#1 investigates breaches of Internet civil liberties.
#2 Provide legal support to people who's civil liberties has been violated. Mostly related to free speech.
#3 Protects security researchers from government harassment, particularly those who produce encryption software.
#4 Develops software security tools, like https everywhere.
#5 Uses legal tools to get government to admit and publicly release documents related to surveillance, incorrect search and seizures, anti-file sharing laws, patents and free speech. see more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_litigation_involving_t...
I'd also like to add that you can just call them up and ask about stuff. Try that at a regular law firm. A few years back I was threatened with a cease and desist because commenters on my site were talking about someone. I called the EFF and they put me right through to a lawyer who explained that the DMCA, of all things, protected me as a service provider, and that I could essentially tell the other party to go fuck themselves.
I mean, they didn't say it like that.... But still, very valuable. Likely saved me thousands of dollars with a 5 minute phone call.
And, my god, I never would have expected to have to hide behind the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act)! I used to protest against that thing like a maniac before it was passed!
Come on, you didn't know what was in the bill but were against it because someone on the internet said "it's bad"?
Seriously, 5 minutes on wikipedia is all it takes.
He didn't say he didn't know what was in the bill, just that he needed a lawyer's advice on the bill's interpretation. That's what lawyers are for. Wikipedia does not provide legal advice.
There's plenty bad with the DMCA and how companies use and abuse it to be against it, but it can also be used for good.
>There's plenty bad with the DMCA and how companies use and abuse it to be against it, but it can also be used for good.
yeah, we protested back in the day because the DMCA made it illegal to decrypt DVD's with DeCSS, which, to this day, is why you cannot watch DVD's legally in Linux without paying someone. For our protest, we actually printed out the code to DeCSS and handed it out to people saying "This piece of paper is illegal, you cannot read this piece of paper." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS
The DMCA did a lot of stuff like this. It essentially laid the groundwork for future Internet and IP laws. It was the first law to address the content of the Internet, so it was a bit of a landmark.
The clause that's in there that ended up protecting me was where the DMCA states that service providers cannot be held accountable for the things their users say. Huge, awesome bit, that. Definitely a serious 20/20 hindsight thing. I can play DVD's on my Linux machine now, too... Though not legally, really.
If you want to fund security tool development, consider contributing directly to that. For instance, the effort to audit Truecrypt is still raising funds:
The security of Truecrypt is incredibly important to privacy efforts.
If you're looking to provide legal support to people, consider donating to ACLU. By the numbers, ACLU appears to be a much more effective way of converting donations to legal support for civil liberties cases. I have some reservations about EFF but unreservedly support ACLU.
As a security researcher working in encryption, I'm not sure what #3 is about. I'm more likely to have the government offer me money (I won't work for the government, haven't in the past, or even accept DARPA grants) than harass me.
EFF is indeed not alone in needing support. For development, The Truecrypt audit is a good example, as well is the tor project. Freedom box is a good third.
ACLU and EFF has joined their forces on several issues. EFF legal support is about Internet civil liberties cases, while ACLU has the broader scope of "the Constitution and laws of the United States". For example, ACLU domain covers anti-war protesters. When one is considering where to send donation money, a larger or small scope has both benefits and drawbacks.
One could argue that that was the past and do not reflect today. Hotz might disagree a bit on that subject, as well as each time someone has had "anti-drm circumvention laws" being thrown at them for doing security research. I personally have not forgotten ACTA as a recent example where today's government still want to create laws that hinders security researcher in their job.
Likewise. I have some reservations about the ACLU (but nonetheless support many areas of their work) but wholeheartedly support the ACLU.
Because I know folks will ask me, I think that antidiscrimination law and things like first amendment rights so frequently conflict that I think there is a real conflict of interest when an organization takes on both. The ACLU does take on both, or they claim to, but this usually means pushing antidiscrimination law over first amendment issues, which I think is a real problem.
The ACLU's position in a lot of issues like Hosana Tabor v. EEOC was wrong (so wrong that all 9 justices disagreed with the ACLU and stood up instead for civil liberties), and they are for corporate free speech on political issues (Citizens United) unless that is discriminatory (Willock Photography). And so forth.
> If you're looking to provide legal support to people, consider donating to ACLU.
The ACLU is doing some important work, particularly in the areas of drones and areas outside the EFF's focus.
I am not that enthusiastic about the ACLU because I think their defence of first amendment issues is rather tepid and has been for decades. In the 1950s they kicked my mother's uncle out for defending the rights of the Communist Party USA to peaceably assemble, and today I am really not happy with the way they look at religious liberty.
The problem with religious liberty and the ACLU is that they seem to look at it entirely as if it is just a piece of anti-discrimination law and nothing more. For this reason they came down 100% on the wrong side of Hosana Tabor v. EEOC, and have generally opposed religious liberty when it conflicts with other anti-discrimination agendas they push. But the First Amendment is not just another piece of anti-discrimination law, and it must have more force than the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Civil Rights Act. The unwillingness to really defend religious freedom outside of the antidiscrimination context is one reason I can't back the ACLU over the EFF.
I COMPLETELY agree that in the realm of timely causes that the TrueCrypt audit is a very crucial short-term need. Even if you don't use it (and I can't think of may reasons not to!) someone or some project that you like or use probably depends on it. And not being able to say with certainty that it has not been corrupted this needs to be answered.
As far as the EFF and ACLU meh...neither particularly excite me there are distinct differences to be sure. But it is the similarities that make me feel nonplussed about support. The way I think of these orgs if there is something specific you think they do well and more importantly if it makes you "feel good", then give. As for practical results there are other places your money could be better spent.
Don't forget that when they provide legal support it doesn't just help that person: often cases they take are setting legal precedents that will help future cases. Because new technology is new, a lot of its interactions with the law haven't come to courts (or haven't come to federal appeal courts) before.
In effect, they're contributing to making present and future US law. And they're on the side of civil liberties.
#2 Provide legal support to people who's civil liberties has been violated. Mostly related to free speech.
#3 Protects security researchers from government harassment, particularly those who produce encryption software.
#4 Develops software security tools, like https everywhere.
#5 Uses legal tools to get government to admit and publicly release documents related to surveillance, incorrect search and seizures, anti-file sharing laws, patents and free speech. see more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_litigation_involving_t...