Login

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
fosstodon.org is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Fosstodon is an invite only Mastodon instance that is open to those who are interested in technology; particularly free & open source software. If you wish to join, contact us for an invite.

Administered by:

Server stats:

10K
active users

fosstodon.org: AboutStatusProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.6

#eff

24 posts23 participants1 post today
Public
Noah

Since there are many #protests against #trump, #musk, #republicans, and ultimately #fascism, it’s important y’all know something about printers and photocopiers. Many add special watermarks to the paper that are identifies the specific device that was used to print the document. Security experts and journalists are fairly certain these were used to identify #whistleblower Reality Winner and ultimately convict her.

Given many people print out pamphlets, posters, etc. it’s important to know that they may inadvertently be leaving a digital fingerprint.

While I’m not a fan of the #EFF as of late, they do maintain a handy list of printers that do not implement tracking dots here: eff.org/pages/list-printers-wh

There is also a GitHub project with code that obfuscates those dots, making them unreadable by authorities: github.com/dfd-tud/deda.

Right now the legality of protest is codified in the constitution. However, Trump has already flaunted numerous other laws to go after people he perceives as his enemy, so be safe out there. If you are printing protest literature, make certain it can’t be tracked back to you.

Electronic Frontier Foundation · List of Printers Which Do or Do Not Display Tracking DotsWarning (Added 2015) Some of the documents that we previously received through FOIA suggested that all major manufacturers of color laser printers entered a secret agreement with governments to ensure that the output of those printers is forensically traceable. Although we still don't know if this...
Public *
Justin D Kruger (he/him)

#HELP

I just received a concerning email from the OTF (@opentechfund.bsky.social) stating that a major source of their funding is in jeopardy.

If you care about open-source, anti-censorship, or the open internet, please consider supporting one of the projects they fund.

#FOSS #OpenSource #TechNews
#USPol #Politics #News #PoliticalNews
#NetNeutrality #EFF
#Wikimedia #Signal #SignalApp
#TOR #TAILs #OpenVPN #VPN #LetsEncrypt #HTTPS #SSL
#Censorship #AntiCensorship

opentech.fund/projects-we-supp

Continued thread
Public
Peter Riley

A note on the name: Rayhunter is named such because Stingray is a brand name for cell-site simulators which has become a common term for the technology. One of the only natural predators of the stingray in the wild is the orca, some of which hunt stingrays for pleasure using a technique called wavehunting. Because we like Orcas, we don’t like stingray technology (though the animals are great!), and because it was the only name not already trademarked

eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/meet

Electronic Frontier Foundation · Meet Rayhunter: A New Open Source Tool from EFF to Detect Cellular SpyingRayhunter is a new open source tool we’ve created that runs off an affordable mobile hotspot that we hope empowers everyone, regardless of technical skill, to help search out cell-site simulators (CSS) around the world.
#EFF#RayHunter
Public
Benjamin Carr, Ph.D. 👨🏻‍💻🧬

How to Delete Your 23andMe Data instructions by #EFF
This week, the #genetic testing company 23andMe filed for #bankruptcy, which means the genetic data the company collected on millions of users is now up for sale. If you do not want your data included in any potential sale, it’s a good time to ask the company to delete it. eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/how-

Electronic Frontier Foundation · How to Delete Your 23andMe DataThis week, the genetic testing company 23andMe filed for bankruptcy, which means the genetic data the company collected on millions of users is now up for sale. If you do not want your data included in any potential sale, it’s a good time to ask the company to delete it. When the company first...
Public
gualdo :privacypride: :cc:

Sappiamo che nell'era #Trump entrare negli #USA può voler dire entrare in galera, anche per i contenuti che abbiamo sullo #smartphone

Per alcuni (giornalisti, attivisti, ricercatori...) non è un'ipotesi fantascientifica

L'Electronic Frontier Foundation #EFF ha pubblicato una guida che spiega come e perché può accadere e come difendersi

È del 2017, ma ora è più attuale di allora

Si trova qui: eff.org/files/2018/01/11/digit

#privacy
Public
James House-Lantto (He/Him)

eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/230-

This article by the #EFF argues against the misconception that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act only protects big tech companies.

Instead, it maintains that Section 230 benefits all platforms, including small ones and individual users, by protecting them from being held liable for content created by others.

Electronic Frontier Foundation · 230 Protects Users, Not Big TechOnce again, several Senators appear poised to gut one of the most important laws protecting internet users - Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230). Don’t be fooled - many of Section 230’s detractors claim that this critical law only protects big tech. The reality is that Section 230 provides limited...
#Section230#CivilRights#CivilLiberties
Public
MusiqueNow :pride: ✡️ 🇵🇸 :anarchismhebrew:

#EFF #ElectronicFrontierFoundation :

#Section230

eff.org/issues/cda230

eff.org/deeplinks/2023/02/sect

eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/230-

230 Protects Users, Not #BigTech
by #IndiaMcKinney

24 march 2025

Electronic Frontier FoundationSection 23047 U.S.C. § 230 The Internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Our unprecedented ability to communicate online—on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive—is not an accident. Congress recognized that for user speech to thrive on the Internet, it had to protect the services that power users’ speech.  That’s why the U.S. Congress passed a law, Section 230 (originally part of the Communications Decency Act), that protects Americans’ freedom of expression online by protecting the intermediaries we all rely on. It states:  "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)). Section 230 embodies that principle that we should all be responsible for our own actions and statements online, but generally not those of others. The law prevents most civil suits against users or services that are based on what others say.  Congress passed this bipartisan legislation because it recognized that promoting more user speech online outweighed potential harms. When harmful speech takes place, it’s the speaker that should be held responsible, not the service that hosts the speech.  Section 230’s protections are not absolute. It does not protect companies that violate federal criminal law. It does not protect companies that create illegal or harmful content. Nor does Section 230 protect companies from intellectual property claims.  Section 230 Protects Us All  For more than 25 years, Section 230 has protected us all: small blogs and websites, big platforms, and individual users.  The free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist without Section 230. Important court rulings on Section 230 have held that users and services cannot be sued for forwarding email, hosting online reviews, or sharing photos or videos that others find objectionable. It also helps to quickly resolve lawsuits cases that have no legal basis.  Congress knew that the sheer volume of the growing Internet would make it impossible for services to review every users’ speech. When Section 230 was passed in 1996, about 40 million people used the Internet worldwide. By 2019, more than 4 billion people were online, with 3.5 billion of them using social media platforms. In 1996, there were fewer than 300,000 websites; by 2017, there were more than 1.7 billion.  Without Section 230’s protections, many online intermediaries would intensively filter and censor user speech, while others may simply not host user content at all. This legal and policy framework allows countless niche websites, as well as big platforms like Amazon and Yelp to host user reviews. It allows users to share photos and videos on big platforms like Facebook and on the smallest blogs. It allows users to share speech and opinions everywhere, from vast conversational forums like Twitter and Discord, to the comment sections of the smallest newspapers and blogs.  Content Moderation For All Tastes  Congress wanted to encourage internet users and services to create and find communities. Section 230’s text explains how Congress wanted to protect the internet’s unique ability to provide “true diversity of political discourse” and “opportunities for cultural development, and… intellectual activity.”  Diverse communities have flourished online, providing us with “political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.” Users, meanwhile, have new ways to control the content they see.  Section 230 allows for web operators, large and small, to moderate user speech and content as they see fit. This reinforces the First Amendment’s protections for publishers to decide what content they will distribute. Different approaches to moderating users’ speech allows users to find the places online that they like, and avoid places they don’t.  Without Section 230, the Internet is different. In Canada and Australia, courts have allowed operators of online discussion groups to be punished for things their users have said. That has reduced the amount of user speech online, particularly on controversial subjects. In non-democratic countries, governments can directly censor the internet, controlling the speech of platforms and users.  If the law makes us liable for the speech of others, the biggest platforms would likely become locked-down and heavily censored. The next great websites and apps won’t even get started, because they’ll face overwhelming legal risk to host users’ speech.  Learn More About Section 230 Most Important Section 230 Legal Cases Section 230 is Good, Actually How Congress Censored the Internet With SESTA/FOSTA Here's an infographic we made in 2012 about the importance of Section 230. 
#Tech#FascistUSA#UnitedStatesOfBATSHIT
Public
ResearchBuzz: Firehose

Electronic Frontier Foundation: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Google Search? Courts Must Enable Competition While Protecting Privacy.. “Antitrust enforcers have proposed a set of complementary remedies, from giving users a choice of search engine, to forcing Google to spin off Chrome and possibly Android into separate companies. Overall, this is the right approach. Google’s dominance in […]

https://rbfirehose.com/2025/03/22/electronic-frontier-foundation-how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-google-search-courts-must-enable-competition-while-protecting-privacy/

ResearchBuzz: Firehose | Individual posts from ResearchBuzz · Electronic Frontier Foundation: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Google Search? Courts Must Enable Competition While Protecting Privacy. | ResearchBuzz: Firehose
More from ResearchBuzz: Firehose
#antitrust#editorial#eff
ExploreLive feeds
About