The EFF's damage to Bitcoin continues.

[julz]

I get a strong sense not many people in this thread read the linked article about the EFF (http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/effs-own-chilling-breeze.html )

For the bitcoin community, a sense of betrayal doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable here. It is not that the EFF should be expected to ‘endorse’ bitcoin – but that the EFF should be perfectly happy to use frontier technologies within the space where they are not specifically legally prohibited, and be willing to work with the community in helping users (or at least not discouraging them) as they move up close to the legal lines. Did the EFF need to eschew all encryption when defending our rights to use it?

To be clear, because people in this thread seem to be seeing this as purely a criticism of the EFF's own decision not to use it - this is more about their effect on other organisations.

They are a legal advocacy group - so their situation is undoubtedly different to most non-profits who are simply receiving donations.
Their public statement should not be such a vague pompous load of "it's scary"... it would be better if they had a much shorter statement saying they weren't using it for reasons specific to 'legal advocacy'.


Please piss off with the moronic comments about not understanding the value of the EFF. They do good work - as strongly stated in the article above. That doesn't put them above critique and public review.

[1715188891]

1715188891

[1715188891]

1715188891

[1715188891]

1715188891

[1715188891]

1715188891

[1715188891]

1715188891

[Severian]

You have no idea the debt you owe.

The EFF owes back, in return. They're not on my list of donees atm.

[ElectricMucus]

Please piss off with the moronic comments about not understanding the value of the EFF. They do good work - as strongly stated in the article above. That doesn't put them above critique and public review.

Then please kindly close down your thread.

[julz]

FWIW I've pointed adainitiative.org to Bitpay's page where they offer to process donations free of charge for 501(c)(3) registered organisations:

https://bitpay.com/bitcoin-for-charities

I also mentioned paysius as a possible intermediary in my initial query - but I'm not aware of a specific page regarding their handling of charities.

I think the bitpay charities page is a good start, but it would be good if it was more descriptive as to the 'tax implications' (or lack thereof!) that these organisations seem to be scared of, and it would be nice also if it showed an example or two of charities which are already using it.

Thank you julz.  The whole point of using a packaged service like BitPay is that we take all of the financial risk, volatility risk, security risk, and legal uncertainties away from the organization.  They can simply accept bitcoin with the gross amount, net amount, and commissions all recorded in dollars.

I get that - but I don't think a Bitcoin-suspicious 501(c)(3) will immediately understand this from looking at that page.
Their fears of massive accounting changes, process changes / staff training,  tax and legal implications  need to be allayed.
Perhaps it's not Bitpay's job to clarify all that on this page - and maybe it does even require a lawyer to write up... but it'd be nice to be able to point them somewhere which states things very plainly.

[BitBlitz]

They are a legal advocacy group - so their situation is undoubtedly different to most non-profits who are simply receiving donations.
Their public statement should not be such a vague pompous load of "it's scary"... it would be better if they had a much shorter statement saying they weren't using it for reasons specific to 'legal advocacy'.

Nice strawman, but it is not accurate.  Go read the EFFs statement.  They did not say anything close to Bitcoin=scary.

Other groups accepting donations came to their own conclusions, and at most, stated that they came to the same conclusion.  Show me one group that said, "We're not doing it because they told us not to."..

[marcus_of_augustus]

I hope the dumb lawyers at the EFF dig their heels and refuse bitcoins for a loong time ... typically stubborn pride won't allow them to relent quickly on a dumb, indefensible position.

The longer it drags on and the more widely accepted bitcoin becomes, the stupider they look ... the stupider the better, in my opinion. Maybe this way they can learn to not just piss their corduroy's in fearful subservience to the grand poobahs, and instead think for themselves next time something new comes along that is outside their limited expertise.

[julz]

They are a legal advocacy group - so their situation is undoubtedly different to most non-profits who are simply receiving donations.
Their public statement should not be such a vague pompous load of "it's scary"... it would be better if they had a much shorter statement saying they weren't using it for reasons specific to 'legal advocacy'.

Nice strawman, but it is not accurate.  Go read the EFFs statement.  They did not say anything close to Bitcoin=scary.

Other groups accepting donations came to their own conclusions, and at most, stated that they came to the same conclusion.  Show me one group that said, "We're not doing it because they told us not to."..

From the EFF's statement:

1.   We don't fully understand the complex legal issues involved with creating a new currency system. Bitcoin raises untested legal concerns related to securities law, the Stamp Payments Act, tax evasion, consumer protection and money laundering, among others. And that’s just in the U.S. While EFF is often the defender of people ensnared in legal issues arising from new technologies, we try very hard to keep EFF from becoming the actual subject of those fights or issues. Since there is no caselaw on this topic, and the legal implications are still very unclear, we worry that our acceptance of Bitcoins may move us into the possible subject role

From the Humble Bundle founders:

"Hey there, we have talked with the EFF and an attorney about this and it is very complicated to say the least. The stakes are very high and there are some extremely serious unknowns about using Bitcoins. While the concept is great, we are not prepared to be its first major test case, after listening to the advice we’ve been given."

I stand by my interpretation regarding "it's scary".

No - I don't literally think the EFF is '*telling* them not to' in terms of legal advice - I just think they're effectively warning them off - and I think they're doing so based on legal uncertainty.

That is rich coming from an organisation forged in the fires of legal uncertainty.  Do/did they warn people against using any encryption due to lack of legal clarity?

Let's check that:

from: https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en

Can EFF promise that I won't get in trouble for running a Tor relay?

No. All new technologies create legal uncertainties, and Tor is no exception. Presently, no court has ever considered any case involving the Tor technology, and we therefore cannot guarantee that you will never face any legal liability as a result of running a Tor relay. However, EFF believes so strongly that those running Tor relays shouldn't be liable for traffic that passes through the relay that we're running our own middle relay.

So the EFF not only  uses Tor despite the 'legal uncertainties' - and that 'no court has ever considered any case involving the Tor technology'  but, they give detailed instructions on how Tor works and how to use it on their 'Surveillance Self-Defense' site:
https://ssd.eff.org/tech/tor


The EFF's SSD site gives a whole load of information about protecting yourself from *government* surveillance.  Here it seems - they're ready to push the envelope right up to the legal frontier - as their name suggests.  

Am I wrong in seeing a double standard here??


There is quite a contrast to their stance on Bitcoin.
I understand they may not have the resources or interest to take it on - in which case - silence would have been preferable to what they've said on the issue so far.

[reeses]

I get a strong sense not many people in this thread read the linked article about the EFF (http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/effs-own-chilling-breeze.html )

For the bitcoin community, a sense of betrayal doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable here. It is not that the EFF should be expected to ‘endorse’ bitcoin – but that the EFF should be perfectly happy to use frontier technologies within the space where they are not specifically legally prohibited, and be willing to work with the community in helping users (or at least not discouraging them) as they move up close to the legal lines. Did the EFF need to eschew all encryption when defending our rights to use it?

To be clear, because people in this thread seem to be seeing this as purely a criticism of the EFF's own decision not to use it - this is more about their effect on other organisations.

They are a legal advocacy group - so their situation is undoubtedly different to most non-profits who are simply receiving donations.
Their public statement should not be such a vague pompous load of "it's scary"... it would be better if they had a much shorter statement saying they weren't using it for reasons specific to 'legal advocacy'.


Please piss off with the moronic comments about not understanding the value of the EFF. They do good work - as strongly stated in the article above. That doesn't put them above critique and public review.

In re the EFF itself, this is the most important part of the article.

While EFF is often the defender of people ensnared in legal issues arising from new technologies, we try very hard to keep EFF from becoming the actual subject of those fights or issues.

Yes, my comment related directly to the pages of stupidity discounting the "frontier spirit" of the EFF.  That's what this discussion has become.

There are a number of charitable organizations that accept bitcoins.  Not a lot, but hey, here's your chance to make a difference.

Put together a one-pager or a pamphlet on why charities should embrace bitcoins.  Make it easy to accept them and maintain their legal status and not add more work for their fundraising team.  Remember, charities are judged by the percentage of funds that go to their stated causes.  If you're promoting a policy change that will increase their administrative or legal costs, you're effectively telling them they're going to miss out on more donations through a much larger channel.

[TheBible]

Maybe the EFF doesn't consider BTC important enough to warrant their attention.  They have limited resources and have to choose their battles based on their own agenda.

Fine - except that their public statement is a nebulous pile of FUD and their direct statements to other non-profits downright discouraging of adoption.
They should be more cognizant of their effect on the rest of the non-profit community.

Their statement was based on advice from trained legal experts.  What about yours?

[TheBible]

Responding to earlier in this thread about the EFF.

You could ask the EFF to let their lawyer elaborate on, in writing, the pitfals in Bitcoin, taxation and law he considers dangerous. That would be helpful to Bitcoin being able to give an "official" argumented response to this, not to prove EFF wrong in general about this, but to disprove the arguments. If we ask them to help us on this it would make no sense to rant the EFF for being against Bitcoin. The EFF is important to the world for a lot of other reasons.

The Bitcoin Foundation is valuable exactly for a situation like this, and I'm sure they will need a lawyer at some point too.

There are a lot of NGO's, no need to force someone to be an early adopter.

Why?  They don't want to accept bitcoin.  They owe you no explanation.  This is your glorious Free Market selecting against Bitcoin.  Sorry, but EFF doesn't want it, and that is their right.

[ralree]

BTC -> Bitcurex -> Visa Card -> Kiva/EFF/etc.

Problem solved.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Maybe the EFF doesn't consider BTC important enough to warrant their attention.  They have limited resources and have to choose their battles based on their own agenda.

Fine - except that their public statement is a nebulous pile of FUD and their direct statements to other non-profits downright discouraging of adoption.
They should be more cognizant of their effect on the rest of the non-profit community.

Their statement was based on advice from trained legal experts.  What about yours?

I'm sure Nazi germany had legions of "trained legal experts" before it went full facist retard also .... sometimes it IS just about what is right.

[jgarzik]

So the EFF not only  uses Tor despite the 'legal uncertainties' - and that 'no court has ever considered any case involving the Tor technology'  but, they give detailed instructions on how Tor works and how to use it on their 'Surveillance Self-Defense' site:
https://ssd.eff.org/tech/tor

This is true, but from a practical perspective, the US government itself recommends Tor, and according to one analysis provides over 80% of the Tor project funding.  Tor Project itself claims "militaries use Tor" and I have heard similar claims.

There is plenty of precedent that EFF will not get in trouble for using and recommending Tor.

Once that CIA starts paying clandestine agents with bitcoin, the EFF will start accepting bitcoin donations again, one presumes

[TheBible]

Maybe the EFF doesn't consider BTC important enough to warrant their attention.  They have limited resources and have to choose their battles based on their own agenda.

Fine - except that their public statement is a nebulous pile of FUD and their direct statements to other non-profits downright discouraging of adoption.
They should be more cognizant of their effect on the rest of the non-profit community.

Their statement was based on advice from trained legal experts.  What about yours?

I'm sure Nazi germany had legions of "trained legal experts" before it went full facist retard also .... sometimes it IS just about what is right.

Wow, a Nazi Germany comparison.  I think maybe this situation is just a little bit different.

[reeses]

Maybe the EFF doesn't consider BTC important enough to warrant their attention.  They have limited resources and have to choose their battles based on their own agenda.

Fine - except that their public statement is a nebulous pile of FUD and their direct statements to other non-profits downright discouraging of adoption.
They should be more cognizant of their effect on the rest of the non-profit community.

Their statement was based on advice from trained legal experts.  What about yours?

I'm sure Nazi germany had legions of "trained legal experts" before it went full facist retard also .... sometimes it IS just about what is right.

Aaaaaaand we're done.  EFF ≣ Nazi Germany.

[greyhawk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alc0gG0u48M

[marcus_of_augustus]

So the EFF not only  uses Tor despite the 'legal uncertainties' - and that 'no court has ever considered any case involving the Tor technology'  but, they give detailed instructions on how Tor works and how to use it on their 'Surveillance Self-Defense' site:
https://ssd.eff.org/tech/tor

This is true, but from a practical perspective, the US government itself recommends Tor, and according to one analysis provides over 80% of the Tor project funding.  Tor Project itself claims "militaries use Tor" and I have heard similar claims.

There is plenty of precedent that EFF will not get in trouble for using and recommending Tor.

Once that CIA starts paying clandestine agents with bitcoin, the EFF will start accepting bitcoin donations again, one presumes

Yes, because the CIA are such leaders, beacons of light and upholders of everything that is right and wonderful in the world, we should only do it if they do it .... hey didn't they [....]?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Maybe the EFF doesn't consider BTC important enough to warrant their attention.  They have limited resources and have to choose their battles based on their own agenda.

Fine - except that their public statement is a nebulous pile of FUD and their direct statements to other non-profits downright discouraging of adoption.
They should be more cognizant of their effect on the rest of the non-profit community.

Their statement was based on advice from trained legal experts.  What about yours?

I'm sure Nazi germany had legions of "trained legal experts" before it went full facist retard also .... sometimes it IS just about what is right.

Aaaaaaand we're done.  EFF ≣ Nazi Germany.

You must be nibbling your own "assfruit" (what a disgusting reference btw) ... the implication was to the USA, since you didn't sniff that out right ....

USA=NAZI Germany

plain as nose on your face, sorry but it is true.

[TheBible]

Maybe the EFF doesn't consider BTC important enough to warrant their attention.  They have limited resources and have to choose their battles based on their own agenda.

Fine - except that their public statement is a nebulous pile of FUD and their direct statements to other non-profits downright discouraging of adoption.
They should be more cognizant of their effect on the rest of the non-profit community.

Their statement was based on advice from trained legal experts.  What about yours?

I'm sure Nazi germany had legions of "trained legal experts" before it went full facist retard also .... sometimes it IS just about what is right.

Aaaaaaand we're done.  EFF ≣ Nazi Germany.

You must be nibbling your own "assfruit" (what a disgusting reference btw) ... the implication was to the USA, since you didn't sniff that out right ....

USA=NAZI Germany

plain as nose on your face, sorry but it is true.

It crossed my mind for a moment that that's what you meant, but dismissed it under the belief that no one, even in the world of bitcoin,  could be as dumb as that.  I really need to learn not to make assumptions.

[Xian01]

I'm sure Nazi germany had legions of "trained legal experts" before it went full facist retard also .... sometimes it IS just about what is right.

... and proving Godwin's Law on page four of a thread. Good job BitcoinTalk !