Re: EME supporters: Mozilla and the EFF

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:38:51PM +0000, Fred Andrews wrote:
>    It is noteworthy that Mozilla and the EFF chose not to reply to the EME
>    Heartbeat CfC.
> 
>    The terms of this CfC made it clear that not responding would be taken as
>    support.  Both Mozilla and the EFF are W3C members and maintain confidence
>    in the HTML WG Chairs who published the CfC with these terms, so it seems
>    fair to take it as a fact that they agreed with the terms and supported
>    this CfC.
> 
>    I have personally appealed to Mozilla to help advance alternatives, such
>    as the IEME, that are arguable better for user security and privacy, with
>    no success.  I appealed to Mozilla to respond to the CfC.  Mozilla chose
>    not to response, and thus to support the EME, and they have made no public
>    attempt to build support for viable alternatives.  Their token comments of
>    objection in mailing lists could well do more damage than good if they are
>    held to be real objections or if they suggest that a real attempt was made
>    to achieve a better outcome.
> 
>    See the following article and comments:
>    http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/11/brendan-eich-mozillas-cto-on-eme-and-drm/index.htm  
>    Note the exchange between Daira and Brendan.  Mozilla did not respond to
>    the recent CfC and thus supported it.  If Mozilla really believed that
>    watermarking was a viable alternative then there would be no need to fear
>    a loss of market shared from refusing to deploy the EME API - it's a token
>    gesture.
> 
>    The EFF filed a formal objection to the change in the charter, but it has
>    been dealt with, and the charter changed.  The EFF works with the Director
>    of the W3C in various campaigns, for example The-Web-We-Want[sic].  The
>    Chair of this Community Group, Wendy, has former relationships with the
>    EFF (staff attorney) and is currently working for the W3C.  The members of
>    this group have a dispute with Tim and the W3C.
>
>

The charter wasn't changed, and our objection still stands. We continue
to believe that EME is damaging to the open web, and damaging to the W3C
as an institution.

My reading of the heartbeat cFc was that it is for procedural objections
regarding the publication of the heartbeat itself (ie no draft
appeared), not substantive critiques of the content, nor to the
existence of the draft itself.

If anyone other than Fred thinks that this isn't the case, do let me
know.

d.


>    implicit, agreement with the Director of the W3C to put up token
>    resistance and objections to the EME API to give it credibility as having
>    been a product of the participation[sic] of Mozilla and the EFF.  Please
>    do not assume they support your security or privacy on the Internet just
>    because they have made representations about user security and privacy, or
>    about keeping the web open and accessible, etc.
> 
>    cheers
>    Fred

-- 
International Director, EFF | +1 415 436 9333 x150 | 815 Eddy Street, SF, CA 94109

Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 05:45:42 UTC