I love what Google does about 85% of the time. This would be in the “15%” category.

Could you explain precisely what you mean? My point is that Mike didn’t identify who “they” are, and it’s possible that the EFF is with Google on the copyright issue but not the privacy issue. Can you coherently comment on the substance of my post?

“At this point I’m sorry I asked. I forgot that stupid questions are met with a host of hostility on Techdirt.”

FTFY

https://www.eff.org/event/eff-mixer-google

Well, somebody certainly has dug up a lot of “dirt” on the EFF. Too bad most of it seems pretty harmless.

Reminds me of Scientology tactics: dig up ANYTHING you can from your opponent, and then hype it up as much as you can.

Kinda sad really.

Ummmm, I think it was largely a rebuttal to this absurdity:

It’s also kind of strange, because looking over the EFF’s most recent (public) financial statement (pdf), there isn’t much evidence of Google support. Not only is corporate funding only about 15% of EFF’s total budget, but Google isn’t even listed as a company sponsor in the listing of companies which donated.

How is it a stupid question. I’m simply asking who exactly this article is referring to. You guys are really, really hostile to anyone who asks even simple questions. I don’t get it.

Why do you even bother to answer my question to Mike if you don’t even know the answer. I don’t get this place. And for the record, I’ve never said that the EFF is a mouthpiece for Google, so I’m not “they.” It never ceases to amaze me how unwelcome you guys make anyone who dares to ask even a simple question. It’s really sad.

I appreciate the response, and I do see your point. I think the EFF and Google have similar feelings about copyright and its enforcement on the ‘net, but I wouldn’t say that the EFF is Google’s mouthpiece. I’m not really sure that there’s more than a handful of people claiming that though, so that’s why I asked. And while the EFF isn’t Google’s mouthpiece per se, it’s my understanding that there’s some connection between the two. That might explain the view that some hold.

Ah, you’re probably bummed that they didn’t hold your event at Crave. Maybe one of the downscale food places.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/0327579886.shtml

The argument that bob and the AC and many others have made is that because EFF gets money from Google, they are a mouthpiece for Google. ie., EFF holds its position and does what it does because Google gives it money.

No Chubby. The argument is that you are full of shit. As in:

It’s also kind of strange, because looking over the EFF’s most recent (public) financial statement (pdf), there isn’t much evidence of Google support.

You point to a single source in the midst of a mass of evidence of patronage.

Anyone who dares question the echo chamber is vilified and does not get the (strangely) coveted head-pat from Masnick.

Chris Dodd for one.

but … but … but … the Eff is the lobbying arm of google and they always support Google since Google and the eff always work together.

“I’m not really sure that there’s more than a handful of people claiming that though”

I’m not really sure that there’s more than a handful of IP extremists that support IP expansion laws (or even our current overarching IP laws), but the point is that Mike was referring those few who did claim that. So what’s your point?

“Either way, I’m curious how those who continue to insist that EFF is merely a front group for Google respond to issues like this one ….”

I guess you got your answer. The trolls are very, very hungry …

and now the Australian Government is holding secret anti-piracy meetings. If the public really wants these laws then why are all these meetings held in secret?

“I’m sure half a million dollars”

What are you taking about? Are you still referring to this.

“plus funding other positions”

Funding other positions … which has to do with their influence on the EFF … how exactly? What might be more relevant is how much they are funding the EFF, not how much they are funding other positions or organizations, especially if those other positions are positions other than ones the EFF would tend to support.

“plus funding staff attorneys”

Yes, Google hires attorneys to defend itself from lawsuits. Who are they supposed to hire, plumbers?

“plus sponsoring events”

Sure, they sponsor various events. So does just about every corporation. Again, what does that have to do with their influence on the EFF?

“plus widespread employee support”

Organizations are composed of various employees that support different charitable and other organizations. Sure, some Google employees might support the EFF, some Wal-Mart Employees might support the ACLU and others the EFF, etc… which says very little about Google’s or Wal-Mart’s influence on either organization or any other organization for that matter.

You act like Google is a monolithic entity, some employees may disagree with some things Google does and agree with others, very few people agree with absolutely everything their corporation does. Two people can hardly agree on anything.

“which obviously is a joke in terms of disclosure”

Yes, because people are automatically guilty until proven innocent. Just like you are guilty of bribing politicians.

“if the MPAA or RIAA donates $2500 to a candidate”

I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers, it must be that Hollywood accounting again, but the RIAA/MPAA donate considerably more money in campaign contributions to politicians than does Google. and there is a difference between donating money to the EFF and donating it to a candidate.

But lets not forget about all the money Disney and other MPAA members donate to the RIAA/MPAA, which are organizations that (at least almost) never criticize their corporate constituents. The EFF has no problems criticizing Google because the EFF doesn’t unconditionally defend Google. Sure, the EFF and Google may agree on some positions, but that’s different than saying that the EFF unconditionally defends Google, unlike the apparent relationship between the MPAA/RIAA and its members, or that the EFF’s position is substantially affected by Google’s influence. You have provided little evidence to support your position.

You keep asking the same question.

EFF attacked Google in an area that Google can easily extract itself from, can easily “make it better” by making a small modification, and then can get praised for being “responsive”.

Meanwhile, it helps to create more distance between EFF and Google, so it is less likely that Brin’s “charitable” donations won’t show up on the radar.

It’s a nice way of doing things. You really do need to learn more about politics and lobbying, you seem lost. That’s a bad thing for an undeclared lobbyist like yourself.

Google-EFF love spat. How cute.

Google: “Do No Evil”.

Google: “Spying isn’t evil”.

It’s PR. A false flag.

No one ever accused Google of being stupid; they’re actually very cunning. And this is a prime example.

This attempted fake notion being thrown around today that the EFF is actually angry at Google is hilarious.

The EFF is a joke and this little bit of theater is a bad example of acting.

The fact they ignore how Google generally operates is blatant to everyone but the deaf and blind.

The EFF and Google are far more manipulative and evil than the “mafiaa” have ever been.

Hello to ugly reality.

Oh, this is going to be fun Chubby:

“I’m sure half a million dollars,”

Which was part of a legal settlement punishing Google and not a voluntary payment — which, uh, kinda shoots a big fucking hole in your idiotic conspiracy theory, doesn’t it?

Here’s how The Register views it, accurately characterizing it as : “Google offered $8.5m to settle several class action suits last September. The Court made a preliminary settlement late last year and decided on the dispersal of money in February. The lawyers took a cut of just over $2m, leaving $6m to be spread around some 77 organisations. Only 12 made the cut.

Amongst the groups that failed to squeeze its snouts into the trough was EPIC, which complained that the selection process favored ?organizations that are currently paid by [Defendant] to lobby for or to consult for the company?.

“To say the least, that’s an interesting description of the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which both hit the jackpot, receiving $1m each.”

“And $1m is not a trivial amount to the EFF: in 2008/09 the organisation saw gross income of $3.42m, and was left with a shortfall of over $400,000. Google’s cash from this one settlement alone exceeds both individual membership fees, and individual contributions – both under $1m. You could almost describe relying on Google is a kind of business model.”

Here’s the link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/03/google_settlement_rewards_privacy_groups_wtf/

That was a million, not a half million. The half million I was talking about was from the Wojcicki Brin Foundation, which I guess you’ll argue doesn’t count because technically it’s not Google, but anyone with half a brain knows really is.

https://www.eff.org/pages/eff-mission

The OTHER half million that EFF got from Google was part of a negotiated settlement. Google had a say in where some of the money was directed. So they directed it to their lapdog. Dope.

“plus funding staff attorneys”

Citation please?
Still looking for that for you. In the meantime enjoy the citation for Google Legal Fellowships:

The Google Policy Fellowship program offers law students interested in Internet and technology policy the opportunity to spend the summer contributing to the public dialogue on these issues, and exploring future academic and professional interests. Fellows will have the opportunity to work at public interest organizations at the forefront of debates on broadband and access policy, content regulation, copyright and trademark reform, consumer privacy, open government, and more. Participating organizations are based in either Washington, DC or San Francisco, CA, and include: American Library Association, Cato Institute, Center for Democracy and Technology, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Internet Education Foundation, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and Public Knowledge. Fellows will be assigned a lead mentor at their host organizations, but will have the opportunity to work with several senior staff members over the course of the summer. Fellows will be expected to make substantive contributions to the work of their organization, including conducting policy research and analysis; drafting reports and analyses; attending government and industry meetings and conferences; and participating in other advocacy activities.

“plus funding other positions”

Citation please?

Policy fellowships: http://www.google.com/policyfellowship/hosts.html#eff

Here. Eat this too: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/03/eff-seeks-students-to-code-for-liberty.ars

“plus sponsoring events”

I recognize that you’re from DC and not Silicon Valley so perhaps you’re too ignorant to know this, but this is what Silicon Valley does: pretty much every tech company “sponsors” events of various groups. It’s meaningless in the long run. There’s rarely any money involved. Sponsorship means “letting you use our space.” And every company does it. If it wasn’t Google, it would have been Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, CNET or someone else. All of those companies regularly let various groups use their space in exchange for putting a “sponsor” logo on the announcement. Reading corruption into that is just stupid.

And typically the pick up the tab for refreshments, entertainment and associated costs. Right? Which is money the organization would otherwise have to spend, right?

“plus whatever else doesn’t appear in the “definitive yearly statement” (which obviously is a joke in terms of disclosure)”

You think that a 501(c)3 would flat out lie on its annual statement? Not only that but a 501(c)3 made up almost entirely of lawyers? You’re out of your mind.

Read what I wrote Chubby. I didn’t say it was a lie, those are your words. I said it was a joke in terms of full disclosure. Which it is.

“But don’t believe me Masnick, go read their 990.”

Hahah. Their 990 matches their yearly report published on the site, which confirms that it’s likely accurate — contrary to your claim.

See above.

“They get about 2 million plus per year from all grants. When Google lays down a half million for their building and pays lawyers and other staff salaries (probably another couple of hundred thousand) that’s a pretty significant portion.”

Again, the half mill was a one-time legal settlement (which similarly had Google give a bunch of money to EPIC — a known Google antagonist), not a grant. And where is the evidence of this “staff salaries”? And, you’re wrong. You ignore the fact that individual membership are the bulk of their revenue — and not corporate grants. So, you’re basically full of it.

It was a million, not a half-million. The half-million was from the Brin Foundation.

“But you’re right no corrupting influence there. However, if the MPAA or RIAA donates $2500 to a candidate (among hundreds of thousands or millions raised) they’re “bought” Right?”

The MPAA and RIAA’s sole purpose is to influence Congress as a lobbying organization. The EFF is a litigation shop, not a lobbying shop. Furthermore, the RIAA and MPAA solely represent the very few corporate sponsors they have and only support their interests. EFF’s charter is to support the public interest.

Curious. Here’s a link to EFF’s site where they characterize their lobbying efforts on Net Neutrality: https://www.eff.org/foia/net-neutrality-lobbying. And here’s another to the Livingston Group, the lobbyists they hired: http://www.livingstongroupdc.com/science_tech_tele.php

If you can’t tell the difference, well…

Sorry, what difference?

And, since you’re suddenly all about full disclosure, who pays your bills?

I bet you won’t say.

I can say it’s none of your fucking business.

“It’s PR. A false flag.”

Well, at least your tin foil hat is working correctly, so far …

“The EFF is a litigation shop, not a lobbying shop.”

That just is no longer true. EFF’s push for expanded fair use isn’t as a result of any direct legal challenge, rather it is a change in the law that they are lobbying for.

Quite simply, they have changed their tune, changed their attitude, and now speak preemptively about subjects and push for changes to the law, rather than just dealing with the back side in court.

“And, since you’re suddenly all about full disclosure, who pays your bills?”

I love lines like this. What happens if the person isn’t getting paid to lobby, to post, or to complain professionally? Is there any reason they should disclose their personal information, just because they express an opinion here?

Seems like you are using a double standard again to try to cow someone into not answering.

How about you? Would you care to declare all of your income, and all of the causes you have donated money to this year? Can you explain how you are going to express the lobbying expenses you incurring in 2011 against SOPA, including the value of all of the posts here? How do you handle that stuff?

To quote you, “I bet you won’t say.”

Yes, its true. You do live in a false reality. Probably because of your bizarre obsession/love for Hollywood’s profit margin. And you don’t have a vested interest in that, you say?

hmmmmmmm…

I and we at techdirt have already seen that page, thank you very much, and that’s just the maximum that a single individual may directly donate to a single candidate. We’ve already covered how much the entertainment industry donates.

For example

“Of the $48.7 million in total campaign contributions given by this industry during the 2008 election cycle …”

and here is another example

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2012&type=I&cid=N00009918&newMem=N&recs=20

the only industry donating more to Patrick Leahy than the entertainment industry are Lawyers/Law Firms (which likely includes IP trolls, like intellectual ventures, including copy protection trolls). No wonder our laws are so messed up.

[citation needed] Actually several of them, since you’ll have to prove that statement by comparing it to other mega-corporations. Google is only as invasive as you allow.

Explain how that is absurd.

I know you won’t understand, but if you’re coming into the comments only to call someone else a troll (especially someone like me who is simply trying to understand the article), then YOU’RE the troll.