EFF Board of Directors Removes 76-Year-Old John Gilmore (eff.org) 243
76-year-old John Gilmore co-founded the EFF in 1990, and in the 31 years since he's "provided leadership and guidance on many of the most important digital rights issues we advocate for today," the EFF said in a statement Friday.
"But in recent years, we have not seen eye-to-eye on how to best communicate and work together," they add, announcing "we have been unable to agree on a way forward with Gilmore in a governance role." That is why the EFF Board of Directors has recently made the difficult decision to vote to remove Gilmore from the Board.
We are deeply grateful for the many years Gilmore gave to EFF as a leader and advocate, and the Board has elected him to the role of Board Member Emeritus moving forward. "I am so proud of the impact that EFF has had in retaining and expanding individual rights and freedoms as the world has adapted to major technological changes," Gilmore said. "My departure will leave a strong board and an even stronger staff who care deeply about these issues."
John Gilmore co-founded EFF in 1990 alongside John Perry Barlow, Steve Wozniak and Mitch Kapor, and provided significant financial support critical to the organization's survival and growth over many years. Since then, Gilmore has worked closely with EFF's staff, board, and lawyers on privacy, free speech, security, encryption, and more. In the 1990s, Gilmore found the government documents that confirmed the First Amendment problem with the government's export controls over encryption, and helped initiate the filing of Bernstein v DOJ, which resulted in a court ruling that software source code was speech protected by the First Amendment and the government's regulations preventing its publication were unconstitutional. The decision made it legal in 1999 for web browsers, websites, and software like PGP and Signal to use the encryption of their choice.
Gilmore also led EFF's effort to design and build the DES Cracker, which was regarded as a fundamental breakthrough in how we evaluate computer security and the public policies that control its use. At the time, the 1970s Data Encryption Standard (DES) was embedded in ATM machines and banking networks, as well as in popular software around the world. U.S. government officials proclaimed that DES was secure, while secretly being able to wiretap it themselves. The EFF DES Cracker publicly showed that DES was in fact so weak that it could be broken in one week with an investment of less than $350,000. This catalyzed the international creation and adoption of the much stronger Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), now widely used to secure information worldwide....
EFF has always valued and appreciated Gilmore's opinions, even when we disagree. It is no overstatement to say that EFF would not exist without him. We look forward to continuing to benefit from his institutional knowledge and guidance in his new role of Board Member Emeritus.
Gilmore also created the alt* hierarchy on Usenet, co-founded the Cypherpunks mailing list, and was one of the founders of Cygnus Solutions (according to his page on Wikipedia).
He's also apparently Slashdot user #35,813 (though he hasn't posted a comment since 2004).
"But in recent years, we have not seen eye-to-eye on how to best communicate and work together," they add, announcing "we have been unable to agree on a way forward with Gilmore in a governance role." That is why the EFF Board of Directors has recently made the difficult decision to vote to remove Gilmore from the Board.
We are deeply grateful for the many years Gilmore gave to EFF as a leader and advocate, and the Board has elected him to the role of Board Member Emeritus moving forward. "I am so proud of the impact that EFF has had in retaining and expanding individual rights and freedoms as the world has adapted to major technological changes," Gilmore said. "My departure will leave a strong board and an even stronger staff who care deeply about these issues."
John Gilmore co-founded EFF in 1990 alongside John Perry Barlow, Steve Wozniak and Mitch Kapor, and provided significant financial support critical to the organization's survival and growth over many years. Since then, Gilmore has worked closely with EFF's staff, board, and lawyers on privacy, free speech, security, encryption, and more. In the 1990s, Gilmore found the government documents that confirmed the First Amendment problem with the government's export controls over encryption, and helped initiate the filing of Bernstein v DOJ, which resulted in a court ruling that software source code was speech protected by the First Amendment and the government's regulations preventing its publication were unconstitutional. The decision made it legal in 1999 for web browsers, websites, and software like PGP and Signal to use the encryption of their choice.
Gilmore also led EFF's effort to design and build the DES Cracker, which was regarded as a fundamental breakthrough in how we evaluate computer security and the public policies that control its use. At the time, the 1970s Data Encryption Standard (DES) was embedded in ATM machines and banking networks, as well as in popular software around the world. U.S. government officials proclaimed that DES was secure, while secretly being able to wiretap it themselves. The EFF DES Cracker publicly showed that DES was in fact so weak that it could be broken in one week with an investment of less than $350,000. This catalyzed the international creation and adoption of the much stronger Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), now widely used to secure information worldwide....
EFF has always valued and appreciated Gilmore's opinions, even when we disagree. It is no overstatement to say that EFF would not exist without him. We look forward to continuing to benefit from his institutional knowledge and guidance in his new role of Board Member Emeritus.
Gilmore also created the alt* hierarchy on Usenet, co-founded the Cypherpunks mailing list, and was one of the founders of Cygnus Solutions (according to his page on Wikipedia).
He's also apparently Slashdot user #35,813 (though he hasn't posted a comment since 2004).
Seems like the EFF is entering (Score:3, Interesting)
They were already adrift (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to donate to the EFF every year regularly, but in recent years they have been against some things where I thought they were really off the rails, and did not donate... I did donate last year, but I'll have to look into why this person was ejected and see if maybe it's time to withhold my support for good.
I wish there would be some people that would start up a group like the EFF that would not subverted with politics, and truly supported digital freedom. Maybe the Electronic Freedom Foundation In Tru
Re:They were already adrift (Score:5, Insightful)
Posted regarding something else, but applies equally here (if not a multitude of places):
Re:They were already adrift (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that so many people criticizing "politics" have never understood what "politics" is and that "digital freedom" is a purely political agenda, let alone that their own demands that something be "not subverted with politics" are deeply political in themselves. Or they're not so stupid after all and it's just that they're pissed off that someone else's politics might not follow their own political views, and they're perfectly aware how hypocritical the anti-politics stance they advertise actually is...
Re: They were already adrift (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, we can always generalize words so much that they lose any specificity. Saying everything is political is the same as saying everything is math: true, and useless.
So, what people mean when they say they don't want politics in an area, is that they don't want politicians' self-serving, nothing-to-do-with-the-actual-problem, bullshit interfering in what people actually interested in solving-the-actual-problem are doing. No more, no less.
Re: (Score:2)
"Saying everything is political..."
Except that you are the only one who has said that. Straight up straw man here.
"we can always generalize words so much that they lose any specificity"
Except this hasn't happened either.
"So, what people mean when they say they don't want politics in an area, is that they don't want politicians' self-serving, nothing-to-do-with-the-actual-problem, bullshit interfering in what people actually interested in solving-the-actual-problem are doing. No more, no less."
That's certai
Re: (Score:2)
The conversation is worse off with you in it.
Lol! Good trolling there! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, we can always generalize words so much that they lose any specificity. Saying everything is political is the same as saying everything is math: true, and useless.
While that claim is debatable as such and while I'm happy to debate it in any other context, it's good then that no one here, let alone I, would have claimed anything like that.
So, what people mean when they say they don't want politics in an area, is that they don't want politicians' self-serving, nothing-to-do-with-the-actual-problem, bullshit interfering in what people actually interested in solving-the-actual-problem are doing. No more, no less.
No. While it's what they're always keen to pretend they would mean, it's exactly not what they mean. What they mean is we shouldn't care about the people who are affected in the course of the process of problem-solving, we should not care about side effects affecting people or, for that matter, anything. Specifically, we should not c
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, we should not care about any sexism or racism becoming manifest the process.
This way of phrasing it is only relevant if you think sex relation and race relations are inherently and invariably political. There are occasions in which they are, and there are occasions in which they aren't. Refuse to buy the axiom powering that identity, and it, as well as all syllogisms coming from its assumption, fall apart for all but the small slice of problem-space it actually, effectively applies to.
Re: (Score:3)
politics is merely the process of individuals pursuing competing goals without resorting to violence.
Then the word is indistinguishable from "human nature", and so broad it continues not being useful.
When people talk about not wanting something, they mean either a concrete thing or set of things, or a specific set of behaviors. They don't mean the abstract concept of politics as used in sociology, political science, philosophy or the like, they mean the kind of behavior silver tongued manipulators use. Were they to know the words better, what they'd be saying is that they don't want narcissists and sociopa
Re: (Score:3)
Everything is not math simply because everything can be described mathematically if you know enough and have good enough math.
That depends on whether one's a realist or an anti-realist in philosophy of mathematics, but that's besides the point. Substitute physics for math, or chemistry, or biology, and the point of the argument stands, that is, that using the word with this meaning makes it too broad to be useful.
Frankly we don't know if everything is math or not, but if it is then there's no such thing as free will and the moral implications are significant, and our societies frankly both wouldn't work and assume that's not true.
Not really. Kant already provided a solution to this with his distinction between pure and practical reasons: as long as you have the subjective feeling of free will, acting as if it were real works exactly the same wheth
Re: (Score:2)
Kant already provided a solution to this with his distinction between pure and practical reasons: as long as you have the subjective feeling of free will, acting as if it were real works exactly the same whether it actually exists or doesn't.
It works exactly the same, but it isn't exactly the same, in that if we don't actually have free will then you can't claim the moral high ground for punishing people who do harmful things. All you can claim is that you are behaving practically. But people who want to punish other people for doing (or being) things always claim the moral high ground, and that's what differs between assuming that free will exists, or not.
This becomes relevant when people claim to have had no choice when asked to explain their
Re: (Score:3)
It works exactly the same, but it isn't exactly the same, in that if we don't actually have free will then you can't claim the moral high ground for punishing people who do harmful things.
True in that you cannot really punish them for what they don't have control over. However, you can still protect society from them by preventing them from harming other more, and you can try to fix their anti-social traits so that they can be brought back to society in a way they won't try and harm others.
Besides, if we don't assume free will that applies equally to the people seeking justice for the wrongs they suffered, to those judging the matter, and to those meting out the punishment, if any. Neither o
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, without free will commonly held social beliefs are still one of the input variables that predetermines your behavior - so a society that fundamentally accepted that no one was responsible for their actions would likely behave very differently than the one that we're in.
As one example, it becomes much more difficult to justify massive wealth inequality when a CEO or doctor are no more responsible for their actions than the bum in the street, and thus cannot possibly deserve such compensati
Re: (Score:3)
a society that fundamentally accepted that no one was responsible for their actions would likely behave very differently than the one that we're in.
Maybe, but not necessarily in the direction you point. This is related to the "is vs. ought" divide. Determining that the world is devoid of free will wouldn't say where those knowing it (themselves devoid of free will) would take that knowledge. They might do as you suggest, removing those inequalities, or they might go in the opposite direction and set those inequalities even more in stone than they already are, by arguing, let's say, that the way things are is strictly determined so it's pointless to try
Re: (Score:2)
"Politics" is about changing the rules, not about working within the rules. People who "don't want politics to get involved" don't want to have the rules changed on them. Politics is very often used to change the rules in favor of well-connected people. Being averse to politics is not another form of politics, in the same way that not believing in a god is not another form of religion. "The only winning move is not to play."
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What support are you referring to? What kind of donation? Is it the usual for you, SuperKendal, lying tribalistic bullshit? If so, do everyone a favor and withhold all of it for every organization going forward. The world would be better off without your "support" and your "donations".
Also, it should be understood that the EFF doesn't see eye to eye with your various gods, in particular Jobs, Musk and Trump. It is no wonder you might think they are "off the rails". I mean, where's the grift? The extr
Re: (Score:2)
I wish there would be some people that would start up a group like the EFF that would not subverted with politics, and truly supported digital freedom. Maybe the Electronic Freedom Foundation In Truth, or EFF-IT.
In what world is what the EFF does not intrinsicly political? What one person defines as "digital freedom" is dangerous anarchy to another. Reconciling that contradiction and taking a position is a polital act.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL someone is paying attention. Mod OP as insightful.
Nice mystery there (Score:3, Insightful)
Any clues?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My father was removed from his office as he approached his 70s. He agreed to go voluntarily, provided he could keep his entire research grant to do with as he wanted, plus something like 5 years' wages. Since he had bulletproof life tenure, the University agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
Any clues?
A preliminary search doesn't find much, other than firing the guy is pretty radical, since he contributed so much. They seem to be trying to keep it away from everyone.
Re:Nice mystery there (Score:5, Informative)
selling off the AMPRnet IP space
25% was sold off. It was the Space IP space. There are not a bunch of amateur radio satellites anyway. The money went into a trust to promote amateur radio. Selling their least useful blocks was a public service, because of IPv4 address exhaustion. You blather about "fraud," but you seem a bit confused; they didn't keep the money, the organization kept the money.
not even amateur radio operators
Call sign W0GNU
Re: (Score:3)
> At least the internet society had the good decency to publicly comment on it, not do it in secret and then tell every stake holder to fuck off about it.
I don't know much the ARDC, but the sale of Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos Capital was a classic shady deal. Presented as a done deal from the start, it had basically no transparency (other than a notice period mandated by law, and some information grudgingly coerced out). It came complete with a leveraged buyout and a host of paid-for talking
Re: (Score:2)
I have been trying to find out more on the background to this story, the first "discovery" was an obvious error - he is 66 and not 76 as stated in the headline. This is from multiple sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Slack Jawed Whites?
It's better in the original Klingon (Score:5, Interesting)
Savor the fruit of life, my young friends. It has a sweet taste when it is fresh from the vine. But don't live too long. The taste turns bitter... after a time.
Cardinal sin? (Score:2, Insightful)
What'd he do, misgender someone?
Doesn't he know these people are oppressed?!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Parent was voted Troll, whuch means Insightful npwadays.
Fuck the Woke. .
Re:Cardinal sin? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nowadays? You haven't been on Slashdot long, have you? (UID being irrelevant, lots of people aren't on their first account... I'm not for example) Moderation has been frequently abused as long as I can remember.
Sure. But it isn't a digital situation. Just being marked "troll" doesn't mean whatever was written was true.
But left or right, work or not woke, sometimes the truth does get marked as troll.
Now to the matter at hand..
We really don't know why they shitcanned Gilmore, so any claims of "wokeism" are pure speculation. So far, every indication is that the EFF desires the reason to be kept secret. The public facing reason given might mean that he wanted McDonald's at group lunches, and others wanted Panera.
If anything though, it illustrates just why credible and sound reasons should be given, even if it was something non inclusive or the result of a non allowable interaction with a female member. Or my dopey meeting food example.
Because while it might have been something completely unrelated to anything salacious, trying to keep the lid of secrecy on it will get the rumor mills going. And once that happens, all bets are off.
Re: (Score:2)
So far they just try to bury my comments (...)
If that's the case, then yeah. Although I wonder how you tracked down those behaviors to Slashdot's users.
the people who invented cancel culture were conservatives, and now they want to cry about their chickens come home to roost.
I'm of the firm position that two wrongs don't make a right, so if conservatives practice cancel culture by a different name, they deserve the exact same criticism I direct towards progressives.
That said, you're committing a wrongful association error. Current conservatives didn't invent that cancel culture you refer to. No one among them has been alive for more than, at most, 90 years, so they aren't r
Re: (Score:2)
That said, you're committing a wrongful association error. Current conservatives didn't invent that cancel culture you refer to.
Your logical fallacy is moving the goalposts. Even if that weren't a logical fallacy there would be less than no point in saying that because one of the defining characteristics of MAGA types is that they want to rewind the clock. Remember, it's "Make America Great Again", and not "Make America Great", or "Make America Greater". It is an explicit demand to return to an older time, usually specifically a time before we have made certain recent innovations like allowing women and/or nonwhites to vote. They us
Re: (Score:2)
It is an explicit demand to return to an older time, usually specifically a time before we have made certain recent innovations like allowing women and/or nonwhites to vote.
If one describes reality in a distorted manner, one reaches wrong conclusions about it, based on which one then pursues incorrect policies to fix those incorrectly perceived conclusions. Those policies, in turn, will have their real consequences when put into practice, irrespective of what one desires their consequences would be.
Your description of what the MAGA persons want is very departed from what they say they want. Assuming what they say they want isn't what they truly want is conspiratorial thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
If one describes reality in a distorted manner, one reaches wrong conclusions about it,
Right, and that's exactly what your goal is.
Your description of what the MAGA persons want is very departed from what they say they want.
Right, because they are willfully refusing to a) examine the reality of the situation, as proven by their opposition to critical race theory even when they know what it is, and b) mostly in denial about how we got to where we are today, even if it has been expressed to them. They don't know fuck about shit, and they are keeping it that way on purpose so they don't have to admit what the results of their policy suggestions would be.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, and that's exactly what your goal is.
See, my goal right now is to have some fun discussing on Slashdot. If you want to know my goals outside forum discussions, that'd take a lot more inquiring.
About your further criticism of MAGA, I don't disagree with you. I think you oversimplify the issue, and ignore other factors, but yes, these you point out are (also) present.
Re: (Score:2)
Like, say, calling one of the best male olympic athletes in history a woman?
That may or may not be incorrect. Deep brain scans (and autopsy if they're dead) can show whether a person is transgender or not, since true transgendered individuals have brains physiologically similar to the brains of the opposite gender. But that's a 1 in 20,000 occurrence, and most self-alleged transgendered individuals aren't true transgenders, they're simply gender non-conformant.
Or claiming there's no such scientific thing as gender?
That's a belief from 2nd Wave Feminism, that is, the Marxist branch of Feminism. 1st Wave Feminism, that is, the Classic Li
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not pretend it is just the blue haired twitter crew.
I don't. From my perspective, as a non-American who never put foot in the US and probably never will, this strikes me as being a very American thing, practiced widely by both sides of the (also very specifically American) political spectrum. It's up there with sue culture as one of the most striking American cultural traits of today.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not pretend it is just the blue haired twitter crew.
I don't. From my perspective, as a non-American who never put foot in the US and probably never will, this strikes me as being a very American thing, practiced widely by both sides of the (also very specifically American) political spectrum. It's up there with sue culture as one of the most striking American cultural traits of today.
If you think that the concept of trying to destroy people economically, socially, or even physically for their political or cultural or just their opinions is a very specifically American thing, you do need to brush up on your world history. Seriously. I don't want to get into the old examples of how cultures worldwide have done exactly that. But if you like, I can. It's just perhaps better to a person to get some education aside from another slashdotter.
Re: (Score:2)
Lucius Sergius Catilina is one example from the Roman Republic. Although his issues were favored by the poor majority of Rome, he was slandered and killed by the rich minority.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that the concept of trying to destroy people economically, socially, or even physically for their political or cultural or just their opinions is a very specifically American thing, you do need to brush up on your world history.
My claim isn't as broad. I refer specifically to the contemporaneous, that is, since circa 2010, form of cancelling we see, with online mobs amassing to doxx then pressure employers, colleges and others to socially ostracize and shut down wrong-thinkers. Previous to this there were other forms of social ostracism and persecution, but this one, specifically, is a Purely Original All American cultural development, and ones that's spreading to other countries from the US, both by means of local political milit
Re: (Score:2)
Yes...And it only matters if you are a white * put marginalized minority of the hour here*.
Nah, traditional women of any ethnicity who want to be stay at home moms, as well as conservative and libertarian members of minority ethnic groups and/or with an LGBTQ+ identity can suffer woke-based cancellations all the time. Maybe not the HUGE kind of cancellation that gets in the news, but several do experience weaker forms of it.
Transgendered individuals, in particular, have it really bad. They can experience cancellations or other forms of social persecution from sectors of both the right and the lef
There is a certain aroma surrounding this (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA reads like a bank's PR statement about how great it is for their customers that they're raising service charges. It smells like pure, unadulterated bullshit. Either tell us what the differences with Gilmore are, or we can assume it's likely the EFF has been co-opted by scumbags.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
we can assume it's likely the EFF has been co-opted by scumbags.
I suspect it is similar to what happened to ACLU.
The focus shifts to Diversity Equity and Inclusion, instead of the actual mission of the organization.
Re:There is a certain aroma surrounding this (Score:4, Interesting)
The focus shifts to Diversity Equity and Inclusion, instead of the actual mission of the organization.
Looking through a list of the EFFs recent news feed [eff.org], I can't see anything that seems to have changed in their focus. So I don't think it was that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There is a certain aroma surrounding this (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when they were focused on civil liberties alone, without giving two fucks about the details. And no, I don't mean back in the 70s when they defended neo neo-not-see's right to march in Skokie, but as recently as 2017 when they went to bat for Unite the Right's rejected permit for their march in Charlottesville, nominally for the purpose of protesting the removal of General Lee's statue.
Those two moves were principled. They said they believed in the right of people to express their opinions, regardless of how distasteful they were, and they acted like they believed what they said.
More recently...they've gone squishy in their deeds and in their words. They still call themselves the ACLU, but they no longer talk or act like they believe the 1st amendment applies to people with whom they otherwise disagree.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either tell us what the differences with Gilmore are, or we can assume it's likely the EFF has been co-opted by scumbags.
Why? Did you attend every other board meeting? Do they publish every other decision in detail and minutes? What makes you so entitled to the inner workings of an organisation? The only thing you're entitled to is an opinion, and that one seems to be somewhat presumptuous.
Re:There is a certain aroma surrounding this (Score:5, Insightful)
The EFF's about us page claims they're champions of "freedom, justice, and innovation". If they want to keep claiming those first two, they should be less opaque about their assertions.
If you keep secrets, people assume you have something to hide. Historically, this belief has been warranted.
Re: (Score:3)
The EFF's about us page claims they're champions of "freedom, justice, and innovation". If they want to keep claiming those first two, they should be less opaque about their assertions.
If you keep secrets, people assume you have something to hide. Historically, this belief has been warranted.
Exactly. They are not practicing what they preach, and I would suggest that we use a FOIA act lawsuit to uncover the reason - the EFF should appreciate the public using one of their goto tools.
Re:There is a certain aroma surrounding this (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not practicing what they preach
Citation needed. No where (not even in the words freedom and justice) does it say "publish everything to everyone at all times". Frankly their actions inside the boardroom are of zero interest or relevance to their mission outside the boardroom.
I would suggest that we use a FOIA act lawsuit to uncover the reason
I would suggest you call your nurse and let them know you're off your meds. I can think of no other reason why you think a law that applies to federal agencies would be applicable here.
Re: (Score:2)
If you keep secrets, people assume you have something to hide. Historically, this belief has been warranted.
There's a different between keeping secrets and not sharing every detail. Frankly the world doesn't need to know everything about everything. Supporting freedom and justice does not mean being an open book to the world.
Re:There is a certain aroma surrounding this (Score:5, Insightful)
Either tell us what the differences with Gilmore are, or we can assume it's likely the EFF has been co-opted by scumbags.
Why? Did you attend every other board meeting? Do they publish every other decision in detail and minutes? What makes you so entitled to the inner workings of an organisation? The only thing you're entitled to is an opinion, and that one seems to be somewhat presumptuous.
It's the world we live in. If a group acts secretive about something, rumors start. And if they act really secretive, the rumors amp up.
There is a sort of delicious irony here, as the EFF is supposed to be all about transparency, yet here they are, acting like a disgraced former president who sues to keep his transgressions covered up.
EFF board of directors (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone on the EFF board is old.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Reveal their gender/age bias by removing good guy for being white/old!
Slashdot is funny. The +5 comment immediately above yours complains that no reasoning has been published, and then you come along and declare you know what's happened as if you were in the meeting itself.
So desperate to make a fact free judgement based only on the fact that some guy leaving was white and old. You'd make a fantastic juror.
Re: EFF board of directors (Score:2)
Not 87 or 76. Headline is wrong.
Re:Fear of Woke (Score:5, Informative)
Woke means you get fired if you inadvertently position your hand in a certain way:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog... [thehill.com]
https://nypost.com/2019/10/02/... [nypost.com]
We need to know more details. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only think of two reasons why Gilmore's removal from the EFF so secretive:
1: He's gone a bit crackers, and they're not saying more to not tarnish his stellar reputation late in life.
2: The EFF believe that many people would agree with Gilmore, and they want to move away from the example set by decades of Gilmore's superb leadership.
The list of Gilmore's previous accomplishments have greatly influenced my previous donations to the EFF. If these ideas have somehow become "troublesome" for the EFF, I need to know in order to adjust my donation behavior.
Re: We need to know more details. (Score:4, Informative)
Headline is wrong. He is 66.
Re: (Score:2)
Why, he's just a pup!
Trump supporters (Score:3, Interesting)
Trump supporters, most of whom actually hate the EFF, seem to be assuming that he was removed for Woke reasons/cancel culture. Well I doubt that. I think if he was removed due to cancel culture the press release wouldnâ(TM)t have been so nice about his contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump supporters, most of whom actually hate the EFF, seem to be assuming that he was removed for Woke reasons/cancel culture. Well I doubt that.
It's 2021. Anything in the world which happens that I disagree with *MUST* be the result of toxic "cancel culture". That is the state of modern discourse.
Re:Trump supporters (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you have to make it all about Trump?
I'm Mexican-born and I genuinely don't get the obsession.
I dont agree with the way some treat the illegal "migrants", but I also dont agree with them crossing the border illegally.
We have laws and borders for a reason, we dont live in a fairy tale with rainbows and flowers as far as the eye can see.
I donate to the EFF and Wikipedia regularly.
Wikipedia has done somethings I dont agree with, but I still believe in the idea.
I first heard about the EFF when the Sony DVD rootkit debacle, and have been following them ever since.
It would be a shame if I have to remove the EFF form my white list like I did Mozilla/Firefox.
Re: Trump supporters (Score:2)
It is not only legal but actually a suggested method of seeking asylum to cross the border and then apply.
That rule applies to the first country they encounter. So one cannot legally start in Haiti then take a boat to Colombia and live there for 6 months then pass through 5 other Central American nations then to Mexico then apply for asylum in the US. This is called Asylum Shopping.
Re: (Score:2)
That rule applies to the first country they encounter.
Nope, that requirement exists in the EU and Canada, but not in the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is puzzling in itself, because you seem to be an immigrant yourself.
Puzzling but not unusual by any means. I had a couple in the much wider family circle who were both right wing Dail Mail readers with all the vehement anti immagrant bullshit that implies. Both were immigrants and one was originally an asylum seeker.
Aggressive, blinkered stupidity knows no boundaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell us more about how MAGA featured in the cancellation of the Dixie Chicks.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
They spoke out about the Iraq war and their fan base turned on them overnight. Everyone thinks I'm talking about them changing their names.
Re:Trump supporters (Score:5, Insightful)
MAGA is code for make america great for conservative whites again.
Writing "MAGA is code for make america great for conservative whites again" is code for "I hate conservatives and will make up bullshit about them".
Wow - this is-code-for-gimmick is so useful and freeing! It lets you ascribe anything you want to your enemies without having the evidence to back it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Pure projection, a Republican staple.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, The Dixie Chicks were compelled to change their name to demonstrate their wokeness.
Wait, that wasn't because of conservatives....
What happened to them was they essentially Got Woke, Went Broke. They stopped making music that their fans like. Most people don't want to feel like they are getting lectured to when they listen to music. They had a brief time in the limelight, like a lot of bands, and then they fell out of the limelight, also like a lot of bands.
Re: (Score:2)
What in the ever loving fuck are you talking about being Woke with the Dixie Chicks? They said they weren't fans of the Iraq war and overnight radio stations stopped playing their music. People held events for smashing their cds, they received death threats, and lost corporate sponsorship.
What does any of that have to do with being "woke"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, The Dixie Chicks were compelled to change their name to demonstrate their wokeness. Wait, that wasn't because of conservatives....
They didn't change their name until 2020. Despite the controversy, they've never stopped touring and their songs have topped the charts a couple times since then. They are still together.
And they were right, Bush was a bad president and the Iraq war was a bad idea.
Re:Trump supporters (Score:4, Insightful)
The hilarious thing is that your ID is low enough that you probably cheered on Bill Clinton when his campaign slogan was "Make America Great Again" and Obama when he was delivering passionate speeches against illegal immigration in the Senate.
I don't know that for sure, of course. But "nationalism by definition is all cancel" is one of those rectocranial-inversion ideas that makes me think that you are ignorant of the definitions of at least one (and possibly all three) of the words: nationalism, cancel, definition.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that for sure, of course.
No, you don't know it at all: you're just making shit up. I'm sure you're convinced that you're not because it sounds truthy to you and truthy is the same as facts whether or not the facts actually agree.
Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
The article says leaves
Slashdot says removed
How did THAT happen?
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the article only says that in its title. Quoting the article:
"Since he helped found EFF 31 years ago, John Gilmore has provided leadership and guidance on many of the most important digital rights issues we advocate for today. But in recent years, we have not seen eye-to-eye on how to best communicate and work together, and we have been unable to agree on a way forward with Gilmore in a governance role. That is why the EFF Board of Directors has recently made the difficult decision to vote to remove Gilmore from the Board."
The removed him by electing him to the position of Board Member Emeritus.
Re: Interesting... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The article says leaves
Slashdot says removed
How did THAT happen?
The Slashdot summary says removed. Slashdotters themselves seem to think he was "cancelled" for ${insert_woke_reason_here}
John Gilmore (Score:3)
He also created DHCP (at least, its predecessor). He is the one who said, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
good people (Score:5, Insightful)
He's also an amazing person. I've met him a few times, worked with him when we tried to create EFF Europe (which never really went anywhere, sadly, but we kick-started a closer cooperation of the various national EFFs, at least that. Some of the things he told me are still in my mind today. Whatever they disagree about, it's always sad to see great people take a step down.
But I'm certain he won't kick back in his lounge chair at his pool drinking cocktails, because he could've done that decades ago if it were his nature.
So we'll be seing you around, John. Take care.
Communication (Score:4)
in recent years, we have not seen eye-to-eye on how to best communicate and work together, and we have been unable to agree on a way forward with Gilmore in a governance role.
Does that mean he wanted to only use PGP encrypted email, and everyone else wanted to use Slack?
If that's the case, then I'm on his side.
they are not secure (Score:5, Informative)
it looks like they use teams and their email is set to use outlook...
I repeat someone who thinks they know about privacy uses Office365...
their email domain does not support DNSSEC and mailserver uses TLS 1.0 with no TLS Authentication record (TLSA)
the website:
https://www.eff.org/about/staff
still allows use of AES128-SHA and has no DNSSEC
this is pretty basic stuff I would have a problem with.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a practical break of AES128-SHA?
Is he 76? (Score:5, Informative)
His Wikipedia article says he was born in 1955, making him 66.
Re: Is he 76? (Score:2)
Yes this headline is wrong
Re: (Score:2)
Time travel plays havoc with one's age.
He's been on Slashdot how long? (Score:5, Funny)
"He's also apparently Slashdot user #35,813 (though he hasn't posted a comment since 2004)."
35,913... NOOB
Re:He's been on Slashdot how long? (Score:5, Funny)
If you think he's a NOOB...
Re:He's been on Slashdot how long? (Score:5, Funny)
They should get off our lawn.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Came here to say this... but already saw that Tom (#822) posted earlier.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, we're all getting old!
Re: (Score:3)
Psh, kids these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did Slashdot go over 4 digits?
So EFF... (Score:2)
Age? (Score:2)
The summary repeats his age (incorrectly), but what does that have to do with it? Is the implication that he was getting too old? We don't usually cite a person's age if it's not a significant part of the story (like "Xx Yy dies, aged 146").
I stopped supporting the EFF when they went after (Score:4, Insightful)
Stallman [eff.org]. This is a group that very obviously has had their leadership replaced by woke SJW asshats.
I don't know fuck all about Gilmore, but them not seeing eye to eye is likely due to their change of course away from their purpose and towards politics.