The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a Soros funded net neutrality astroturf group

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.

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:

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.

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.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2722749/posts

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.

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?

-—————They’re 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.

No they haven’t.

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 don’t 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.

—————EFF defended him in court, and won.-—————

Fair enough. I can’t find enough progressive commentary on the case to make any kind of judgement on it.

——————This would be a direct parallel to people posting here.—————

However, this is where you go too far. Progressives *hate* freepers. EFF is loaded up as a leftist organization, there’s no logic in believing that they’d stand with us until they’ve proven that they don’t obey the strings attached. Can you demonstrate that?

———————They did, after they found out the machines were demonstrably insecure.-——————

I’m unable to verify that. I’ve found plenty regarding their involvement, but nothing that indicates that they were at the genesis of the problem’s discovery.

-—————COICA is the government doing corporations’ bidding at the expense of the people.———————

Hence many Soros groups opposing it. It’s viewed as a corporatist bill.

-————Net neutrality is the government doing the peoples’ (and some other corporations’) bidding at the expense of corporations.—————

With all that’s been learned about it, that simply isn’t true.

-————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.——————

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

—————Hint: It isn’t the likes of the Heritage Foundation.—————

*shrug* Fair enough.

I don’t look at Heritage as an end/all be/all defender. Very few groups can do that. Even soros doesn’t try. Instead, he co-ops groups that he knows are co-optable.

————We’ve just agreed that the EFF supports many of your positions, defends many rights you apparently think are important.—————

No we haven’t. Take the COICA for example. You don’t have to search very far to find out that corporatist is exactly why progressives oppose it.

Hint: It isn’t the powergrab that bothers them. It’s the perception of who the real beneficiary of the power grab is that bothers them.

It isn’t like Net Neutrality is the government’s only assault on the internet. You have the kill switch bill and the internet identity ecosystem. Both of which I haven’t seen much of anything from the EFF on. In both of these cases, as well as in net neutrality, it is government and government alone who is empowered. Why would any progressive group oppose any of these? I suppose you could find a handful, but it certainly isn’t a majority.

—————That actually depends on the individual ACLU chapter-—————

Yes, that is true as a general rule. But it’s impossible to always be specific at all times.

The question is, is the ACLU a problem the majority of the time?

-————it isn’t one big organization.-—————

Yeah, they just seem that way because of leftist media.

They follow principle, not politics. Just as the ACLU defended a high school yearbook editor who used her assigned space in the yearbook to praise God, just as they defended that street preacher.

You want pro-business? The EFF was founded on it, when the Secret Service raided a business. After that they fought outdated encryption laws to allow US businesses to compete internationally. They fought for a company that made garage door openers.

But then it gets strange for you. Net neutrality benefits content companies and those who produce the content, like the RIAA/MPAA, yet the EFF has fought against them in court several times, including Sony over their root kit. Wait, they're all cozy with the FCC? Then why were they fighting the FCC over the broadcast flag? And the worst, they are supposedly against Verizon in net neutrality, right? So according to you they must just be against Verizon. But a few years back they defended Verizon against the RIAA.

Your one-dimensional black and white thinking just doesn't fit the facts. The EFF fights on the side of freedom and privacy, ultimately in OUR interests. I admit, I don't agree with all their positions, but you are simply immune to facts if you think they're a leftist organization fighting against conservatives simply on that ideological line.

[COICA] Hence many Soros groups opposing it. It’s viewed as a corporatist bill.

Do you oppose it? If so, you must be a Soros follower by your twisted logic. You see this in the simplistic view of corporations. The real poison, as even Ayn Rand mentioned, is in the incestuous relationship between corporations and government.

I don’t look at Heritage as an end/all be/all defender. Very few groups can do that.

Show me one conservative group defending even half of what the EFF defends on the side of freedom and privacy. Where s the conservative opposition to the DMCA? Where were the conservative constitutionalists when Congress was taking copyright far out of its constitutional mandate?

It isn’t like Net Neutrality is the government’s only assault on the internet.

You seem to think it is. No matter what the issue, no matter how unrelated to net neutrality, you try to paint it as a net neutrality issue. Yes, you have done this, several times. When caught, you try to claim the scope of net neutrality has expanded.

-—————They follow principle, not politics.—————

For progressives, progressivism *is* principle.

—————Your one-dimensional black and white thinking just doesn’t fit the facts.——————

Soros funding, as well as soros fellows on the board is very black and white. Particularly those in leadership roles.

But I must admit, there’s far too much here for me to know all the details on. At a minimum, dates could very well be an important aspect. Some of which may be impossible to find. For example, what was EFF’s makeup 10 years ago? It could’ve very well looked a lot more like the heritage foundation back then.

-——————The real poison, as even Ayn Rand mentioned, is in the incestuous relationship between corporations and government.—————

That’s exactly my point on so much of this. Being as I just saw your posts about Comcast, they happen to be the ones on the top of my mind.

-—————I admit, I don’t agree with all their positions, but you are simply immune to facts if you think they’re a leftist organization fighting against conservatives simply on that ideological line.-——————

Based on some of the things you’ve mentioned here, they may be an organization in transition. For example, General Electric. They’ve clearly become a liberal company, but I can’t say for sure they always have been. So at some point, they had a transition.

—————Do you oppose it? If so, you must be a Soros follower by your twisted logic.—————

They have soros people over there. They’ve taken soros money. At the end of the day, you can’t dispute either one. Nothing twisted about the facts. So let’s flip the coin over. Can you prove that I take soros money? If you can’t, then it’s more than just logic. It’s a matter of having facts as a basis for opinions.

Knowing that Soros funds Berkman, EFF, knowing that there are all these leftists on the board and even in the drivers seat, that has to impact your view of the organization. If it doesn’t, there’s clearly twisted logic going on here, but it isn’t from me.

—————Show me one conservative group defending even half of what the EFF defends on the side of freedom and privacy.—————

You’re looking at this the wrong way. I originally brought up heritage and other conservative groups in a different context. Soros doesn’t fund them. There’s obvious reasons why he doesn’t fund them.

—————Where s the conservative opposition to the DMCA?——————

That’s a good question. For the most part, I don’t see much now about it. Didn’t see much then about it either. A lot of that I’d bet has to do with how it was sold. IIRC, it was sold on the basis of property rights. That is, the content creator’s property. Conservatives are generally in favor of property rights.

The same thing could be said for Joe Biden’s patriot act. But the fact that the patriot act was written by Biden was lost. Instead, the PA has always been sold as a national defense issue. So most conservatives support it despite it’s origin, most conservatives don’t know it’s origin.

-————Where were the conservative constitutionalists when Congress was taking copyright far out of its constitutional mandate?-—————

Give me a date, more specifics. There have been several republican congress’ over the years, but very few conservative congress’.

-—————You seem to think it is.——————

Well, that’s my fault. I apologize. Net Neutrality isn’t the government’s only assault on the internet. It’s just the one with the best name.(easiest to sell; propagandize) It’s the one with the most momentum, probably. Making it the biggest target. And, despite a court telling them no, despite congress telling them no, the FCC emperors did it anyways. And also, it’s been sold to people for so long as one thing, and now we’re learning that that’s not what it is. The old net neutrality that we were all sold on, that I was sold on, I support that. But I’ve come to realize that it doesn’t exist. It never did.

—————No matter what the issue, no matter how unrelated to net neutrality, you try to paint it as a net neutrality issue. Yes, you have done this, several times.-——————

Some of them. Sure, I’ve done that. Some of it has to do with Free Press rabblerousing. Go back and look. Another big aspect of it has to do with silencing people in the modern era. Those in government are going to have to put all these things in place separately, then fuse them at the end so that most won’t realize what’s happened until it’s too late.

They’ve already done this, with some aspects of Obamacare. I’m not making it up, look at the games they’ve played regarding the funding.

I originally brought up heritage and other conservative groups in a different context. Soros doesn’t fund them. There’s obvious reasons why he doesn’t fund them.

So since none of them are fighting for our rights, representing the people against the corrupt powers, then nobody's supposed to do it?

That is, the content creator’s property. Conservatives are generally in favor of property rights.

"Property" rights (actually, only a government-granted limited monopoly) of the few, when they infringe on the freedom of the citizens. Nope, there was nothing except from groups like the EFF.

Unfortunately, conservatism to many means simple blind obedience to corporate interest, as if that always aligned with our interests and our rights.

Give me a date, more specifics. There have been several republican congress’ over the years, but very few conservative congress’.

I'm talking in general, not just the bought-off congresscritters. Let's take the 1998 CTEA, bought and paid for by industry, passed by Congress, signed by Clinton and approved by the Supreme court. Yet it takes copyright far beyond the constitutional mandate for it. DMCA, biggest killer of free speech in a while, crickets from the conservative organizations. The likes of the EFF fought hard against it. Heritage? Anyone?

Sure, I’ve done that. Some of it has to do with Free Press rabblerousing.

FP covers many issues besides net neutrality, so does the EFF. But whenever they say anything, you equate it with net neutrality.

-————I originally brought up heritage and other conservative groups in a different context. Soros doesn’t fund them. There’s obvious reasons why he doesn’t fund them.

So since none of them are fighting for our rights, representing the people against the corrupt powers, then nobody’s supposed to do it?-—————

I reject your question because it assumes that marxists actually fight for freedom. Or progressives.

They characterize healthcare as a freedom issue.

—————Unfortunately, conservatism to many means simple blind obedience to corporate interest, as if that always aligned with our interests and our rights.—————

There’s a difference between corporate interest and corporate property.

————I’m talking in general, not just the bought-off congresscritters-—————

This is why I asked you for dates and times. And there’s one other element besides those who have been bought off, there’s also big government establishment republicans - progressive republicans.

———The likes of the EFF fought hard against it.-——————

But you aren’t asking why. Why did the EFF fight against it? All of us freepers should be well versed in how progressives cloak everything they do in the disguise of ‘rights’. If every bit of evidence points to EFF as a progressive organization, then it’s a fair question to ask “did they fight it because they viewed it as a corporatist bill”.

—————FP covers many issues besides net neutrality——————

The important thing to note is that on every issue(Net Neutrality included) they cover it from a marxist point of view. They can claim freedom all they want. As marxists, they are clueless about freedom.

I reject your question because it assumes that marxists actually fight for freedom. Or progressives.

So because Heritage doesn't cover it, we're supposed to roll over when the corporations buy more unconstitutional powers for themselves from Congress?

There’s a difference between corporate interest and corporate property.

Not for this type. Their interest is their property. Their copyright is their interest, and it is their "intellectual property." What ever the corporations want, we must give it to them in the name of conservatism, because apparently the only battle you see is the one against an over-expanding government.

And there’s one other element besides those who have been bought off, there’s also big government establishment republicans - progressive republicans.

And the "conservatives" who give anything corporations ask for.

Why did the EFF fight against it?

Because that's in their charter, from when it was formed in the beginning in response to an over-reaching government, one of the founders being a former Cheney campaign manager.

If every bit of evidence points to EFF as a progressive organization, then it’s a fair question to ask “did they fight it because they viewed it as a corporatist bill”.

But the evidence doesn't, so that's not a fair question. I've shown you the evidence of them taking sides in corporate vs. corporate and government vs. corporate on a corporation's side. They operate on principle -- freedom. That is the only way to explain how they'd be fighting for a telco in one suit, and opposing telcos in other matters. Yes, the group that fought crypto export laws against the government in favor of corporations, specifically citing that it hinders their international competitiveness, is purely anti-corporate. The facts do not justify your conclusions. You only know of the EFF after their involvement in this one issue, so you really don't know what you're talking about.

—————And the “conservatives” who give anything corporations ask for.-—————

Have you ever noticed how progressive republicans grow their power base?

—————Why did the EFF fight against it?

Because that’s in their charter-—————

Due to the nature of their funding, the answer is clearly much deeper than that.

-——————from when it was formed in the beginning in response to an over-reaching government, one of the founders being a former Cheney campaign manager.——————

Was this person a progressive republican or a conservative republican?

-————But the evidence doesn’t, so that’s not a fair question.-————

There’s enough to make the case, especially considering their support for big government net neutrality. Net neutrality doesn’t shrink government, you’ve been careful not to claim that it does.

————I’ve shown you the evidence of them taking sides in corporate vs. corporate and government vs. corporate on a corporation’s side.-——————

You have. But I think you’re interpreting some of it wrong, for example:(next item)

-——————They operate on principle — freedom.-————

Who’s freedom? As Hayek makes very clear in the Road to Serfdom, statists often times sell their machinations based on new freedoms. But all it really amounts to is more power for the statist.

Net neutrality doesn’t represent freedom for the people beyond the sales pitch. Net neutrality represents freedom for the statist. That’s why the marxists love it That’s the only reason they love it. It grows government. It sets them free from the constraints of the constitution.

This is what makes the EFF dangerous. They aren’t standing for individual freedom, at least not in this case. They’re standing for statist freedom. And in that, you and I suffer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.