Skip to comments.The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a Soros funded net neutrality astroturf group
Posted on 10/30/2010 5:47:29 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
The first direct link above is to Soros' own web page. Many of you will choose not to click on it and well that's your choice. But some of you should actively look and see for yourself.
Open the PDF, scroll down to the year 2008.
Electronic Frontier Foundation got 300,000 dollars from Soros.
Now scroll down to the year 2007.
Another 100,000 dollars. So the total is 400k. And there is more. Let's take a look at who it is that sits on their various boards:
I am aware of Ethan Zuckerman being a Soros buddy because of a prior dig into some boards; namely wikipedia. For background, look to these threads:
As we continue on to the EFF's board of directors we see this:
Pamela Samuelson is with the ACLU. And on their staffing page:
Right at the top, another ACLU person, Kevin Bankston. But some of these are simply because it's honestly and openly listed.
I know I'm not the only one who goes advisory board digging to see who the who's who are, I'm sure others of you who also do this will recognize other names that I'm not recognizing. If they already have at least one open society institute connected individual there along with some ACLU people........ AND they take money from the open society institute, they are absolutely dirty. I just don't know the full extent of what I'm looking at.
For one, there are freepers around here which I shall not name out of respect who look with respect upon the EFF and because the EFF supports net neutrality, they support net neutrality.
If we are lucky, that ends here. But beyond that:
For two, The EFF is one of many hack astroturf soros funded "we will silence you online" net neutrality supporting groups out there this is held up high as a trusted mouthpiece. They are not to be trusted.
I may be only one person, but I will do my part to ruin the EFF's plans, Soros plans' and anybody else who threatens my freedom. I will not be silenced online as long as I am capable of looking into these peoples' own breadcrumb trails.
The EFF does it's fair share of propagandizing the internet with garbage such as: http://www.realnetneutrality.org/ so IMHO, they are a good target to go after.
the face of net neutrality
Admins; yes this is my own digging. But please consider leaving this in one of the sidebars. The EFF is held up high and proud by just about any progressive media outlet you can think of and they are *never* questioned in any way that I’ve ever seen or can currently find.
Furthermore, they support net neutrality which is the fairness doctrine for the internet - and why all this is important is obvious. IMHO we need to do what we can to expose every one of these scumbags before it’s too late.
I’m not defending EFF here, but I’d like to point out that EFF preceded Soros and his machinations. Let’s not make the mistake of thinking that EFF is a Soros effort. They might be allies on this, but EFF is not a Soros owned or started project.
EFF has at times stood for proper freedoms, but they have a strong lefty slant, just the same.
This is sad for me to hear...It’s been my impression that the EFF was on the side of the good guys.
-—————Im not defending EFF here, but Id like to point out that EFF preceded Soros and his machinations.——————
So did NPR. Right?
-——————Lets not make the mistake of thinking that EFF is a Soros effort.-—————————
Not started by, no.
Well, take it for what it’s worth.
Follow all the links and see for yourself.
If you object, please come back here and post your reasons why.
—————Its been my impression that the EFF was on the side of the good guys.-—————
Then I am even more thankful that I posted this.
EFF was founded in 1990, in response to the State Department’s attacks on Steve Jackson Games. Soros had nothing to do with it. At least not then.
But then, there was a time that the Sierra Club was actually interested in protecting the environment.
Groups can be subverted. This may be what has been going on at the EFF.
Soros doesn’t make distinctions between left and right when he buys souls.
—————Groups can be subverted. This may be what has been going on at the EFF.-—————
Well, you see that I posted right directly from soros.org and eff.org. It isn’t like I’m making this up here.
And 400k isn’t insignificant.
And then there’s their board members............
-—————EFF was founded in 1990-———————
NPR was founded in 1970. I think it’s safe to say that they are a wing of soros enterprises inc.
Now, EFF may not be as far gone as NPR is, but they are clearly on that path.
I’m more interested in the souls who are willing to be bought.
EFF had it’s price. I know I wouldn’t take that dirty money.
Unless of course if they didn’t know. But they have ACLU and soros people right on their boards. So it’s hard to argue anything else.
I didn’t know EFF was a Soros funded op. Thx for the head’s up.
Just make sure you’ve clicked the links and seen for yourself.
I may have been the one to put this together, but I want the information to speak for itself.
You probably know the story of the sanke. but if not;
Some universal tales have variations shared worldwide. Stories carry lessons for young and old. Stories do not always represent reality so much as they teach lessons, values and morals. The following is a very old story told by Cherokee, Seneca, Hindu, and many other people all around the world.
The Little Boy and The Rattlesnake
The little boy was walking down a path and he came across a rattlesnake. The rattlesnake was getting old. He asked, “Please little boy, can you take me to the top of the mountain? I hope to see the sunset one last time before I die.” The little boy answered “No Mr. Rattlesnake. If I pick you up, you’ll bite me and I’ll die.” The rattlesnake said, “No, I promise. I won’t bite you. Just please take me up to the mountain.” The little boy thought about it and finally picked up that rattlesnake and took it close to his chest and carried it up to the top of the mountain.
They sat there and watched the sunset together. It was so beautiful. Then after sunset the rattlesnake turned to the little boy and asked, “Can I go home now? I am tired, and I am old.” The little boy picked up the rattlesnake and again took it to his chest and held it tightly and safely. He came all the way down the mountain holding the snake carefully and took it to his home to give him some food and a place to sleep. The next day the rattlesnake turned to the boy and asked, “Please little boy, will you take me back to my home now? It is time for me to leave this world, and I would like to be at my home now.” The little boy felt he had been safe all this time and the snake had kept his word, so he would take it home as asked.
He carefully picked up the snake, took it close to his chest, and carried him back to the woods, to his home to die. Just before he laid the rattlesnake down, the rattlesnake turned and bit him in the chest. The little boy cried out and threw the snake upon the ground. “Mr. Snake, why did you do that? Now I will surely die!” The rattlesnake looked up at him and grinned, “You knew what I was when you picked me up.”
In this case money is a powerful attraction for some.
Unfortunately in our story the rattlesnake kills the whole family while in the boy’s home.
In other words, those on the right who take Soros money should be expelled for the safety of the family. If they ditch the snake they can come back in.
Soros is never, ever, up to anything good. He’s a dirt bag that gets his jollies by spreading anarchy and chaos in the world. I’m sure SOME of those he funds don’t fully understand his agenda but most do and EVERYONE needs to pay attention to this monster.
More seriously, EFF is presently defending Democratic Underground against RightHaven, and hopefully will put a nail in the copyright trolling industry. FreeRepublic chose to settle rather than ensure that fair use is still considered fair use.
EFF has also defended CAIR and other organizations which I have absolutely no like for, but each of those cases was chosen to specifically protect a right we have that others are trying to take away from us.
Like the sale of promo CDs - hey, some may think those CDs are the property of the studios - but do you want to have to pay Ford more to have the right to sell your car? Without the principle of first sale, you will no longer be able to resell anything. Any book publisher could toss in something forbidding lending at a library or selling at a used book store, any car company could forbid resale without permission, to require expensive ‘recertification’ of used cars.
At the time, EFF got two unsolicited donations, which were used for a singular project, then they moved on. On a typical year, the EFF runs in the red, drawing upon their nest egg to continue operations for a specific reason: they don't want anyone controlling the agenda.
While I agree with the need to worry about ‘net neutrality’ being a cover to silence free speech, the one group I'm going to give the most credit to for ensuring my freedom of speech is protected online is the EFF. Not about to toss the baby out with the bath water.
I’ve supported EFF in the past. I will place them on my watch list, and study their actions, before supporting again. I take seriously the notion that Soros is working to co-opt their agenda. Thanks for the red flag.
Many years ago, I was a HUGE fan of Frank Herbert’s writing. In one of the Dune books, he had this great description characterizing someone (I want to say it was Alia, after possession by Baron Harkonnen) laughing wickedly in the night, contemplating the evil they would soon do. That has long struck me as an apt means to describe Mr. Soros. I could see him amused as such, and likely, pleased to discover his notoriety among groups such as ours.
-—————Being that EFF ditched the Soros snake three years ago——————
Did they now?
On what basis do you make this claim?
No, no coopted by Soros, an ally, on this.
Soros may have contributed a few hundred grand to them, but that’s not going to make or break EFF, and EFF will still be around after Soros has gone to meet its maker.
-——————No, no coopted by Soros, an ally, on this.-——————
An ally, on limitting our freedom to speak online? An ally to the orwellian net neutrality?
If I’m reading you wrong, by all means correct me.
But one thing that’s irrefutable is that net neutrality is the fairness doctrine for the internet.
I take Cass at his word.
I think the Dune novels present many provocative ideas that remain very relevant today. Another interesting work is Fritz Lang's 1933 masterpiece "The Testament of Dr Mabuse." In this move, an insane Professor Moriarty like criminal mastermind orchestrates a series of seemingly pointless crimes in order to undermine society. He explains his goals:
"The Empire of Crime"
Humanity's soul must be shaken to its very depths, frightened by unfathomable and seemingly senseless crimes. Crimes that benefit no one, whose only objective is to inspire fear and terror. Because the ultimate purpose of crime is to establish the endless Empire of Crime. A state of complete insecurity and anarchy, founded upon the tainted ideals of a world doomed to annihilation. When humanity, subjugated by the terror of crime, has been driven insane by fear and horror and when chaos has become supreme law, then the time will have come for the empire of crime.
I see much in that parallels the increasingly nihilistic and anarchistic direction of the left. It makes no sense because it is fundamentally irrational.
The Soros donations was in support of his investment in Quanta Computers in their fight against Intel and method patents, where Quanta incorporated Intel parts with non-Intel memory, which Intel claimed violated Intel's method patents as well as intellectual property. The argument was made before SCOTUS in January 2008, and that concluded the Soros funding to EFF.
Oh, and FYI, EFF won the case, which maintained the right of consumers to repair their personal property, even if it violates the license electronic manufacturers try to apply, such as using a non-Apple hard drive in a Mac, or using a non-Tivo authorized harddrive upgrade.
It was a very limited arrangement in support of an investment, because if Quanta lost the suit, Soros' investment in the company would have been ruined.
I remember the founding of the EFF about 20 years ago. What does Soros have to do with it?
I don’t understand why people think that net neutrality poses any threat to anyone’s freedom to speak online, as opposed to preserving it.
—————I dont understand why people think that net neutrality poses any threat to anyones freedom to speak online-——————
Cass told me, told you, told us all that he will silence us.
I take him at his word. You should too. He is in a position to make it happen.
Furthermore, look at the hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars that Soros is putting in to take our freedoms away. The vast majority of soros funded groups support net neutrality.
This isn’t hard to put together. If we don’t stand up, we will silence us.
Put it this way, you and I as freepers - we say a lot of unneutral things.
Alright, fair enough.
I find it suspect no matter what, but here is the thing:
How do you explain the soros and aclu people right there on the EFF’s boards?
That A) they have huge leftists right within their organization, that B) they support free-speech killing net neutrality scheme and C) they take money from open society institute..........
At some point you have to say “no, there’s not really coincedences here”.
What something was and what something is don’t necessarily end up being the same.
EFF is an ally with Soros on this matter. And, it sometimes allies itself with other lefty matters. I’m not a big friend of the EFF, I was only trying to make sure that people understood that EFF and Soros are only incidental allies, not joined at the hip.
I think Rush is pretty confused about what net neutrality actually means. Imposing some sort of “fairness doctrine” on the Internet is absolutely NOT what “net neutrality” means.
“Net neutrality” is the idea that Comcast, which provides VoIP telephone services as well as Internet connection services, should not be allowed to disrupt or block the VoIP telephone services of their competitors for the customers of their Internet connection service, for example.
Undoubtedly Comcast and other big media companies would love to use their Internet services as a tool to protect and enlarge their market share, but that’s what “net neutrality” stands opposed to.
The position is that network services should be “content neutral,” which is where “neutrality” in “net neutrality” comes from.
———————I think Rush is pretty confused about what net neutrality actually means.———————
Cass Sunstein and others in government (and it’s marxist supporters) are making it clear what net neutrality actually means.
Did you see what Cass said? With that, it’s unlikely that Rush got it wrong.
————————Imposing some sort of fairness doctrine on the Internet is absolutely NOT what net neutrality means.-—————
Then you don’t realize how big of a threat Cass is to you.
He means what he says.
-————Net neutrality is the idea that Comcast, which provides VoIP telephone services as well as Internet connection services, should not be allowed to disrupt or block the VoIP telephone services of their competitors for the customers of their Internet connection service, for example.——————
That’s the sales pitch, yes. But unfortunately, you have people in washington who CLEARLY have a different definition.
Do you say a lot of unneutral things online?
Would our regulatory czar consider what you have to say unneutral? (just to be clear, that’s sunstein)
I know I say a lot of unneutral things. And I want to keep saying them.
He's not talking about net neutrality, he's talking about an online fairness doctrine. Those are two entirely different things.
Of course I say and do non-neutral things online, as everyone does, but a regulatory czar over online speech has nothing to do with "net neutrality" requiring Comcast to allow me to access a competing video content provider like Hulu or a competing telephone service provider like Vonage.
——————He’s not talking about net neutrality, he’s talking about an online fairness doctrine.-—————
It’s the classic progressive word game that...........
You mean to tell me that you can’t see through this?
After the century of garbage that progressives have put americans through.
—————a regulatory czar over online speech has nothing to do with “net neutrality” requiring Comcast-——————
Read his writings. He cares nothing for comcast. That’s the ruse to...........
Man, we’ve had a full century of progressive garbage........
How come you can’t see through this? Really? No...... Really?
Is it simply because of the title?
Had they called it the “neutrality doctrine” for the internet, or called it “net fairness” so that the titles were a little closer, would that work?
I just........... I can’t believe this. I’m flabbergasted.
I mean, I could see their sales pitches working on your average ny slimes reader, but we’re freepers. Shouldn’t more of us be immune to this rebranding stuff?
For anybody who may stumble upon this in the future, the following thread may be useful:
Why was the EFF so willing to take soros money? It could be that the Berkman Center is highly activist, and so many people within the EFF come from Berkman, and Berkman/EFF are very friendly organizations.
I’m doing research right now - I figured a follow up to this thread was good enough, instead of a new discussion.
The electronic frontier foundation is very friendly with the berkman center. Ok. So who funds the Berkman center?
Look at the list. It’s a who’s-who of left wing foundations and left wing corporations. Such as Microsoft, the John D/Catherine T Foundation, John S/James L Knight foundation, the Ford foundation(All freepers should be well acquainted with the ford foundation by now) the leftists at Google support them, and yes, the Open Society Institute(Soros) also supports Berkman. Al-Reuters is on the list, as is Viacom. The drive by media supports Berkman!
My fellow freepers, the internet is a target. We should know who our enemies are. Berkman and the EFF are not our friends if we wish to retain our freedoms.
Look at their own website. No other conclusion to come to.
Thanks for the follow-up. The truth has been revealed in enough places. EFF is dead to me.
I can better answer this now.(see some of the last few posts above this)
The Berkman center at Harvard is an infestation, and it too is soros funded. That’s where some of the other original members of EFF come from - whom Mitch Kapor worked with at it’s founding. I mention Kapor specifically because he now sits on the board of the Soros funded Sunlight Foundation.
Here’s the thing about Soros. He doesn’t seek to buy people off, not that I know of. He goes and funds people who *ALREADY BELIEVE* what he believes.
And that’s the key. That’s why he funds Berkman, that’s why he funded the EFF, and that’s why he funded wikipedia.
Astroturf, definition, a front organization created by a political or corporate entity to feign the appearance of a grassroots movement.
Example: “Hands Off The Internet” was a pretend grassroots organization created by the telco industry to combat net neutrality, trying to frame it as a pro-consumer stance.
EFF: Created in 1990 by two guys (one a libertarian and former Dick Cheney campaign coordinator) whose personal experiences led them to the realization that government was clueless about technology in relation to law enforcement and civil liberties. It has since grown to be the preeminent digital civil liberties organization (including combating Righthaven).
Quit your lie that the EFF is astroturf. It is absolutely blown.
I heard about wikipedia being liberal quite a few years ago.
—————Astroturf, definition, a front organization created by a political or corporate entity to feign the appearance of a grassroots movement.——————
What do you call an organization which is no longer grass roots - instead all that remains is an entity full of paid(or ideological) hacks with intent to feign the appearance of a grassroots movement?
It still is. Net neutrality is only one tiny, recent issue they've taken up among dozens they're active in, many of which you probably agree with. Get your definitions straight. EFF is not astroturf. There's no use discussing until you can be honest with your descriptions.
—————It still is.-—————
That’s preposterous. It’s loaded with paid for soros shills and hacks and other progressive shills and hacks from all over academia.
By definition it isn’t grassroots.
Do you believe in anonymous free speech? EFF has defended that.
Do you have a problem with insecure e-voting machines? EFF was at the forefront against them.
Do you mind laws like COICA and other Internet censorship bills that give the government expanded police authority for the purpose of being the copyright cartel’s enorcers? They’ve been against that. I recently told you about two more such bills going through the system, and the EFF is the main opposition.
How about DMCA abuses, being used for anti-competitive purposes, fair use and to silence free speech and academic research? They’ve been the main one against that.
How about those cops reading your cell phone without a warrant? They jumped on that.
They’re like the ACLU online, only without poison issues like abortion and religion. Of course there are going to be a lot of leftists in the organization.
Every one of your questions is flawed.
—————Do you believe in anonymous free speech? EFF has defended that.-—————
No they haven’t. They support big government net neutrality. The marxist version.
——————Do you have a problem with insecure e-voting machines? EFF was at the forefront against them.——————
Who made it a campaign to put out the idea that e-voting machines are insecure? You gonna spout halliburton and Diebold next?
I certainly haven’t been sold on EVMs, but yes I am a skeptic of every argument that a progressive makes. Especially considering things like how they always seem to find trunk loads of votes in odd places.
-————Do you mind laws like COICA-—————
Of course I don’t like that. For virtually the exact same reasons that I oppose net neutrality. But this among several others you listed, is why it’s important to know who these people are.
Look into who some of the major opposers of the COICA are. EFF, Human rights watch, ACLU, and Center for Democracy and technology.
Every one of them is soros funded. The obvious conclusion is this: They don’t oppose these things for the same reasons I do. They don’t oppose them for the same reasons you do either, given that you are a long time freeper.
—————How about DMCA abuses-—————
Those four letters, in my book, have become the biggest reason by far to use linux.
But as far as the EFF and other left wing soros funded groups go, it’s very likely they oppose it because they view it as a corporatist bill, not because of any arguments a conservative would make regarding big government power grabs and freedom from coercion.
—————How about those cops reading your cell phone without a warrant? They jumped on that.-—————
Leftists don’t like ‘them pigs’. You really don’t understand that? According to your bio page, you’ve been freeping for nearly 8 years.
How can you have forgotten something so basic?
-—————Theyre like the ACLU online-——————
They most certainly are! And that’s why I oppose them.
But I’d bet that you could cite chapter and verse about how dangerous the ACLU is for america, because they’ve been attacking america for so long.
You can’t *yet* do that with the EFF. The ACLU has made their real intents unmistakeable, despite whatever posturing they may take. That’s not so yet with the EFF.
-—————only without poison issues like abortion and religion.-—————
Give them time. They’re leftists, they can’t help themselves.
Soros isn’t out there funding the heritage foundation. And both you and I know exactly why. Good thing too, cause Soros money is very dirty.
Yes, they have. For example, Dominick v. MySpace, a politician tried to uncover the identity of a person who was saying things he didn't like on MySpace. EFF defended him in court, and won. This would be a direct parallel to people posting here.
Who made it a campaign to put out the idea that e-voting machines are insecure?
They did, after they found out the machines were demonstrably insecure. This actually gave a bad name to Diebold, who had a good security record until they bought an electronic voting machine company.
Of course I dont like that. For virtually the exact same reasons that I oppose net neutrality.
COICA is the government doing corporations' bidding at the expense of the people. Net neutrality is the government doing the peoples' (and some other corporations') bidding at the expense of corporations. In any case, the EFF is at the forefront of the fight against such bills.
Those four letters, in my book, have become the biggest reason by far to use linux.
Then you have some allies who have been fighting against it since day one, and have defended many of those caught up in its web. Hint: It isn't the likes of the Heritage Foundation.
The story has two morals: You take your allies where you can get them, and a position is not necessarily bad just because of who supports it. We've just agreed that the EFF supports many of your positions, defends many rights you apparently think are important.
The ACLU has made their real intents unmistakeable, despite whatever posturing they may take.
That actually depends on the individual ACLU chapter, it isn't one big organization. Various chapters have defended the rights of Christians to express their faith, while other chapters try to suppress it.