> Are you broadly suggesting there should be rules for what type of articles can be written on the internet (presumably that align with your values)?
Yes, the EFF should not be promoting FUD.
As I have stated several times in my comments, if the EFF had chosen a less sensationalist title, there would be no grounds to label this as FUD.
> And that it's okay if someone else wrote the article?
Yes, if someone had written such an article for their personal blog, or as a private individual on a site like hackaday, then it wouldn't have the endorsement of the EFF.
> Are you suggesting that EFF should not have done the investigation in the first place
No, however their choice to pulicize an otherwise unnoteworthy event was in my opinion, an extremely poor choice.
> As an EFF supporter myself, I enjoyed the article. I liked the walkthrough of the investigation, and all the steps they used to deduce the source of the tracker. It was interesting on its face, and also educates on a methodology for making deductions for other things.
That's fine, and I'm not here saying "the EFF should not be doing this" I feel I've been very consistent in saying:
* the title is sensationalist and this is bad for the EFF's credibility
* the methods in the article are very amateur, a more detailed investigation and/or a discussion about the privacy and legality of vehicle tracking would have been much more in keeping with the EFF's stated mission
I think it is within their remit to discuss such issues.
I enjoyed reading it, I feel it received quite a harsh critique for a short article that was well written and engaging.
If the goal was to get people thinking about the privacy implications, it worked. Here we are talking about it on HN.
With the suggested title "a car dealership installed a third-party GPS tracking device in a vehicle" I doubt I would have read it. If it hadn't been by the EFF I doubt I would have considered the privacy implications.
Yes, the EFF should not be promoting FUD.
As I have stated several times in my comments, if the EFF had chosen a less sensationalist title, there would be no grounds to label this as FUD.
> And that it's okay if someone else wrote the article?
Yes, if someone had written such an article for their personal blog, or as a private individual on a site like hackaday, then it wouldn't have the endorsement of the EFF.
> Are you suggesting that EFF should not have done the investigation in the first place
No, however their choice to pulicize an otherwise unnoteworthy event was in my opinion, an extremely poor choice.
> As an EFF supporter myself, I enjoyed the article. I liked the walkthrough of the investigation, and all the steps they used to deduce the source of the tracker. It was interesting on its face, and also educates on a methodology for making deductions for other things.
That's fine, and I'm not here saying "the EFF should not be doing this" I feel I've been very consistent in saying:
* the title is sensationalist and this is bad for the EFF's credibility
* the methods in the article are very amateur, a more detailed investigation and/or a discussion about the privacy and legality of vehicle tracking would have been much more in keeping with the EFF's stated mission