The EFF's damage to Bitcoin continues.

[julz]

Wow.  A bunch of angry nerds pushing a false dichotomy.  If you don't completely support Bitcoin, you are Bitcoin's enemy.
Yeah, that is the attitude that will encourage the greater public to adopt Bitcoin..  Nice job boys!!

Well, in fairness, the EFF has a point that they need to avoid being their own test cases.

But... defending free use of technology by other people is kinda their whole reason for existing.

I don't think EFF is against Bitcoin. I think that for whatever reasons, they are not particularly interested in it at the moment (surprising given their statements on the importance of transparency/privacy regarding payment processors!) and/or they don't have the resources to get involved with it yet.

Their backing away from it does seem spineless to me - but that aside - it's the detrimental effect of their public and private statements upon uptake which is concerning. Bitcoin needs uptake from legitimate businesses/non-profits etc to balance out the common perception that it is mainly for 'black markets'.

Perhaps because the EFF doesn't see Bitcoin itself as particularly important, they simply haven't taken due care not to cause 'Chilling Effects'. Sad.

[1715295466]

1715295466

[QuantumKiwi]

The EFF is run by bank owned govts, why would they approve of bitcoin? Come on guys get real. Bitcoin is the shit stirring currency of the world, get used to its negativity.

[FreeMoney]

The @EFF now accepts donations with Stripe: https://supporters.eff.org/donate

- http://twitter.com/stripe/status/253193235894247424

Which shows that argument 3 is bullshit:

Their entire argument is bullshit. Good find on a product they seem to like endorsing.

Honestly, I do not see what the fuss is all about. If you ran a corporation or a 501(c)(3) non proft, the board of directors do whats best for the organization. If you had an organization and realized that a certain action could cause trouble would you take the risk of doing that action? The legal concerns they express are valid. I think I would rather see them fight battles rather than be a victim of a battle.
Even if they don't take on a case regarding bitcoin, doesnt mean that they wont submit an amicus curiae in support of bitcoin if/when a case does come down.
This is just one guy's opinion but I just see them avoiding a big mess..

That would be perfectly fine logic if it was a 501(c)(3) for saving cute endangered animals or something, but they are supposed to be on the FRONTIER, not acting like some scared org not wanting to meddle with something that has unknown legal implications. They are supposed to be pioneering this kind of stuff and advocating it.

[Syke]

I suspect you're joking about the underwear, but that is non-deductible if used.

I figure if President Clinton can take a $2/piece deduction on donated underwear, then I can too!

[kjj]

Wow.  A bunch of angry nerds pushing a false dichotomy.  If you don't completely support Bitcoin, you are Bitcoin's enemy.
Yeah, that is the attitude that will encourage the greater public to adopt Bitcoin..  Nice job boys!!

Well, in fairness, the EFF has a point that they need to avoid being their own test cases.

But... defending free use of technology by other people is kinda their whole reason for existing.

I don't think EFF is against Bitcoin. I think that for whatever reasons, they are not particularly interested in it at the moment (surprising given their statements on the importance of transparency/privacy regarding payment processors!) and/or they don't have the resources to get involved with it yet.

Their backing away from it does seem spineless to me - but that aside - it's the detrimental effect of their public and private statements upon uptake which is concerning. Bitcoin needs uptake from legitimate businesses/non-profits etc to balance out the common perception that it is mainly for 'black markets'.

Perhaps because the EFF doesn't see Bitcoin itself as particularly important, they simply haven't taken due care not to cause 'Chilling Effects'. Sad.

Like any organization, they have limited resources, and have to choose their battles.  I hate to sound like I'm making excuses for them, but that doesn't change reality at all.

I'll be sending them a donation soon, along with a letter asking them to reconsider their public statement.  I'd do it right now, but I need to figure out a polite way to say what I want to say.

[TheBible]

The legal concerns they express are valid.

What legal concerns? There is nothing illegal about Bitcoins. Stating otherwise is pure FUD. Treat them as any other kind of non-fiat donation. I donate my underwear and even cash anonymously to the Salvation Army, and then take a tax deduction for it, as do millions of other people. Bitcoin donations are no different.

Let's pit you against their lawyers, then, and see who knows more about this sort of thing.

[teamhugs]

The EFF is run by bank owned govts, why would they approve of bitcoin? Come on guys get real. Bitcoin is the shit stirring currency of the world, get used to its negativity.

According to their latest available annual report, https://www.eff.org/files/eff-2009-2010-annual-report.pdf, they have no government funding of any kind. And according to charity navigator, http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7576, this was true for 2011 too.

[teamhugs]

The legal concerns they express are valid.

What legal concerns? There is nothing illegal about Bitcoins. Stating otherwise is pure FUD. Treat them as any other kind of non-fiat donation. I donate my underwear and even cash anonymously to the Salvation Army, and then take a tax deduction for it, as do millions of other people. Bitcoin donations are no different.

Are you sure about that? The e-gold people felt the same way until the US treasury arrested them and threatened them with money laundering. Here's a fine summary of the situation, http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/07/22/the-man-finally-brought-e-gold-down

My guess is that this situation is exactly what the EFF is nervous about. They can continue to sue the NSA and US Government all day long on fundamental freedom rights. But taking on the banking regulation industry is an entirely different thing. Just because bitcoins use cryptography and mostly exist on the Internet, doesn't mean it's an "electronic frontier" anything. It's just a form of currency. Some places use sheep (as in the livestock) as currency.

Stripe, dwolla, and paypal all took on the banking regulation industry with wide-eyed plans to revolutionize how people do banking. And now look, each one of them has been coerced into accepting the common regulations and acting more like a bank. Look at MtGox and Intersango. They both have to honor banking regulations or they get shut down. "Know your customer" and anti-fraud regulations are an unforgiving bitch.

As soon as the treasury and their enforcement regimes wake up to bitcoins, or find evidence of heavy illegal activity with bitcoins, you can be sure the multi-pronged attack will make bitcoins sure seem illegal. None of this will matter until there is a court case precedent (at least in the US) stating bitcoins are legal or illegal as a currency.

The global banking world doesn't like competition. You can be sure when the eye of sauron gazes on bitcoin, it will separate the adults from the children quickly.

[The_Duke]

The legal concerns they express are valid.

What legal concerns? There is nothing illegal about Bitcoins. Stating otherwise is pure FUD. Treat them as any other kind of non-fiat donation. I donate my underwear and even cash anonymously to the Salvation Army, and then take a tax deduction for it, as do millions of other people. Bitcoin donations are no different.

Are you sure about that? The e-gold people felt the same way until the US treasury arrested them and threatened them with money laundering. Here's a fine summary of the situation, http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/07/22/the-man-finally-brought-e-gold-down

My guess is that this situation is exactly what the EFF is nervous about. They can continue to sue the NSA and US Government all day long on fundamental freedom rights. But taking on the banking regulation industry is an entirely different thing. Just because bitcoins use cryptography and mostly exist on the Internet, doesn't mean it's an "electronic frontier" anything. It's just a form of currency. Some places use sheep (as in the livestock) as currency.

Stripe, dwolla, and paypal all took on the banking regulation industry with wide-eyed plans to revolutionize how people do banking. And now look, each one of them has been coerced into accepting the common regulations and acting more like a bank. Look at MtGox and Intersango. They both have to honor banking regulations or they get shut down. "Know your customer" and anti-fraud regulations are an unforgiving bitch.

As soon as the treasury and their enforcement regimes wake up to bitcoins, or find evidence of heavy illegal activity with bitcoins, you can be sure the multi-pronged attack will make bitcoins sure seem illegal. None of this will matter until there is a court case precedent (at least in the US) stating bitcoins are legal or illegal as a currency.

The global banking world doesn't like competition. You can be sure when the eye of sauron gazes on bitcoin, it will separate the adults from the children quickly.

No it won't! TBF will protect us.

[Severian]

Stripe, dwolla, and paypal all took on the banking regulation industry with wide-eyed plans to revolutionize how people do banking.

They all had to ramp down because their default unit of account is also a legal instrument bound by more regulations than a shark has teeth. Bitcoin doesn't suffer that shortcoming.

The fact is, the banking powers and their biggest vassal, the US government, will have little interest in calling attention to Bitcoin. If they communicate in any way, shape or form that Bitcoin is a threat, it will undermine their own game and strengthen Bitcoin's status as a currency and a commodity.

The EFF is just afraid of ticking off Paypal, Visa and Mastercard by taking bitcoin. IOW, they don't want to tick off the banks. They're not scared of the government. They've taken them to court frequently.

Bitcoin will continue to suffer the sneaky propaganda and disinfo tactics that are employed when something is to be marginalized. Expect a huge media splash about pedophiles or white slavery involving Bitcoin down the road, not a legal case.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

The EFF is run by bank owned govts, why would they approve of bitcoin? Come on guys get real. Bitcoin is the shit stirring currency of the world, get used to its negativity.

Actually i think they are afraid, rather than cooperating with authorities.
They do not want to touch anything with undefined legal status

[hashman]

Thank you EFF.
At this point in the adoption curve we are all better off with a slower growth.  Right? 

[HostFat]

They don't accept bitcoin donations, but will they try to defend someone that used Bitcoin and/or accepted bitcoin donations?
Someone should ask them this question.

[RodeoX]

They don't accept bitcoin donations, but will they try to defend someone that used Bitcoin and/or accepted bitcoin donations?
Someone should ask them this question.

That's good. If they won't use them, then will they help us use them?

[Ei Cot]

They don't accept bitcoin donations, but will they try to defend someone that used Bitcoin and/or accepted bitcoin donations?
Someone should ask them this question.

Very this.  The EFF isn't here to push the envelope themselves.  They're here to advocate (and sometimes provide legal assistance for) rights and free speech in the context of the internet and high tech, on the behalf of others.

It's very unlikely that they'd take a public position on bitcoin without an actual legal case.  It's disappointing, but not surprising, that they wouldn't want to be that case.

[FreeMoney]

The EFF is run by bank owned govts, why would they approve of bitcoin? Come on guys get real. Bitcoin is the shit stirring currency of the world, get used to its negativity.

Actually i think they are afraid, rather than cooperating with authorities.
They do not want to touch anything with undefined legal status

Probably so, but they should just pack it up if they are afraid to be on the frontier.

[Severian]

The EFF isn't here to push the envelope themselves. 

They used to push envelopes:

1999: EFF and Anonymizer launch the Kosovo Privacy Project, an anonymous and secure email and Web surfing service conceived by Alex Fowler and Patrick Ball to ensure the protection of Kosovars, Serbs, and others reporting on the Kosovo War within the region from reprisal from Serbian officials.

December 2010: Following the United States diplomatic cables leak, the EFF offered support to WikiLeaks, with John Perry Barlow saying the EFF was 'trying to make sure they have plenty of mirror sites, back-ups, we're organising donations for them and generally doing everything we can to see that Wikileaks is not assailable by the methods that have been used against it so far'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Electronic_Frontier_Foundation_actions

I'm not buying the EFF's explanations. I think they made an economic decision in order to protect their current interests and relationships but don't wish to say so publicly.

[Syke]

Are you sure about that? The e-gold people felt the same way until the US treasury arrested them and threatened them with money laundering. Here's a fine summary of the situation, http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/07/22/the-man-finally-brought-e-gold-down

I'm quite sure. e-gold dealt directly with fiat. Bitcoin has *nothing* to do with fiat. Someone like MtGox has to be concerned, but that's an entirely separate issue.

[Severian]

Probably so, but they should just pack it up if they are afraid to be on the frontier.

I think it's more part of the lifecycle of how edgy ideas, products and even people become subsumed into the mainstream. Though still perceived as edgy, their interests become more in line with the status quo than with the outliers they were once associated with.

The EFF has been in DC for a long time. I think it's getting to them.

[teamhugs]

Are you sure about that? The e-gold people felt the same way until the US treasury arrested them and threatened them with money laundering. Here's a fine summary of the situation, http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/07/22/the-man-finally-brought-e-gold-down

I'm quite sure. e-gold dealt directly with fiat. Bitcoin has *nothing* to do with fiat. Someone like MtGox has to be concerned, but that's an entirely separate issue.

e-gold worked with virtual goal and the trust that someone was holding your fractional gold bar. It dealt with fiat currencies in exchange for gold. My point is that the e-gold people relied on some technicalities thinking it would keep them out of trouble and jail. It seems others didn't agree with their hope in technicalities.

Don't underestimate the motivation and lack of understanding of financial regulators.