Electronic Frontier Foundation bails from Global Network Initiative

The Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) has resigned from the Global Network Initiative (GNI), citing the presence of GNI members who co-operated with the NSA as making its ongoing involvement untenable. The GNI was established in 2008 and aims to promote privacy and freedom of speech online. Its membership roster comprises …

[Homer 1]

EFF should have known from the outset

Rights and corporate interests do not mix.

[John Smith 19]

GNI. Just 1 network to listen in on.

How convenient.

I'm not surprised the NSA is such a supporter.

[btrower]

Mistake in headline.

It's Electronic Frontier Foundation, not Electronic Frontiers Foundation. I'm a member and I have three of the T-Shirts.

[starfryer]

Re: Mistake in headline.

Splitters!

[gazthejourno]

Re: Mistake in headline.

But EVERYONE knows there's an infinite number of frontiers on the internet!

(good spot, but please use the corrections link to tell us next time!)

[Mephistro]

Re: Mistake in headline. (@ gazthejourno)

Perhaps I'm being more noobish than usual today, but I wasn't able to find the corrections link, even after searching inside the article's page. Interesting article nevertheless. Wonder why it took the EFF so long to notice the issue with GNI.

[Evan Essence]

Re: Mistake in headline. (@ gazthejourno)

The Send Corrections link is just above the first comment here.

[Captain DaFt]

Re: Mistake in headline. (@ gazthejourno)

"The Send Corrections link is just above the first comment here."

The link is nowhere to be found on the mobile site.

(Maybe El Reg thinks all the 'Bois and 'Droids are too illiterate to notice?)

[Turtle]

Until.

" the EFF feels its signature cannot ever appear on the same letterhead as the likes of Google"

And they're going to continue to feel that way until they need more Googlebucks.

[James 100]

Rejected for acting under duress?

Given the NSA's status, I doubt it was a case of the NSA asking nicely for their help in snooping and all the companies rolled out the red carpet for them - more a case of "we're going to connect these boxes up, and you're not allowed to peek inside or monitor them or we'll make you disappear in secret".

Right now we know these companies are fighting in court over it, despite ongoing gagging orders: is the EFF really attacking the right people here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Rejected for acting under duress?

" is the EFF really attacking the right people here?"

Doesn't sound to me like an attack on the corporates, just stating the facts that we now know. If anything, it's increasing the pressure not just to let the comfy status quo lie, and could actually help the corporates in their own battles, if they're genuine.

It worries me that discussions of security over-reach often morph into assigning blame on others than the establishment, probably because we feel so unable to reign then in; they've successfully disempowered us.

[Anonymous Coward]

"As a result, EFF longer no believes we can sign our name onto joint statements

that rely on shared knowledge of the security of company products or their internal processes"

Distinct lack of proof reading at the EFF.

[Pseu Donyme]

I'm afraid the reality of it is that the big US corps don't actually give a hoot about privacy (if there is money to be made). Case in point: Google's current troubles with CNIL and other EU data protection authorities.

[tom dial]

I call BS on "It has become clear that affected companies are unable even to talk about secretorders they have received from the US government." That has been common knowledge since the PATRIOT Act was passed in 2001 or 2002, and the EFF itself filed a lawsuit in 2011 against National Security Letters (which it won last March). Recent events may have caused them to feel embarrassed, but EFF's pretending any degree of surprise or shock is disingenuous, at least, and decreases my respect for them.

[asdf]

rant alert

> EFF's pretending any degree of surprise or shock is disingenuous, at least, and decreases my respect for them.

I sure as shit still have a lot more respect for the EFF than I do for those assholes at the NSA who feed us the ultimate disingenuous bullshit that they are protecting us. Funny the Stasi used the same lines and had the same mission (protect the current government from the people at all costs).

[Danny O'Brien]

Yes, we were aware of the nature of NSLs and FISA court requests, but there's also been confusing indications of other forms of coercion and collaboration that go beyond even that, and which we were not aware of. See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/why-doesnt-skype-include-stronger-protections-against-eavesdropping for more on this.