that. I just listened to that Trump's remark again and finally I understood what he meant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czxeRqosuto

I actually like Trump for that remark. It is witty and funny... for the people who understand the context.
Calling it racial slur is bullshit.

And for people who do not understand (such as these invited "Indian American" veterans) - that remark does not matter either way.

[dennisgorelik]

Did you understand that under "Pocahontas" Trump meant "Elizabeth Warren"?

[lafeber]

>> "Net neutrality " is obviously a bad thing.

Karl Marx once said: “From each according to his ability to pay his internet bills, to each according to his traffic needs”. Or something like that.

>> he did was disclose the valid secret information to the enemies

Actually he was acquitted of aiding the enemies but convicted of theft and espionage. The latter includes one count of passing information through indirect means, known as 18 U.S.C. $793(e). Some media incorrectly calls it Espionage Act of 1917 when in fact this is the still-living remains of the 1950 McCarran Internal Security Act which prohibits any person [whoever, not just a government clerk] in a possession of sensitive info to talk to any non-entitled person [journalist, for instance] about national defense.

[sab123]

I agree that he published the secret information rather than passed it directly to the enemies, but the end result is the same, and actually worse: not only he gave this information to the enemies, he also gave them the credibility for quoting this information.

[dennisgorelik]

> he also gave them the credibility for quoting this information

What is the problem with giving the credibility for quoting this information?
If the US officials did something bad - don't you want to know about it?

[sab123]

I don't think they did anything bad in this particular case.

[dennisgorelik]

So if it was not bad, then why do you imply that credibility of enemies in stating these things - is bad for us?

[sab123]

Because the opinions expressed privately might be not polite to say to someone's face even if they are true. Also, the public and private positions may differ in many situations, especially during negotiations. The counterparty knowing your private limits would cause you harm in negotiations.

[dennisgorelik]

> Because the opinions expressed privately might be not polite to say to someone's face even if they are true.

How is it even relevant?
We are talking about enemies, right?
Why would they care about being polite?
Could you give an example of that exposed information that was impolite to mention?

> The counterparty knowing your private limits would cause you harm in negotiations.

That is true. But how is that relevant to "credibility"?

[sab123]

> We are talking about enemies, right?
> Why would they care about being polite?

Because there are third-parties. And there might be opinions about these third parties. Not to mention that how you communicate with your enemies has effects on the third parties too.

>> The counterparty knowing your private limits would cause you harm in negotiations.
> But how is that relevant to "credibility"?

Easy: suppose someone tells you about someone else's limits. Would your use of this information differ depending on whether you believe this information to be true or a subversion?

[dennisgorelik]

> whether you believe this information to be true or a subversion?

You used incorrect wording then.
It should be "gave them reliable information" not "gave them the credibility".

So, what reliable information did Edward Snowden give to the enemy?

[sab123]

(1) The direct public disclosure does give the credibility. The disclosure in secret to the enemy with the following publication by the enemy without any proof doesn't.

(2) I wasn't talking about Snowden. I support the pardoning of Snowden. Snowden did a major service to the American public, with a minor collateral damage that can be ignored. I was talking about Manning.

[dennisgorelik]

> (1) The direct public disclosure does give the credibility.

... to the person who did that public disclosure. Not to the enemy who read that public report.

> (2) I wasn't talking about Snowden.

Did you mean Manning when you wrote "he"?
Did Manning disclose some secrets publicly? Disclosure of what secrets?

[sab123]

> ... to the person who did that public disclosure.

To the information in the disclosure.

> Did you mean Manning when you wrote "he"?

Yes, who else? He disclosed the secret communications.

[dennisgorelik]

> Yes, who else?

How do I know? My first guess what "Snowden".

> He disclosed the secret communications.

Publicly disclosed?
What communication, specifically, Manning should not have disclosed?

[sab123]

> How do I know? My first guess what "Snowden".

The hint is in the text of the post.

> Publicly disclosed?

Yes, on Wikileaks.

> What communication, specifically, Manning should not have disclosed?

The communications between the State Department and embassies.

Manning disclosures

[dennisgorelik]

> The hint is in the text of the post.

The text of the post mentioned several people, including Edward Snowden, Aaron Schwarz, and Donald Trump.

> The communications between the State Department and embassies.

Oh, I remember these cynical and funny "cables".
The most credibility from that disclosure was gained by the US government. That disclosure gave many reasons to trust US government more. These cables gave good insight about how the US government operate and what is reasonable to expect from the US government. In addition to already published leak, risk of similar leaks in the future would make sure that US government employees and their counterparties would conduct responsible business, instead of launching shady operations under the cover of "top secret" information restriction.

US government is extremely powerful and therefore must be more open. That would benefit everybody, including the US government.

I do not see any meaningful loss at all from these Manning's disclosures.

Re: Manning disclosures

[sab123]

> The text of the post mentioned several people, including Edward Snowden, Aaron Schwarz, and Donald Trump.

The hint is in HOW they've been mentioned.

Re: Manning disclosures

[dennisgorelik]

So what is the difference in how you mentioned Charles Manning vs how you mentioned Edward Snowden, Aaron Schwarz, and Donald Trump?

All of them are males, right?
Therefore all could be referred as "he".

Actually Charles Manning changed his gender, so he is the only one who could have been referred as "she" (unlike other possible interpretations of your words).

Re: Manning disclosures

[sab123]

"The association with Charles Manning is a very bad thing. Unlike Edward Snowden, he..."

Is it really that hard to understand?

I don't care what Manning calls himself now, he was a male when he committed his crime, so in any case this is the pronoun that should be used when discussing it, even if you subscribe to his sex-change preference. I don't care about his preference and think that it only creates confusion, if he decided to become a fake woman later, that's his personal problem, I prefer to refer to his true gender.

Re: Manning disclosures

[dennisgorelik]

> Is it really that hard to understand?

The statement itself is understandable.
But it is hard to understand who you mean when you are starting to use "he" in your comments.

> I don't care what Manning calls himself now

It is not about what you think about how to refer to Manning (he/she), but more about what your readers think about it.

> I prefer to refer to his true gender

That is your choice. The next step is to start referring to Manning as "Charles Manning" and not "he" -- in order to avoid ambiguity in your explanation.