Comment by seba_dos1
4 years ago
That text in parenthesis is completely irrelevant to the rest of the sentence and feels cheap. It's clearly trying to convey "they advocate for transparency but aren't even transparent themselves", which is missing the point. I read it as a form of manipulation to instill particular feeling towards EFF in the reader.
How is that missing the point? Transparency isn't just for governments and if you advocate for transparency in others you should adopt it yourself.
I can't agree with that. I can advocate for transparency in government and expect my right for personal privacy to be respected at the same time. The whole nature of what government and NGOs are makes points like "you should adopt it yourself" completely moot.
EFFs transparency is regulated by it being a 501c charity. It has full right to demand transparency from governments while not being any more transparent than strictly required by law themselves. You may wish for them to be more transparent if you want to support them - it's your choice - but that has no bearing on their advocacy at all, because it's completely irrelevant. The reasons why governments should be transparent simply don't apply to entities that are not governments, because they don't hold the power that governments do. The worst thing that may come from lack of EFF's transparency is my curiosity not being fed with board minutes, possibly causing me to restrain from supporting them in the future - which is hardly comparable to how my country's government influences my life.
Our rulers are more powerful than we are. They already surveil our every communication, while avoiding public scrutiny whenever possible. So long as CIA and NSA exist, opponents of evil like EFF should be as private as they deem necessary.
Although, removing Gilmore isn't a good look.
It's like the Bono Haiti charity. Dude just made it to raise awareness that there are poor people in Haiti. No shit...