NODE d0d01c9fWhat is the EFF doing exactly?
Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>Tue, 3 Sep 1996 09:53:07 +0800
On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Stanton McCandlish wrote:
> > > What is or is not your personal or EFF's official position is meaningless.
> > > It is clear that the personal beliefs of those involved in EFF are
> > > those of compromise, present day politics, and a general lack of moral
> > > fiber.
>
> But that's not clear at all, since none of you have access to internal
> discussion on this or any other topic here. Esther's position is one of
> guarded caution. Our former board member David Johnson's was one of
> almost complete anti-anonymity (a fact that probably had a lot to do with
> his leaving the board), while other board and staff members are 100%
> pro-anonymity, and yet others are middleground or entirely silent on the
> topic.
Why am I any more mistaken for pointing out that a single influential
member of EFF's staff or board is anti-anonymity and yet remains with the
organization than you are for pointing out that a single influential
member who happened to be anti-anonymity has left?
If my position, as you represent, is misguided, surely your point about
Mr. Johnson is equally so. If the board is almost 100% pro-anonymity,
where's the official position?
In so far as an organization is much defined by those involved, I think it
entirely right to wonder aloud about the personal motives of the staff and
board. I think this PARTICULARLY prudent given EFF's reputation and prior
conduct.
I would be most happy to be proven wrong and see EFF suddenly, in a burst
of impressive moral fiber, speak out publically and take some political
action to assure anonymous communication.
>
> Things simply are not as black and white as they might seem.
>
Well, let's have a clear official position issued then to end all dispute.
> > I agree with you whole-heartedly. I am stunned by the EFF's position on
> > this matter and they no longer have my support. Here are some more
> > of Dyson's statements on this subject.
>
> You've not been reading very carefully. There is no "EFF's position on
> this matter". There is just Esther Dyson's position on this matter,
> and quoted out of context.
Maybe there should be an EFF position on the matter.
What is EFF doing if not supporting anonyminity?
I'm hardly going to support an organization that proports to be
pro-internet freedom and yet has no official position on anonyminity. Of
course you should expect people to wonder about EFF when you have no
official position and yet some staff and board members seem to have a
statist
bent.
> --
> <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish
> </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech@eff.org
> </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> </A><P> Online Activist </HTML>
--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li
NODE c60e458eRe: What is the EFF doing exactly?
Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:14:42 +0800
(You may need to manually repost this to c'punks. NB: I did not
authorize redistribution of my email to you to c'punks in the first
place. But since it's there now...
Black Unicorn typed:
>
> Why am I any more mistaken for pointing out that a single influential
> member of EFF's staff or board is anti-anonymity and yet remains with the
> organization than you are for pointing out that a single influential
> member who happened to be anti-anonymity has left?
I didn't say you were more mistaken than anyone or anything else. I'm not
aware of a mistakenometer with which to make such a measurement.
I pointed out your assumption that "It is clear that the personal
beliefs of those involved in EFF are those of compromise, present day
politics, and a general lack of moral fiber" is not in fact "clear" at
all, because you have insuffient information to make such a statement.
You don't even have to belive my remark that others in EFF have very
pro-anonymity positions - you categorization of EFF is still logically
bankrupt, because you don't have enough facts to make it.
> If my position, as you represent, is misguided, surely your point about
> Mr. Johnson is equally so. If the board is almost 100% pro-anonymity,
> where's the official position?
The board is not almost 100% pro-anonymity. There are widely differing
opinions on the topic, and many board members have not directly wrestled
with this issue before at all. I've seen some opinions shift in the space
of a few messages. This should clearly illustrate why there is no
official position yet. Some EFFers are not only not in agreement with
eachother on this, but aren't sure where they stand at all. This is the
first time the issue has come up for the board as a whole since early
1995, and the board's composition is very different now. This is the
same process EFF goes through every time an issue comes up on which we
have no position. Sometimes a position is agreed upon, and there we are,
but sometimes no position is taken, as is still the case with
intellectual property. In cases like that, we look at what happens on a
case by case basis, rather than categorically. (That is to say, even on
stuff where we have no position, if something happens that harms the
public interest we do not feel any obligation not to act simply because
we lack a position on the meta-issue.)
It will take some time to formuate a position on it. Personally, I am
confident that if EFF takes a position on online anonymity, it will be
the positive stance you would expect from us. It is also likely to be
tempered with a discussion of responsibility issues, just like every
other EFF position. This is not a "sellout" or a "compromise" just a
recognization of fact: anonymity does have costs associated with it, such
as the ability to defame without the defamed party having much recourse
other than contradiction. Such costs should be stated openly, not lied
about or ignored. If EFF or other organizations pretend there are no
costs or belittle concerns about costs, we undermine everything we are
working for - we undermine the public interest and individual liberty.
> In so far as an organization is much defined by those involved, I think it
> entirely right to wonder aloud about the personal motives of the staff and
> board. I think this PARTICULARLY prudent given EFF's reputation and prior
> conduct.
That's fine. I do think you should wonder. But wondering and making unfounded
accusations are different things. It's one thing to say, "I wonder if Black
Unicorn has good moral fiber whatever that is, and in fact I suspect he
doesn't" (hypothetically, mind you), but it's quite another to say "Black
Unicorn has no moral fiber!" (whatever moral fiber might be.)
>
> I would be most happy to be proven wrong and see EFF suddenly, in a burst
> of impressive moral fiber, speak out publically and take some political
> action to assure anonymous communication.
Don't be surprised if it happens. Also don't be surprised if it doesn't
happen. In EFF's 6+ years, no clear consensus on anonymity has yet
evolved within any version of EFF's board and staff. DO be surprised if
you see EFF take an official position against anonymity. If that happens,
I'll start looking for another job. I'm confident it won't happen, or
I'd probably already be looking for another job.
> >
> > Things simply are not as black and white as they might seem.
> >
>
> Well, let's have a clear official position issued then to end all dispute.
>
I'd like to see that too, but it may be a while in comming.
> What is EFF doing if not supporting anonyminity?
That's a very good question. EFF has, the entire time I've been with it,
and before that the entire time I was observing it (that is, ~1992 to
present) been quite supportive of anonymity, in ways that range from
relying on facets of the NAACP case in our own CDA challenge, to
defending online anonymity when being interviewed by the press, to
providing publicly available materials (e.g. at
http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Anonymity) on anonymity including remailer
lists and FAQs, to having a link on our "other interesting sites" page to
the WWW remailer gateway, to permitting anonymous posts to all of our
public mailing lists. I can't think of any EFF statement against anonymity,
and even Esther's personal statement is not against anonymity, just
advising caution and noting that there are many unresolved concerns in
this area.
> I'm hardly going to support an organization that proports to be
> pro-internet freedom and yet has no official position on anonyminity. Of
It's certainly your right to not support us. I'm sad that you won't, but
it is beyond anything I can do anything about. Positions on issues take
time to evolve.
> course you should expect people to wonder about EFF when you have no
> official position and yet some staff and board members seem to have a
> statist
> bent.
Again, I think you're making unfounded assumptions. The fact that Dyson
has questions about the balance of the value and cost of online anonymity
does not indicate a "statist bent". Hell, *I* have questions about that
balance. For myself, I've found adequate answers, and have come to the
conclusion that even if anonymity on the net were abused 1000x more than
it is now, it would still be better to have anonymity than to not have it.
But I have to let other people come to that conclusion themselves, with
my help when appropriate. I can't find any value in demonizing others
who've not come to that conclusion, even if if I do find value in severely
criticizing people who have taken a completely anti-anonymity position,
which Dyson has not. Dorothy Denning, different story. I will happily
criticize her positions into the ground, because they are what they are.
EFF's position does not exist yet, and the only not completely
pro-anonymity individual opinions I've seen out of the board are not
anti-anonymity, they're just full of questions. I can't slam people for
having questions.
--
<HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech@eff.org
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P> Online Activist </HTML>
NODE 12bbd8eaRe: What is the EFF doing exactly?
"Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:45:43 +0800
ah, the quasi-yearly ranting on EFF has started up. what a great
opportunity for drop-down-drag-dead flamewar.
Black Unicorn: I resent your holier-than-thou moral posturing
over EFF, and am going to attack it as representative of other
criticism I have seen of EFF.
EFF is an organization that is professional and has
worked toward improving cyberspace. it is easy for someone
such as yourself to criticize such an organization anonymously,
but what is the justification of your criticism? to me someone
who has tried and failed, yet is still trying, is better than
someone who has never tried. what *constructive*
alternative to EFF do you propose? if you have none, please shut up.
I am tired of people announcing loudly to the world, "well if EFF
doesn't support [insert my personal jihad here], then they're
a bunch of losers who don't deserve anyone's money".
>Why am I any more mistaken for pointing out that a single influential
>member of EFF's staff or board is anti-anonymity and yet remains with the
>organization than you are for pointing out that a single influential
>member who happened to be anti-anonymity has left?
get a clue. an organization does not have to officially espouse what
its members espouse. what an organization espouses should be carefully
crafted. if all members feel strongly about an issue, yet all also
feel that it should not be part of the official plank, then that may be
a wise decision to leave it out. what an organization does *not* do is as
important as what it does do. EFF is learning, by trial and error and the
hard way, to "choose battles wisely".
I would love to see more info about EFF's new direction. but one
can ask for such clarification without a rabid style such as your own.
>In so far as an organization is much defined by those involved, I think it
>entirely right to wonder aloud about the personal motives of the staff and
>board. I think this PARTICULARLY prudent given EFF's reputation and prior
>conduct.
blah, blah, blah. why should EFF give the slightest damn what you think
of them? if you were at the helm of a competing organization that
was doing superior work, or a privacy lobbyist with a track record,
maybe they should listen. as it stands I think they are giving you
far more respect than you deserve by even responding to your
various scurrilous insinuations.
why do I see so much of this in cyberspace and on the cpunks list:
gripes, gripes, gripes by people who have no record themselves of
doing anything constructive...? the difficulty of doing something
constructive is proven by the failures, it is not necessarily
evidence of incompetence or conspiracies. perhaps you, Unicorn,
feel the cpunks have a greater track record than EFF?
>I would be most happy to be proven wrong and see EFF suddenly, in a burst
>of impressive moral fiber, speak out publically and take some political
>action to assure anonymous communication.
I would like you to explain why you feel the need to criticize EFF
for not necessarily sharing your own agenda.
>Well, let's have a clear official position issued then to end all dispute.
again, you fail to grasp: EFF may justifiably not want to engage in that
fight. it might be a wise decision. who are you to dictate EFF's
agenda? why are you picking a fight with someone who might be the
best ally?
>I'm hardly going to support an organization that proports to be
>pro-internet freedom and yet has no official position on anonyminity.
perhaps you would be more influential if you learned to spell what
you are advocating. (hee, hee)
> Of
>course you should expect people to wonder about EFF when you have no
> official position and yet some staff and board members seem to have a
>statist bent.
and you, like many other cypherpunks and cyberspace weasels,
have a whine-and-shriek-from-the-shadows bent.
BTW, I reject the claim by some here (e.g. TCM) that the supposed change in
direction at EFF implies that such an organization is inherently
top-heavy and will fail in comparison to cypherpunk guerilla-style
"technology deployment." it seems to me both the cpunk philosophy
and the EFF philosophy can coexist, and I really get tired of people
who can't think past a "only one can exist" worldview.
I also don't understand the anonymity fight by cpunks. it's the
wrong battle imho. ask any remailer operators how their services
are panning out. they will complain of the incessant spam and
increasing litigious pressure. I don't see any technological
solutions to these problems. if there were, they'd have been
invented now.
let's face it, anonymity is a pain in the ass
to support. maybe there are other goals that are more crucial
that lie at the heart of anonymity. what cpunks are really
seaking is "assurance of freedom from retribution". when the
problem is phrased more openly like that, other solutions become
possible and worth consideration. anonymity is only one such
way to achieve this goal. I for one would like to see more
experimentation with reputation systems. "aw gee, nobody knows what
one would look like". well, that's the point.
NODE e509795aRe: What is the EFF doing exactly?
Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>Tue, 3 Sep 1996 17:43:27 +0800
On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
>
> ah, the quasi-yearly ranting on EFF has started up. what a great
> opportunity for drop-down-drag-dead flamewar.
>
> Black Unicorn: I resent your holier-than-thou moral posturing
> over EFF, and am going to attack it as representative of other
> criticism I have seen of EFF.
I, unlike EFF, have never compromised my efforts to make strong crypto,
unescrowed strong crypto, and digitial communications, free from the FUD
spouted by government and media alike. I, unlike EFF, have never
compromised my efforts to resist the expansion of a wiretap state. I,
unlike EFF, have never proported to be a political represenative for these
positions and folded under the weakest of pressures like a reed.
> EFF is an organization that is professional and has
> worked toward improving cyberspace. it is easy for someone
> such as yourself to criticize such an organization anonymously,
> but what is the justification of your criticism? to me someone
> who has tried and failed, yet is still trying, is better than
> someone who has never tried.
I would put forth that you know nothing of my efforts, and therefore are
in no position to judge me. I would also put forth that the efforts of
EFF, or lack thereof, are quite public.
> what *constructive*
> alternative to EFF do you propose? if you have none, please shut up.
I think any organization that would apply political pressure rather than
bow to it would be an alternative. I think an organization in touch
enough with its own policy to prevent its staff and board from making
embarassing big brother type proposals to curtail the ability of any of us
to post without attributation would be an alternative. I think an
organization without the internal conflict and strife that has clearly
marred EFF in past and made it a laughable attempt at cohesive political
persuasion would be an alternative. I think an organization that had
official policies on the core issues which it proposes to influence would
be an alternative.
In short, an organization that had even one of the needed elements of
legislative influence. (Cohesive, directed, persistent, and
uncompromising).
> I am tired of people announcing loudly to the world, "well if EFF
> doesn't support [insert my personal jihad here], then they're
> a bunch of losers who don't deserve anyone's money".
Now who's holier-than-thou? What is so shocking about announcing that a
given organization does not support my interests and therefore calling on
others who share my interests not to make financial donations to said
organization? Is there something EFF fears in free speech and political
consensus building? Perhaps if they had a straightforward policy....
Were I to say that the Clinton administration has accomplished nothing but
oppression (not that this is necessarily my view) and that others should
place their resources elsewhere would you claim that somehow I was in the
wrong? Political speech is in the air every day. Learn to live with it,
even if you do not agree with the points contained within.
Phrased another way, who cares what you are tired of hearing?
That's what filters and channel changers and off buttons are for.
> >Why am I any more mistaken for pointing out that a single influential
> >member of EFF's staff or board is anti-anonymity and yet remains with the
> >organization than you are for pointing out that a single influential
> >member who happened to be anti-anonymity has left?
>
> get a clue. an organization does not have to officially espouse what
> its members espouse.
No, but when an organization espouses nothing on a given subject key to
its mission, what does that say? What about when its members espouse
entirely different and even counter productive beliefs? I would hardly
trust Senator Burns on the board of the ACLU, or a George Pacific
exec on Sierra Club's board. What's different here?
> what an organization espouses should be carefully
> crafted. if all members feel strongly about an issue, yet all also
> feel that it should not be part of the official plank, then that may be
> a wise decision to leave it out. what an organization does *not* do is as
> important as what it does do. EFF is learning, by trial and error and the
> hard way, to "choose battles wisely".
I thought its point was to protect cyberspace? What battles are left
after Digital Telecom, Anonymous Communication, Strong Crypto and CDA?
There aren't many battles to choose. Let's seem some action. I can sit
on my hands all day long too, but I will hardly claim to be supporting
hunger prevention in Africa by "thinking very hard about the subject."
(Particularly not when I have accepted money to further that goal).
> I would love to see more info about EFF's new direction. but one
> can ask for such clarification without a rabid style such as your own.
Are you one of those people who still believes you can get more flies with
honey...? Ever been to Washington, D.C.?
> >In so far as an organization is much defined by those involved, I think it
> >entirely right to wonder aloud about the personal motives of the staff and
> >board. I think this PARTICULARLY prudent given EFF's reputation and prior
> >conduct.
>
> blah, blah, blah. why should EFF give the slightest damn what you think
> of them?
Its fairly clear that they don't. That said, why should I not make that
point known. "Folks, EFF doesn't give a damn what I think. If you think
what I think, then they don't give a damn what you think either." This is
called POLITICS. They are free to ignore people like me when we comment
that their public appearance is damaging them. They will also pay the
price for doing so. What kind of organization proports to support
and then ignores the public?
if you were at the helm of a competing organization that
> was doing superior work, or a privacy lobbyist with a track record,
> maybe they should listen. as it stands I think they are giving you
> far more respect than you deserve by even responding to your
> various scurrilous insinuations.
Apparently their view of the respect I deserve and yours are disperate.
You yourself admitted that my criticisms were generally represenative. I
hardly think my worth is the issue.
> why do I see so much of this in cyberspace and on the cpunks list:
> gripes, gripes, gripes by people who have no record themselves of
> doing anything constructive...? the difficulty of doing something
> constructive is proven by the failures, it is not necessarily
> evidence of incompetence or conspiracies. perhaps you, Unicorn,
> feel the cpunks have a greater track record than EFF?
I do infact feel the cpunks have a greater track record than EFF. Tell
me, what has EFF done? The list of "cypherpunk" accomplishments in terms
of making the net a better place to be is, in my view, significant.
Certainly the discussion here is livelier than anything I've seen from
EFF.
> >I would be most happy to be proven wrong and see EFF suddenly, in a burst
> >of impressive moral fiber, speak out publically and take some political
> >action to assure anonymous communication.
>
> I would like you to explain why you feel the need to criticize EFF
> for not necessarily sharing your own agenda.
The same reason I feel free to criticize communism for not sharing my own
agenda.
You reveal here the basic character of your objection. You don't like
the fact that I criticized EFF. It has nothing to do with the fact that
you think EFF has done wonderful and fantastic things (you point to none
in this post) but that you have some emotional fondness for them. This is
the trap. EFF _sounds_ good, and so its worth sticking up for. Well
what, EFF, have you done for us LATELY?
> >Well, let's have a clear official position issued then to end all dispute.
>
> again, you fail to grasp: EFF may justifiably not want to engage in that
> fight. it might be a wise decision. who are you to dictate EFF's
> agenda? why are you picking a fight with someone who might be the
> best ally?
If EFF is the best ally then we need to seek others. They have done
nothing in my view to help keep strong crypto around, to secure a person's
right to speak without a citizen unit I.D. being attached, and to promote,
by extension, free speech. Look, even you have gotten on my case here for
speaking without revealing my real name. You think something I said
libelous? Is it dangerous? Would you like to contact me further about
it? What precisely is the need to attach my real name to this work about?
It's about retribution. It's about the need to see people unable to
really speak as they think, and the need to have words softened so no one
is "hurt." Forget it. I will not pay the political and financial price
of revealing my name just to make you, or anyone else, happy.
> >I'm hardly going to support an organization that proports to be
> >pro-internet freedom and yet has no official position on anonyminity.
>
> perhaps you would be more influential if you learned to spell what
> you are advocating. (hee, hee)
English is not my first language. Start paying my hourly rate to type in
the thousands of words and dozens of legal summaries I send to this list
every month and I will begin to proof read carefully.
> > Of
> >course you should expect people to wonder about EFF when you have no
> > official position and yet some staff and board members seem to have a
> >statist bent.
>
> and you, like many other cypherpunks and cyberspace weasels,
> have a whine-and-shriek-from-the-shadows bent.
And your point is?
You'd like the shadows lifted? Speaking without a true name attached is
somehow evil?
> BTW, I reject the claim by some here (e.g. TCM) that the supposed change in
> direction at EFF implies that such an organization is inherently
> top-heavy and will fail in comparison to cypherpunk guerilla-style
> "technology deployment." it seems to me both the cpunk philosophy
> and the EFF philosophy can coexist, and I really get tired of people
> who can't think past a "only one can exist" worldview.
Why not make some solid arguments for why TCM is wrong then? Certainly it
appears he is on the mark to me.
> I also don't understand the anonymity fight by cpunks. it's the
> wrong battle imho. ask any remailer operators how their services
> are panning out. they will complain of the incessant spam and
> increasing litigious pressure. I don't see any technological
> solutions to these problems. if there were, they'd have been
> invented now.
This is EFF talking. "The situation is hopeless, bail now to preserve
image."
> let's face it, anonymity is a pain in the ass
> to support. maybe there are other goals that are more crucial
> that lie at the heart of anonymity. what cpunks are really
> seaking is "assurance of freedom from retribution". when the
> problem is phrased more openly like that, other solutions become
> possible and worth consideration. anonymity is only one such
> way to achieve this goal. I for one would like to see more
> experimentation with reputation systems. "aw gee, nobody knows what
> one would look like". well, that's the point.
Explain to me how reputation systems work in the absence of anonymity.
Explain to me when freedom has been anything but "a pain in the ass."
Weakness is all you have to offer. Offer it to EFF.
--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li
NODE 174a2081Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
"Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:09:29 +0800
>I would put forth that you know nothing of my efforts, and therefore are
>in no position to judge me. I would also put forth that the efforts of
>EFF, or lack thereof, are quite public.
that's my point. an entity that is willing to put its
reputation on the line is inherently more valuable than one that
is not, imho. all the EFF members have good public track records.
what EFF has accomplished is checkered, like any battle-scarred
infrantry will experience. if you expect unadulterated success,
you're not living in the same reality everyone else around here
is.
granted, EFF has made some serious compromises in their agenda.
they're finding their identity. but it doesn't help to have people
rant at them and ignore their notable successes, and tend to criticize
them merely because they're a public target.
whenever you criticize something, please keep in mind the basic
qualification: what is a better alternative? sure, EFF hasn't had
stellar success, but then, who has in the agenda they are pursuing?
their goals are extremely ambitious and difficult in the current
climate. lack of success is proof of the difficulty, not of any
incompetence, as I wrote. when you begin to understand this, you
won't alienate those you are critical of. EFF members are *tremendously*
open to positive comments. instead you harangue them and lose their
good will to the point that they may tend to ignore cpunk comments
entirely because of your very poor example.
>I think any organization that would apply political pressure rather than
>bow to it would be an alternative. I think an organization in touch
>enough with its own policy to prevent its staff and board from making
>embarassing big brother type proposals to curtail the ability of any of us
>to post without attributation would be an alternative. I think an
>organization without the internal conflict and strife that has clearly
>marred EFF in past and made it a laughable attempt at cohesive political
>persuasion would be an alternative. I think an organization that had
>official policies on the core issues which it proposes to influence would
>be an alternative.
why don't you start one then? what you seem to fail to adequately
understand is that there is virtually no organization in the world
that is free from the difficulties you describe. whenever you have
multiple people working together, you aren't going to have clear-cut
successes. cpunks are always yelling at anything resembling organization,
which really annoys me. EFF has had tremendous powerful successes in
areas you are conveniently overlooking, in areas that are hard
to measure, such as increasing public awareness. can you make a good
case that EFF has had no positive effect? we may be living in a much
darker reality without them.
>In short, an organization that had even one of the needed elements of
>legislative influence. (Cohesive, directed, persistent, and
>uncompromising).
our congress does not have this property after centuries of trying.
why should a private organization totally transcend it? face it,
getting things done in this world can be awfully tricky at times.
you make it sound like attacking Clipper or stopping any of the
legislation that has made its way into congress is a trivial
endeavor. go ahead, please create a counterexample.
> What is so shocking about announcing that a
>given organization does not support my interests and therefore calling on
>others who share my interests not to make financial donations to said
>organization?
you can criticize an organization without implying the people who contribute
to it are incompetent, a distinction that has subtly eluded you so far.
> Is there something EFF fears in free speech and political
>consensus building? Perhaps if they had a straightforward policy....
no matter what they decide, they will be flamed by someone such as
yourself. they do have an agenda.
>Phrased another way, who cares what you are tired of hearing?
the EFF ranting is periodic, and your own sour comments are
a repeated feature of this list. who *are* you? why are you so
critical of everything in existence? based on previous rants,
you're a habitual sourpuss.
>No, but when an organization espouses nothing on a given subject key to
>its mission, what does that say? What about when its members espouse
>entirely different and even counter productive beliefs?
again, you are presuming that anonymity is key to their mission.
that's a big leap of faith. there is room for honest disagreement.
you haven't heard of their agenda personally, so you are assuming
there is none. from what I have seen, there is a reasonably
cohesive agenda going on, and I'm not, like yourself, assuming
that it doesn't exist merely because I haven't seen it blared in
a noisy advertisement somewhere.
I agree with some of the EFF member's comments: anonymity could
be a very serious quagmire to support. there are probably better
trees to bark up.
>I thought its point was to protect cyberspace?
of course, the interpretation of what is a threat is subjective.
>There aren't many battles to choose. Let's seem some action.
EFF has lobbied against many of the bills you mention. again, I think
you're being unfair in assuming merely because you haven't heard
of them accomplishing anything, they haven't.
>I do infact feel the cpunks have a greater track record than EFF. Tell
>me, what has EFF done? The list of "cypherpunk" accomplishments in terms
>of making the net a better place to be is, in my view, significant.
>Certainly the discussion here is livelier than anything I've seen from
>EFF.
ah, the fundamental illusion that is going on here. discussion alone
is WORTHLESS in changing the world. yet we have REAMS of it on the
cpunk list. I'd say EFF has *acted* and put enormous effort into
its agenda. but it is invisible because its not easily quantified.
ask them how many pamphlets they have printed for the public, how
much mail they have sent out to members informing them of
developments, etc. consider the high-quality EFF newsletter.
is there anything like that in the cpunk area? frankly I think your
comparing cpunks to EFF is really laughable. they are not even in
the same ballpark. it only shows how warped your concept is of what
an "accomplishment" is.
>You reveal here the basic character of your objection. You don't like
>the fact that I criticized EFF.
no, as I stated, criticism is great, but yours is written in such a
way as to imply your target is incompetent. your tone has changed
significantly in your letter now that I have challenged you on it.
>Well what, EFF, have you done for us LATELY?
EFF hasn't done much for anyone who hasn't paid their dues..
>English is not my first language. Start paying my hourly rate to type in
>the thousands of words and dozens of legal summaries I send to this list
>every month and I will begin to proof read carefully.
your legal summaries are impressive. your rabid criticisms leave
a sour taste in my mouth. measured criticism, I can deal with.
>> and you, like many other cypherpunks and cyberspace weasels,
>> have a whine-and-shriek-from-the-shadows bent.
>
>And your point is?
>
>You'd like the shadows lifted? Speaking without a true name attached is
>somehow evil?
really, an opinion without attribution is not worth as much as
one with it. there's no escaping this simple concept. I agree that
a pseudonym can gain a reputation, but yours has very little
associated with it to qualify criticism of EFF imho. so you have
posted regularly to the cpunk list. big deal.
>This is EFF talking. "The situation is hopeless, bail now to preserve
>image."
EFF has changed its direction from working in washington. a straw man
statement if I ever heard one.
NODE 04c45140Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>Thu, 5 Sep 1996 08:17:03 +0800
[This will be my last comment on this thread.]
On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
>
> >I would put forth that you know nothing of my efforts, and therefore are
> >in no position to judge me. I would also put forth that the efforts of
> >EFF, or lack thereof, are quite public.
>
> that's my point. an entity that is willing to put its
> reputation on the line is inherently more valuable than one that
> is not, imho. all the EFF members have good public track records.
> what EFF has accomplished is checkered, like any battle-scarred
> infrantry will experience. if you expect unadulterated success,
> you're not living in the same reality everyone else around here
> is.
If you're going to ask me for money and support, you damn well better
produce unadulterated success.
> granted, EFF has made some serious compromises in their agenda.
> they're finding their identity. but it doesn't help to have people
> rant at them and ignore their notable successes, and tend to criticize
> them merely because they're a public target.
Awww, poor EFF. It just needs a little love and attention.
It's trying to be the best compromising entity it can be. It's not fair
to criticize it. We don't want to frighten it or anything, it might be
stunted for life.
> whenever you criticize something, please keep in mind the basic
> qualification: what is a better alternative?
Sometimes nothing at all can be a better alternative.
> sure, EFF hasn't had
> stellar success, but then, who has in the agenda they are pursuing?
> their goals are extremely ambitious and difficult in the current
> climate. lack of success is proof of the difficulty, not of any
Again, I'm sure every violin in the place is playing for EFF and it the
powerful traumas it has to endure. What do you think this is? The
olympics? I don't CARE how hard the job is. You don't get things done by
being sympathetic in politics. Maybe, Lance, that's how it works in
Colorado, but not in D.C. Take the hearts and flowers crap elsewhere. IF
they are asking for money I don't think that excuses are a luxury they can
indulge in.
> when you begin to understand this, you
> won't alienate those you are critical of. EFF members are *tremendously*
> open to positive comments. instead you harangue them and lose their
> good will to the point that they may tend to ignore cpunk comments
> entirely because of your very poor example.
If EFF is so sensitive that my comments will cause them to close their
ears to their potentially most interested constituancy, well, EFF is an
organization that needs to die and be replaced.
> >I think any organization that would apply political pressure rather than
> >bow to it would be an alternative. I think an organization in touch
> >enough with its own policy to prevent its staff and board from making
> >embarassing big brother type proposals to curtail the ability of any of us
> >to post without attributation would be an alternative. I think an
> >organization without the internal conflict and strife that has clearly
> >marred EFF in past and made it a laughable attempt at cohesive political
> >persuasion would be an alternative. I think an organization that had
> >official policies on the core issues which it proposes to influence would
> >be an alternative.
>
> why don't you start one then?
As I said before, you know nothing of what I am doing. I don't buy the
"well then you do it" crap. They are taking other people's money. Do it
right because that is their JOB. I don't have time to play about with
net politics in D.C. right now. Nor, frankly, do I think my resources in
that area would do much good. Maybe EFF can't do the job, which is the
position you seem to be taking, then maybe no one can and resources should
be allocated elsewhere. Just don't come whining to me about how life is
so hard on EFF. Deal.
what you seem to fail to adequately
> understand is that there is virtually no organization in the world
> that is free from the difficulties you describe. whenever you have
> multiple people working together, you aren't going to have clear-cut
> successes. cpunks are always yelling at anything resembling organization,
> which really annoys me. EFF has had tremendous powerful successes in
> areas you are conveniently overlooking, in areas that are hard
> to measure, such as increasing public awareness. can you make a good
> case that EFF has had no positive effect? we may be living in a much
> darker reality without them.
Yadda Yadda Yadda and life is so hard isn't it a shame?
> >In short, an organization that had even one of the needed elements of
> >legislative influence. (Cohesive, directed, persistent, and
> >uncompromising).
>
> our congress does not have this property after centuries of trying.
You confuse legislation with legislative influence. Advocacy with
concensus building.
> > What is so shocking about announcing that a
> >given organization does not support my interests and therefore calling on
> >others who share my interests not to make financial donations to said
> >organization?
>
> you can criticize an organization without implying the people who contribute
> to it are incompetent, a distinction that has subtly eluded you so far.
I can, but I happen to believe that they are. Look at the slips. A
political action organization cannot afford to have their primary members
spouting off like that. It kills the organization. It has, in my view.
Perhaps EFF has an important function. Lobbying is not it.
> > Is there something EFF fears in free speech and political
> >consensus building? Perhaps if they had a straightforward policy....
>
> no matter what they decide, they will be flamed by someone such as
> yourself. they do have an agenda.
What's their anonymous poster agenda then?
> >Phrased another way, who cares what you are tired of hearing?
>
> the EFF ranting is periodic, and your own sour comments are
> a repeated feature of this list. who *are* you? why are you so
> critical of everything in existence? based on previous rants,
> you're a habitual sourpuss.
When people are asking for money and promising results, I expect results.
If this makes me a sourpuss, fine, I'm a sourpuss. As for who I am,
it is and shall be none of your business. I understand that there is a
dtendency here to get flaky and passive. "So what, they are trying."
Hey, life is hard. Sometimes people aren't up to the task. Fine, admit
it rather than dragging it on for years and move on.
If EFF ranting is periodic perhaps EFF should take a hint?
> >No, but when an organization espouses nothing on a given subject key to
> >its mission, what does that say? What about when its members espouse
> >entirely different and even counter productive beliefs
>
> again, you are presuming that anonymity is key to their mission.
> that's a big leap of faith. there is room for honest disagreement.
> you haven't heard of their agenda personally, so you are assuming
> there is none. from what I have seen, there is a reasonably
> cohesive agenda going on, and I'm not, like yourself, assuming
> that it doesn't exist merely because I haven't seen it blared in
> a noisy advertisement somewhere.
>
> I agree with some of the EFF member's comments: anonymity could
> be a very serious quagmire to support. there are probably better
> trees to bark up.
Anonymity is currently the status quo. Tell me, what exactly, if someone
takes the position that it is too hard to support, are they going to do
to, for example, prevent what I'm doing?
Will you be required to register with your ISP? Provide credit references
to be permitted on the net? Use a smart card with fingerprint checking to
log on?
Anonymity is the key. Period. Your failure to see this simply destroys
your argument. Look Lance, just because you have not been able to keep
from being outted doesn't mean that some others don't benefit from
Anonymity.
> EFF has lobbied against many of the bills you mention. again, I think
> you're being unfair in assuming merely because you haven't heard
> of them accomplishing anything, they haven't.
If I haven't heard of EFF's accomplishments then they aren't doing their
job.
> >I do infact feel the cpunks have a greater track record than EFF. Tell
> >me, what has EFF done? The list of "cypherpunk" accomplishments in terms
> >of making the net a better place to be is, in my view, significant.
> >Certainly the discussion here is livelier than anything I've seen from
> >EFF.
>
> ah, the fundamental illusion that is going on here. discussion alone
> is WORTHLESS in changing the world. yet we have REAMS of it on the
> cpunk list. I'd say EFF has *acted* and put enormous effort into
> its agenda.
So trying hard is the measure of success?
"But he was trying SO hard to get the gold medal, let's just give it to
him."
Bah.
> but it is invisible because its not easily quantified.
> ask them how many pamphlets they have printed for the public, how
> much mail they have sent out to members informing them of
> developments, etc. consider the high-quality EFF newsletter.
Wait, wait. Wasn't it you who just said "ah, the fundamental illusion
that is going on here. discussion alone is WORTHLESS in changing the
world." How are pamphlets any different?
> is there anything like that in the cpunk area? frankly I think your
> comparing cpunks to EFF is really laughable.
I take that almost as a compliment.
> they are not even in the same ballpark.
Oh, I agree.
> >Well what, EFF, have you done for us LATELY?
>
> EFF hasn't done much for anyone who hasn't paid their dues..
So keep paying Lance. At least you're getting some satisfaction out of
it.
>
> >English is not my first language. Start paying my hourly rate to type in
> >the thousands of words and dozens of legal summaries I send to this list
> >every month and I will begin to proof read carefully.
>
> your legal summaries are impressive. your rabid criticisms leave
> a sour taste in my mouth. measured criticism, I can deal with.
If it's too hot...
> >> and you, like many other cypherpunks and cyberspace weasels,
> >> have a whine-and-shriek-from-the-shadows bent.
> >
> >And your point is?
> >
> >You'd like the shadows lifted? Speaking without a true name attached is
> >somehow evil?
>
> really, an opinion without attribution is not worth as much as
> one with it. there's no escaping this simple concept. I agree that
> a pseudonym can gain a reputation, but yours has very little
> associated with it to qualify criticism of EFF imho. so you have
> posted regularly to the cpunk list. big deal.
By your logic you're not in much of a position to commend EFF or
criticise me for that matter then, "Vlad."
> >This is EFF talking. "The situation is hopeless, bail now to preserve
> >image."
>
> EFF has changed its direction from working in washington.
Exactly.
--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li
NODE b8f5e4beRe: What is the EFF doing exactly?
snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>Thu, 5 Sep 1996 13:15:02 +0800
On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
> [This will be my last comment on this thread.]
> On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
> > >I would put forth that you know nothing of my efforts, and therefore are
> > infrantry will experience. if you expect unadulterated success,
> > you're not living in the same reality everyone else around here
> > is.
>
> If you're going to ask me for money and support, you damn well better
> produce unadulterated success.
I disagree with this. No one produces unadulterated sucess. Ever.
You win some, you lose some. As long as you fight as hard as possible,
and DO NOT COMPROMISE, then that is enough.
Other than that, I concur.
Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com
NODE bd9003adRe: What is the EFF doing exactly?
Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:19:44 +0800
[again, since I'm not on the CP list these days, feel free to bounce this
over to the list if it doesn't make it. I'm not sure what the
non-subscriber posting policy is and/or whether such attempted posts are
filtered out, though I seem to recall they didn't used to be.]
Black Unicorn typed:
>
> On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
>
> >
> > ah, the quasi-yearly ranting on EFF has started up. what a great
> > opportunity for drop-down-drag-dead flamewar.
> >
> > Black Unicorn: I resent your holier-than-thou moral posturing
> > over EFF, and am going to attack it as representative of other
> > criticism I have seen of EFF.
>
> I, unlike EFF, have never compromised my efforts to make strong crypto,
> unescrowed strong crypto, and digitial communications, free from the FUD
> spouted by government and media alike. I, unlike EFF, have never
> compromised my efforts to resist the expansion of a wiretap state. I,
> unlike EFF, have never proported to be a political represenative for these
> positions and folded under the weakest of pressures like a reed.
EFF has done none of that either.
Compromise: 1. a settlement in which each side gives up some demands or
makes concessions. 2. a) an adjustment of opposing principles, systems,
etc., by modifying some aspects of each b) the result of such an
adjustment. 3. something midway between two other things 4. a) exposure,
as of one's reputation, to danger, suspicion, or disrepute b) a
weakening, as of one's principles, ideals, etc.) as for reasons of
expediency.
1 did not occur. EFF yielded nothing on any of the issues you mention.
On Digital Telephony, which you clearly allude to, EFF opposed
implementation of the wiretapping provisions of the CALEA bill from start
to finish, and was instrumental in stripping most of them out, replacing
them with new privacy protections. 2 did not occur. Our mission remains
unedited from the day it was adopted, and EFF is just as committed to those
principles now as ever. We don't have a system, in the relevant sense,
as such. There was no such adjustment, ergo no result of one. 3 does
not apply in any relevant sense (our steadfast assault against the CDA is
a "compromise" under such a definition because it was neither a total
victory, nor a total loss - yet I'm certain this is not the definition of
"compromise" that you intend). 4a is not relevant (that's the
security/secrecy-related definition, a nonsequitur in this context). 4b
is simply a restatement of 2a - simply didn't happen. Our results speak
for themselves on this.
> > EFF is an organization that is professional and has
> > worked toward improving cyberspace. it is easy for someone
> > such as yourself to criticize such an organization anonymously,
> > but what is the justification of your criticism? to me someone
> > who has tried and failed, yet is still trying, is better than
> > someone who has never tried.
>
> I would put forth that you know nothing of my efforts, and therefore are
> in no position to judge me. I would also put forth that the efforts of
> EFF, or lack thereof, are quite public.
I would put forth that the public factors of EFF's efforts are quite
public, but that you know nothing of the internal factors of those
efforts, and ergo lack sufficient knowledge to make the allegations you make.
> > what *constructive*
> > alternative to EFF do you propose? if you have none, please shut up.
>
> I think any organization that would apply political pressure rather than
> bow to it would be an alternative. I think an organization in touch
I'm at a loss to think of any time in which EFF did otherwise. I don't
think you have any concept whatsoever what a fight EFF put up over
Digital Telephony. I would strongly advise a reading of the original
version of the DT/CALEA bill, and the version that passed after EFF took
an axe to it. You'll find a world of difference. You're welcome.
We make no bones about the fact that the DT bill passing at all with
wiretap provisions in it was a defeat. Defeats happen. Being defeated
is not the same thing as bowing, as yielding the fight.
> enough with its own policy to prevent its staff and board from making
> embarassing big brother type proposals to curtail the ability of any of us
> to post without attributation would be an alternative. I think an
In other words you propose an alternate EFF that censors its own boardmembers.
I'm not aware of any logical consistency that could adhere to an
organization that simultaneously says it supports free speech, yet
demands that its board of directors never speak except in agreement with
the organization's policy. You are asking for a mini-dictatorship. EFF
has no position on anonymity. We also have no position on abortion or on
whether roast duck is better than fried chicken. You are in essence
demanding that EFF impeach any boardmember that offers an opinion in
public or in private about whether or not chicken is good stuff, or states
a belief about right to choose v. right to life positions.
I'm sorry that we are not totalitarian enough for you.
Incidentally, Dyson made no such proposal as you refer to, but simply
expressed questions and doubts about the misuse of anonymity, and made a
clear and correct statement of fact ("you need to be able to get at
somebody's identity to enforce accountability") without offering any
value judgement about whether that was a good idea. She concluded that
"the question is how do you also enforce freedom of speech and freedom
from prosecution for unpopular opinions," clearly indicating at least as
much doubt about the value of any attempt to force identifiability and
accountability. Even Dyson's lead statement that "the damage that can be
done by anonymity is far bigger" online that offline is factually correct,
and does not consist of any kind of value judgement. It's simply an
honest and, IMNERHO, necessary observation. If we lie to the public, or
lie to ourselves, we lose, because the opposition will have arguements we
have not even looked at much less wrestled with.
I'm sorry we are not self-delusional and dishonest enough for you.
> organization without the internal conflict and strife that has clearly
> marred EFF in past and made it a laughable attempt at cohesive political
> persuasion would be an alternative.
I have news for you: We are human. Incidentally, two points: 1)
"cohesive political persuasion" is not the be-all and end-all of civil
liberties work, just a part of it; and 2) the political cohesion you want
to see is very hard to accomplish, because civil libertarians are loath
to march in lockstep. Compare the Christian Coalition and their allies -
authoritarians all. It is no surprise, on a moment's consideration, that
their spot on the politics-of-rights-and-authority axis has everything to do
with their ability to suspend disbelief, to embrace blind faith, and to act
in unison. BUT - a lot of progress is being made. EFF, ACLU, CDT, VTW,
EPIC, et al., are all coordinating like never before, new global-scale
civil liberties coalitions are forming, joint legal cases being filed,
joint press releases and action alerts, being issued, conferences
organized together, etc. What you are looking for is evolving as we type.
> I think an organization that had
> official policies on the core issues which it proposes to influence would
> be an alternative.
EFF has that. We have not proposed to influence anonymity issues, and we
do not have a policy on that issue. When we have a policy on it, we'll
probably propose to influence it.
> In short, an organization that had even one of the needed elements of
> legislative influence. (Cohesive, directed, persistent, and
> uncompromising).
We have all of these elements, but we have a lot more to do than engage
in legislative influence. You've all seen how well that worked. The
process is very corrupt, so we have to use it sparingly, and only
when nececessary. The bulk of our work has to be done in other areas
like supporting technical development, fighting cases to the Supreme Court,
direct grassroots action campaigns, public education, media exposure, etc.
All of these things directly affect the Hill, but EFF is not solely a
lobbying organization. Even CDT and other DC-based groups are not solely
lobbying organizations.
> > I am tired of people announcing loudly to the world, "well if EFF
> > doesn't support [insert my personal jihad here], then they're
> > a bunch of losers who don't deserve anyone's money".
>
> Now who's holier-than-thou? What is so shocking about announcing that a
> given organization does not support my interests and therefore calling on
> others who share my interests not to make financial donations to said
> organization?
What's shocking to me is that you'd state as fact "that a given
organization does not support [your] interests" when you have no actual
knowledge of whether that's true or not, just a vague perception based on
clearly insufficient information, and misapprehensions of fact that are
easily refutable.
> Is there something EFF fears in free speech and political
> consensus building? Perhaps if they had a straightforward policy....
Certainly not. And please note that the person you are responding to does
not speak for EFF, so your question is a nonsequitur.
[Some stuff skipped, since irrelevant.]
> > get a clue. an organization does not have to officially espouse what
> > its members espouse.
>
> No, but when an organization espouses nothing on a given subject key to
> its mission, what does that say? What about when its members espouse
That says that the board of that organization has yet to come to
consensus on the issue. Happens all the time. Ask the ACLU - there are
all kinds of issues that someone somewhere thinks is "key to its mission"
that ACLU has not yet evolved a position on, and won't until they need to
due to some event or impending event such as legislation or a court case.
Personally I agree with you that this issue is key to our mission, and I
hope that EFF has a position on it soon. But I'm not the chairman of the
board, so I wait, and I speak my mind. I have no problem with you
speaking your mind, or even being less willing to wait. But I have no
respect for unfounded accusations and fingerpointing. I don't even have
much respect for well-founded fingerpointing when it's not helpful.
Cypherpunks are supposed to write code. This is a waste of time.
> entirely different and even counter productive beliefs? I would hardly
> trust Senator Burns on the board of the ACLU, or a George Pacific
> exec on Sierra Club's board. What's different here?
Neither are on our board. What's your point?
> > what an organization espouses should be carefully
> > crafted. if all members feel strongly about an issue, yet all also
> > feel that it should not be part of the official plank, then that may be
> > a wise decision to leave it out. what an organization does *not* do is as
> > important as what it does do. EFF is learning, by trial and error and the
> > hard way, to "choose battles wisely".
>
> I thought its point was to protect cyberspace? What battles are left
> after Digital Telecom, Anonymous Communication, Strong Crypto and CDA?
About a thousand. Probably more.
> There aren't many battles to choose.
What a laugh. Just an example: At least 12 US state have passed or are
considering passing CDA-like state legislation. Even after we kick the
CDA's unconstitutional butt, each one of those state bills, with one or
two exceptions if we're lucky, will have to be individually dealt with
all the way to the state supreme courts in all probability, and quite
possibly to the US Supreme Court in some cases. None of these bills are
direct clones of the CDA, and it's doubtful that a whole lot of the CDA
ruling will apply to them, necessitating individual constitutionality
challenges. Now think on how many other jurisdictions there are in the
world, from the local to the multinational, and consider how many of them
have or are in the process of getting their own CDA-alike. And this is
before we even think about censorship of online "hate speech" or
"dangerous information". This is just the anti-porn bills. AND, when all
is said and done the majority of these jurisdictions, especially the US
federal Congress, are very likely to come right back and try it all
again, with slightly modified bills that attempt to get around previous
rulings. This is complete aside from privacy issues which are even less
clear-cut than free speech issues. If you think there are a handful of
issues to wrestle with, you are very, very sadly mistaken. There's an
ocean of them.
> Let's seem some action.
I must surmise you don't read much about us.
> I can sit
> on my hands all day long too, but I will hardly claim to be supporting
> hunger prevention in Africa by "thinking very hard about the subject."
> (Particularly not when I have accepted money to further that goal).
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/SJG
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Phrack_Neidorf_Riggs
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/EFF_ACLU_v_DoJ
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/AABBS_Thomases_Memphis/
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Church_of_Scientology_cases
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Clipper_FOIA
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/PGP_Zimmermann
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Gilmore_v_NSA
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Karn_Schneier_export
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Kerberos_export
http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills
http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/Rimm_CMU_Time
http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/GII_NII
http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/Hate-speech_discrimination
http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/Online_services
http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/Terrorism_militias
http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy
http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export
http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Key_escrow
http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Crypto_bills_1996
http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Digital_Telephony_FBI
http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Email_GII_NII
http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Terrorism_militias
http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Tools
http://www.eff.org/pub/Activism/FOIA/ITAR_FOIA
http://www.eff.org/pub/GII_NII
http://www.eff.org/pub/GII_NII/Govt_docs
http://www.eff.org/pub/GII_NII/ISDN
http://www.eff.org/pub/GII_NII/NREN_NSFNET_NPN
http://www.eff.org/pub/Net_info/EFF_Net_Guide
http://www.eff.org/pub/Alerts/
http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/NII_copyright_bill [EFF has
a position on intprop in as much as the fair use rights of the public
are involved, and we work with DFC on this issue.]
http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html
http://www.eff.org/goldkey.html
http://www.ipc.org/ipc
http://www.crypto.com
http://www.etrust.org
and so forth and so on. That's just off the top of my head.
[Note: If one of these URLs doesn't work for you, stick "/index.html" at
the end of it and try again, and/or try www2.eff.org instead of www.eff.org.]
> > I would love to see more info about EFF's new direction. but one
> > can ask for such clarification without a rabid style such as your own.
>
> Are you one of those people who still believes you can get more flies with
> honey...? Ever been to Washington, D.C.?
What does DC have to do with clarification of EFF's "new direction"? EFF
was not founded in DC, and is not based there now. CDT fissioned off to
do the DC stuff.
> > blah, blah, blah. why should EFF give the slightest damn what you think
> > of them?
>
> Its fairly clear that they don't. That said, why should I not make that
You are mistaken. Don't think for an instant I'd waste 5 seconds of
staff time on you otherwise. I have 10x more to do than I have time to
do it in.
[rest deleted as irrelevant, since founded on mistaken assumption.]
> > why do I see so much of this in cyberspace and on the cpunks list:
> > gripes, gripes, gripes by people who have no record themselves of
> > doing anything constructive...? the difficulty of doing something
> > constructive is proven by the failures, it is not necessarily
> > evidence of incompetence or conspiracies. perhaps you, Unicorn,
> > feel the cpunks have a greater track record than EFF?
>
> I do infact feel the cpunks have a greater track record than EFF. Tell
> me, what has EFF done?
See URLs above. Consider it a suggested reading list.
The list of "cypherpunk" accomplishments in terms
> of making the net a better place to be is, in my view, significant.
Indeed it is. I do not think it possible to quantify what EFF have done
or what CPs have done, and then weigh the two against eachother. I have yet
to see an accomplishometer. I also can't think of any point in doing so.
This is not a contest. We are on the same side.
> Certainly the discussion here is livelier than anything I've seen from
> EFF.
EFF is not a discussion forum (though we provide, in some sense, a pretty
lively one at comp.org.eff.talk in Usenet. We also started
alt.politics.datahighway, which sees some traffic, mostly about US govt
"info superhighway" hype and b.s. Comp.org.eff.talk is more general,
and tends to focus on civil liberties issues and cases.)
> > >I would be most happy to be proven wrong and see EFF suddenly, in a burst
> > >of impressive moral fiber, speak out publically and take some political
> > >action to assure anonymous communication.
> >
> > I would like you to explain why you feel the need to criticize EFF
> > for not necessarily sharing your own agenda.
>
> The same reason I feel free to criticize communism for not sharing my own
> agenda.
>
> You reveal here the basic character of your objection. You don't like
> the fact that I criticized EFF. It has nothing to do with the fact that
> you think EFF has done wonderful and fantastic things (you point to none
> in this post) but that you have some emotional fondness for them. This is
> the trap. EFF _sounds_ good, and so its worth sticking up for. Well
> what, EFF, have you done for us LATELY?
Again, see above. See in particular:
http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills
- PA court rules CDA unconstitutional
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS - CA court rules
software - both source and object code - protected expression under the
First Amendment
Both cases are headed for the Supreme Court.
NB: I think your criticism is valid at least in the abstract. It is
certainly fair to ask what we've done, not how we sound or feel. I think
the refereces I've provided will answer that question adequately.
> > >Well, let's have a clear official position issued then to end all dispute.
> >
> > again, you fail to grasp: EFF may justifiably not want to engage in that
> > fight. it might be a wise decision. who are you to dictate EFF's
> > agenda? why are you picking a fight with someone who might be the
> > best ally?
>
> If EFF is the best ally then we need to seek others. They have done
> nothing in my view to help keep strong crypto around, to secure a person's
> right to speak without a citizen unit I.D. being attached, and to promote,
> by extension, free speech.
Then you know absolutely diddley about what we are doing. Beware
lecturing about that of which you know little. If our legal cases win,
we win all of the above concerns you just articulated. And both cases
look very much like they will win hands down. And, these are hardly the
only fronts we are working on.
> Look, even you have gotten on my case here for
> speaking without revealing my real name. You think something I said
Notably I have not. Indeed, I mentioned to the board here that the fact
that I've met you in person, signed your PGP key, had you and other DC
CP's over to EFF's DC office for CP meetings, was a testament to
anonymity/pseudonymity - I didn't need to know the name the government
calls you buy, just needed to see enough evidence that you as a body are
attached to Black Unicorn as a nym, and to have an idea of the reputation
of the nym.
[non-relevant (to me) comments skipped.]
> > > Of
> > >course you should expect people to wonder about EFF when you have no
> > > official position and yet some staff and board members seem to have a
> > >statist bent.
> >
> > and you, like many other cypherpunks and cyberspace weasels,
> > have a whine-and-shriek-from-the-shadows bent.
>
> And your point is?
>
> You'd like the shadows lifted? Speaking without a true name attached is
> somehow evil?
I tend to suspect the criticism had more to do with "all talk and no
action" and other such concerns. Just my interpretation.
> Why not make some solid arguments for why TCM is wrong then? Certainly it
> appears he is on the mark to me.
The main flaw in this reasoning (which I'm not sure at all is actually
Tim's reasoning, but appears to be the reasoning here) is that these
efforts are not contradictory, but complementary. As a practical matter,
the entire question is meaningless since neither effort can be measured,
and there is no point in doing so in the first place, since no issue of
whether or not the CPs or the EFF is 'better' has arisen, and no such
issue makes sense.
> > I also don't understand the anonymity fight by cpunks. it's the
> > wrong battle imho. ask any remailer operators how their services
> > are panning out. they will complain of the incessant spam and
> > increasing litigious pressure. I don't see any technological
> > solutions to these problems. if there were, they'd have been
> > invented now.
>
> This is EFF talking. "The situation is hopeless, bail now to preserve
> image."
Uh, no, that was someone talking, who has an individual opinion on the
subject. One that I don't share and that I don't think anyone else shares
at EFF either. In particular, the litigatory pressures are likely to be
groundless, at least in US law. There is a hell of a lot of caselaw
supporting the rights to anonymous and pseudonymous speech and publication.
As for the spam problem, that can be rather trivially fixed with filters
(or reduced, at least. Clever people will always find a way to break or
abuse any given system.)
EFF has never "bailed" from any issue to preserve image. If we'd been
concerned with image, we would not have taken the tactic we did with
DigTel - a tactic that worked incompletely but better than shouting "boo"
from the sidelines, but a tactic which harmed our image very much. Such
is the price we pay. Our mission is not "to look cool to the public",
much less to Cypherpunks, our mission is to protect the public interest
and individual liberty.
> Explain to me how reputation systems work in the absence of anonymity.
> Explain to me when freedom has been anything but "a pain in the ass."
I have to agree wholeheartedly.
> Weakness is all you have to offer. Offer it to EFF.
No thanks, we have no use for it. We also have no use for pointless
ankle-biting. Please, go write some code. That's what you guys are best
at, and it's why you're here ("here" = cypherpunks). If you are in need
of a project, how about an anon remailer that runs on Windows 3.x, NT,
and 95, and another for Mac? There are what, maybe 20 operational
chained remailers right now? That's not going to cut it. There need to
be more. (This is MY PERSONAL opinion, not an EFF statement of policy.
For the time being anyway. :)
PS: No hard feelings are held here, on my part, and I intend to convey
none, even if I do argue forcefully. I am not your enemy. Consider this a
workout, some mental sparring to get the blood flowing.
--
<HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech@eff.org
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P> Online Activist </HTML>
NODE 4636a452Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>Thu, 5 Sep 1996 07:51:03 +0800
Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org> writes on cpunks:
> [again, since I'm not on the CP list these days, feel free to bounce this
> over to the list if it doesn't make it. I'm not sure what the
> non-subscriber posting policy is and/or whether such attempted posts are
> filtered out, though I seem to recall they didn't used to be.]
Cypherpunks always has been and remains an open list. You shouldn't
need to wonder given cypherpunk views on free speech :-)
> Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> writes:
> > enough with its own policy to prevent its staff and board from making
> > embarassing big brother type proposals to curtail the ability of any of us
> > to post without attributation would be an alternative. I think an
>
> In other words you propose an alternate EFF that censors its own
> boardmembers.
No. But I too am rather suprised to hear an EFF board member
apparently speaking against free speech. OK, so maybe she was
mis-quoted so I wait for her rebuttal, but nope, she basically to my
reading reiterates nothing but negative opinions on free speech and
anonymity.
Tim's quotes of her CFP speech further demonstrates her leanings.
> I'm not aware of any logical consistency that could adhere to an
> organization that simultaneously says it supports free speech, yet
> demands that its board of directors never speak except in agreement with
> the organization's policy. You are asking for a mini-dictatorship. EFF
> has no position on anonymity. We also have no position on abortion or on
> whether roast duck is better than fried chicken. You are in essence
> demanding that EFF impeach any boardmember that offers an opinion in
> public or in private about whether or not chicken is good stuff, or states
> a belief about right to choose v. right to life positions.
>
> I'm sorry that we are not totalitarian enough for you.
Lets put it this way: if Louis Freeh offered to be an EFF board
member, would you take him on board? If he seemed quite
pro-anonymity, and free speech, and later turned out to be having
doubts, would you keep him?
Ie if her views are proving a liability for EFFs reputation, perhaps
you all ought to get together and see if you can work something out?
Anonymity is a pretty darn major issue here, so it'd be really sad to
see EFF coming down on the wrong side. I've seen some of the other
EFF insiders own opinions, and would like to see them adopted in place
of Dyson's views, which whether they are her opinion or not, are more
likely to get misrepresented by the press as such, in face of a lack
of an EFF position. EPICs statement looked a reasonable start.
> Incidentally, Dyson made no such proposal as you refer to, but simply
> expressed questions and doubts about the misuse of anonymity, and made a
> clear and correct statement of fact ("you need to be able to get at
> somebody's identity to enforce accountability") without offering any
> value judgement about whether that was a good idea.
She sounded pretty anti-anonymity to me.
Are there a shortage of political and net-aware libertarians for board
candidates or something?
> She concluded that "the question is how do you also enforce freedom
> of speech and freedom from prosecution for unpopular opinions,"
> clearly indicating at least as much doubt about the value of any
> attempt to force identifiability and accountability. Even Dyson's
> lead statement that "the damage that can be done by anonymity is far
> bigger" online that offline is factually correct, and does not
> consist of any kind of value judgement. It's simply an honest and,
> IMNERHO, necessary observation.
Perhaps the quote was unfortunate, perhaps she has also said
pro-anonymity things. But a person who is pro-anonymity would surely
try to emphasise the pro arguments also? The material I have seen so
far does not seem to indicate that this is the case.
If this is the case she needs to be _much_ more careful about what she
says in `personal' interviews.
> If we lie to the public, or lie to ourselves, we lose, because the
> opposition will have arguements we have not even looked at much less
> wrestled with.
>
> I'm sorry we are not self-delusional and dishonest enough for you.
Be sure to express the pro-anonymity arguments while you're zealously
hammering out every last thing that can go wrong with anonymity: like
that free speech is not possible with out it. It's pretty much all or
nothing, either you think free speech is worth the risk, or you prefer
big brother, government access to keys, the works.
[see http://www.c2.org/~winsock/ for a windows remailer]
Adam
--
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
NODE 03cc6168Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>Thu, 5 Sep 1996 12:37:46 +0800
Adam Back typed:
>
>
> Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org> writes on cpunks:
> > [again, since I'm not on the CP list these days, feel free to bounce this
> > over to the list if it doesn't make it. I'm not sure what the
> > non-subscriber posting policy is and/or whether such attempted posts are
> > filtered out, though I seem to recall they didn't used to be.]
>
> Cypherpunks always has been and remains an open list. You shouldn't
> need to wonder given cypherpunk views on free speech :-)
I grok. Hadn't been on the list for a while, and a lot of lists have set
up non-subscriber filters to block spam these days.
I appologize to CP readers, who rightfully question my Ccing the list
when I'm not on it (lately, anyway). I'm just responding to where the
message I'm responding to has been. So far no one's seem particularly
upset at this, just irritated, so it seems prudent to continue doing so,
unless/until this gets to be a pointless thread.
> > In other words you propose an alternate EFF that censors its own
> > boardmembers.
>
> No. But I too am rather suprised to hear an EFF board member
> apparently speaking against free speech. OK, so maybe she was
> mis-quoted so I wait for her rebuttal, but nope, she basically to my
> reading reiterates nothing but negative opinions on free speech and
> anonymity.
>
> Tim's quotes of her CFP speech further demonstrates her leanings.
I've talked to her personally about this. She's not thinking along those
lines, she just perceives a potential problem in the
accountability/ethics area, and is wondering how that can be solved, if
it can be solved, and what the price of such a solution is. Honest,
she's not *advocating* restrictions on anonymity, just asking if any are
necessary, in who's opinion, with what rationale, at what cost, and by
what mechanism.
Another CP reader I've been talking to suggests even asking such a
question is dangerous because it puts ideas in the minds of anti-freedom
legislators. I tend to disagree on this, since such people already see
anonymity as a problem. They come from a world in which every citizen
minus a few "weirdos" has an ID card, who's check and credit
transactions are traceable, who's money is marked and numbered, whos
medical and other records are readily available. And their campaigns are
funded by companies with a vested interest in identification (credit
bureaus, banks, insurance companies, etc.) The *already have* the idea.
But, that may be neither here nor there.
I would agree when it comes to things that legislators have not even
thought about yet. In cases like that, better to work quietly with
activists, with industry, etc., to deal with it behind the scenes so it
never even appears on congressional or regulatory radars.
> Lets put it this way: if Louis Freeh offered to be an EFF board
> member, would you take him on board? If he seemed quite
Highly unlikely. Who gets to be a boardmember is decided by a board vote.
Freeh's anti-freedom history, and his obnoxious nature would, in my
guesstimate, give him less that a .0000000000001% chance of ever making
it onto the EFF board. And that's being nice. :)
Dyson has no such history, and does have a history of careful thought
(even if disagreed with by quite a few people) about networks, online
commerce, negative effects of regulation, and civil liberties issues.
More the former 3 than the latter 1. Not everyone on the board is there
because of strong work directly in liberty areas, but often for other
stuff, as long as they seem consistent with the civil liberties issues.
Otherwise we might as well just have one boardmember. The diversity is
necessary, as long as it doesn't get divisive. It has gotten divisive in
the past, and there are some boardmembers who are not on the board any
more as a result (none that I know of were "canned", they just understood
it wasn't working and moved on.)
> pro-anonymity, and free speech, and later turned out to be having
> doubts, would you keep him?
I'll generalize that to "if you had any boardmember who expressed doubts
about the value of free speech and privacy, would the board keep them?"
I think not. But Esther's taken no such position. She's asking questions
about the mechanics of a system, and the effects of the system on society.
These are valid questions. It'd be helpful to see some short
Cypherpunks-generated answers, if they are available. Stuff about
reputational systems, etc. I know this stuff in a vague way from reading
CP for years, but I don't have or know of any specific documents on the
topic. Something like that to pass around internally here would be of
value in helping EFF settle remaining issue, adopt a policy position, and
get on with it.
> Ie if her views are proving a liability for EFFs reputation, perhaps
> you all ought to get together and see if you can work something out?
That is unlikely to ever be a concern. If any boardmember's views
proved a liability for EFF mission and work toward that mission, that's
when the board would considering asking for a resignation, or kicking
someone off the board directly. We're mindful of PR and image, but the
mission comes first.
> Anonymity is a pretty darn major issue here, so it'd be really sad to
> see EFF coming down on the wrong side. I've seen some of the other
That will never happen. EFF would tear itself apart in a matter of hours
if that happened. The worst that will happen is that EFF won't adopt a
policy on this issue. I tend to doubt that will happen either. As I was
telling BU, I think we're closer now than ever before to having an
anonymity policy. That's mainly why I'm asking for pointers to any
superb documentation on the topic. It's genuinely needed to resolve a few
remaining issues.
Just to be clear: There is no disagreement on the board, or the staff, of
EFF that anonymity is a vital component of privacy. If that's what the
worry is, lay it to rest! Actually coming up with a statement on the issue
is something that's taking a bit longer due to some concerns and
questions that haven't been assessed yet (by the boardmembers with these
questions & concerns).
> She sounded pretty anti-anonymity to me.
I think that's your inferrence, not her implication. :) I've talked to
her personally about this, and that's not what she's saying.
> Are there a shortage of political and net-aware libertarians for board
> candidates or something?
There's no shortage of candidates in general, but finding ones that add
something useful to the mix, get along with everyone, work cooperatively,
are not interested in being a board member to add a line to their vitae
or for other purely personal reasons, who have enough time and resources
to do this, are willing to do fundraising, etc., etc., is somewhat more
difficult. (I answer the question since it was asked. I refute, from a
personal level, the implication that Esther's not fit to be on the EFF board.
She's been here almost from the very start, and EFF would not be here
right now at all if not for her.)
> Perhaps the quote was unfortunate, perhaps she has also said
> pro-anonymity things. But a person who is pro-anonymity would surely
> try to emphasise the pro arguments also? The material I have seen so
> far does not seem to indicate that this is the case.
<shrug> This long after the fact I have no way of knowing what she
said verbatim, in what order, with what stress, etc. Having been
interviewed a lot of times, and seen a mangled result, I know that
interviewers often take liberties with the ordering of statements, and
remove material, and juxtapose one statment with other stuff it was not
referring to originally, etc. Any of that could have happened. If it was
an oral interview, which is likely, keep in mind that many people don't
speak well off the tops of their heads. I can't believe some of the
things *I*'ve said in situations like this. They just didn't come out right.
Interviewers often get attribution incorrect too, as in this case.
I think this is a mountain out of a mole hill problem. Like I say, if
EFF comes out with a policy against anonymity, THEN get out the rope.
It just won't happen.
> If this is the case she needs to be _much_ more careful about what she
> says in `personal' interviews.
Certainly. All of us do. I know I do. I still remember the time I
slammed the FCC for being "the largest censorship body in the western
world", at a time during which EFF was trying to get them to back off
from deciding to push for regulatory authority (which, as we've seen,
Congress is only too willing to grant). Needless to say, they would have
been less willing to listen to EFF after that, had they seen the comment
(probably didn't, it was in a small local newspaper; had a lot of
dangerous potential though.)
> Be sure to express the pro-anonymity arguments while you're zealously
> hammering out every last thing that can go wrong with anonymity: like
> that free speech is not possible with out it. It's pretty much all or
> nothing, either you think free speech is worth the risk, or you prefer
> big brother, government access to keys, the works.
Agreed. I'm sure the board agrees too. We just like, and need, to have
answers to the immediate authoritarian attack that will come on what EFF
says, before we say it. The saying about being silent and being thought
a fool, vs. speaking up and removing all doubt applies here in an
interesting way. If we have unprepared arguments, opponents will make us
look like fools. It's only a secondary concern that this hurts EFF's
image. The real problem is that things like that undermine the
credibility of the whole "cyberliberty" camp.
> [see http://www.c2.org/~winsock/ for a windows remailer]
Any e.t.a. on a Mac one? Sometimes I wish I could write code worth an
exon so I could help move this along. Like I have any time to do
programming anyway... <sigh>
--
<HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech@eff.org
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P> Online Activist </HTML>
NODE 2d01e4a9Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>Fri, 6 Sep 1996 06:34:59 +0800
Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org> writes on cpunks:
> Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> typed:
> >
> > No. But I too am rather suprised to hear an EFF board member
> > apparently speaking against free speech. OK, so maybe she was
> > mis-quoted so I wait for her rebuttal, but nope, she basically to my
> > reading reiterates nothing but negative opinions on free speech and
> > anonymity.
> >
> > Tim's quotes of her CFP speech further demonstrates her leanings.
>
> I've talked to her personally about this. She's not thinking along those
> lines, she just perceives a potential problem in the
> accountability/ethics area, and is wondering how that can be solved,
it can't,
> if it can be solved, and what the price of such a solution is.
the price for removing anonymity is the price of loosing strongly free
speech (you know real free speech, as opposed to `free speech' where
you can say what you want provided you provide your ID up front to the
thought police, just in case at some future date you say something
that someone somewhere in some region of the world finds mildly
objectionable). The draconian measures necessary to even start also
involve GAK, outlawing of non-GAKed crypto, placing import
restrictions on crypto (I saw Freeh quoted as saying that restricting
crypto imports may be necessary recently, something I predicted some
years ago) draconian thought police laws, and so on.
It's quite simple to envisage: place yourself in the position of the
overzealous law enforcement type, imagine you are tasked with
elminating encryption, free speech on the internet, anonymity. So
what're you going do? First thing you might notice is that pretty
near everyone is against you. So you work up a few four horseman
scare stories, try to squelch all the first ammendment based
challenges in the courts, do a few oblique trade-offs with companies
exchanging key escrow for more bits, maybe blow up a few airplanes,
and federal buildings and blame it on `militias', and the Internet.
Rant about the Internet at each opportunity whether has anything to do
with it or not (did the perps even know anyone with internet access,
do they have a distant cousin who does, there must be an angle
somewhere, or heck who cares, just shout about the Internet anyway,
no one'll notice it's nothing to do with it). You realise that you're
going to have to get pretty mean to actually stamp out free speech for
all these people with a quaint wish to uphold the constitution, and
protect their freedoms. Russia just about managed it for a while but
they shot about 1 in 10 people in the process, they had licenses to
own a photocopier, a typewriter, samples had to be provided to the
KGB.
> Honest, she's not *advocating* restrictions on anonymity, just
> asking if any are necessary,
no, they are not
> in who's opinion,
mine, most cpunks, yours? the rest of the EFF board?
> with what rationale, at what cost, and by what mechanism.
rationale above: the alternative loss of freedoms is too costly, look
at Singapore's example.
> > Lets put it this way: if Louis Freeh offered to be an EFF board
> > member, would you take him on board? If he seemed quite
>
> Highly unlikely. Who gets to be a boardmember is decided by a board vote.
> Freeh's anti-freedom history, and his obnoxious nature would, in my
> guesstimate, give him less that a .0000000000001% chance of ever making
> it onto the EFF board. And that's being nice. :)
>
> Dyson has no such history, and does have a history of careful thought
> (even if disagreed with by quite a few people) about networks, online
> commerce, negative effects of regulation, and civil liberties issues.
> More the former 3 than the latter 1.
So it seems. If she has little to say on civil liberties, perhaps she
should refrain. William Geiger <whgiii@amaranth.com> corrected me in
this thread, his reading is that Dyson's interview was not a personal
interview, she was being interviewd _as_ an EFF board member, she just
chose to make a personal statement in it. If this is the case I
submit the correct comment on her part would have been that the EFF
had no current position on the topic.
> > pro-anonymity, and free speech, and later turned out to be having
> > doubts, would you keep him?
>
> I'll generalize that to "if you had any boardmember who expressed doubts
> about the value of free speech and privacy, would the board keep them?"
> I think not. But Esther's taken no such position. She's asking questions
> about the mechanics of a system, and the effects of the system on society.
> These are valid questions. It'd be helpful to see some short
> Cypherpunks-generated answers, if they are available. Stuff about
> reputational systems, etc.
Personally I think I'm better at coding, than constructing convincing
arguments. But for what it's worth here's a few. I doubt they are
news to you, but since you kind of asked:
Tim's cyphernomicon isn't short but should be a required reading, IMO.
The US constitutional protections for free speech?
The Singaporean demonstration of the alternative?
The principle of having laws against crimes, not against the potential
means of comitting crimes. You know, you can't carry a knife, why
not? Because you might commit a crime. So why not wait see if you do
commit a crime. You could just as easily stab someone with a screw
driver, so what now, outlaw carrying of screw drivers, have permits to
carry a screw driver? Sad fact is you can probably get successfully
prosecuted for carrying a screw driver if you can't demonstrate a need
to carry one already. You see where this line of reasoning heads. It
is ultimately useless to make it illegal for people to have any means
to commit crimes. Crimes with victims are already illegal, we don't
need anymore laws, we've got way too many already. If someone goes
out and murders someone, the police attempt to catch the murderer to
prevent further murders. We don't need dumb laws outlawing cars (so
the guy can't drive away from the scene?), knives, guns, the internet
(in case he plots to off someone), the phone system in case he uses
that, pay phones in case he uses one of those, what comes next, you
know? Several things which were proposed in jest by cypherpunks which
were thought too outlandish to be next in line for banning, were
actually seriously proposed and even implemented. It never ceases to
amaze me the things the law enforcement types think up.
Perhaps when the technology is up to it we ought to just implant a CCD
chip behind newborn's eyeballs, and have a life escrow system to just
record ever last second of everyones existance just in case they have
the urge to drive over 55, or not divulge their true name, social
security number, address etc. in a casual electronic conversation.
> Just to be clear: There is no disagreement on the board, or the staff, of
> EFF that anonymity is a vital component of privacy.
yay :-)
Now all you need to do is have an official policy that says so, so
that board members who are less clear on the subject, can quote that
policy rather than discussing their own opinions :-)
Guess I've said all that I can on this sub-thread, so I'll leave you
to continue with important EFF work, trying to knock down all those
son of CDAs the individual states are even now crafting,
Adam
--
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
NODE 39abbb28Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>Thu, 5 Sep 1996 14:16:57 +0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In <199609042000.VAA00708@server.test.net>, on 09/04/96 at 09:00 PM,
Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> said:
>If this is the case she needs to be _much_ more careful about what she
>says in `personal' interviews.
<sigh>
There seems to be a point being missed in this thread. :(
This was not a 'personal' interview. The paper was not interested in Ms. Dyson's views on anonymity on the internet because she seemed like a nice person. The only reason she was interviewed is because of her position with the EFF as chairwoman.
Ms. Dyson knows this, the reporter knows this, the paper knows this, and so should everyone else.
Under such circumstances this interview should be seen as an 'official' statement from the chairwoman of the EFF. Trying to call this a 'personal' interview and not reflecting 'official' EFF policy is just plain old spin-doctoring. Ms. Dyson should have had more common sense than this.
These statements made by her are akin to the chairman of Philip Morris saying that he believe that cigarette smoke cause cancer but that's just his opinion and not the 'official' company position on it. Who would believe it? How long would he still have his job after making such a statement?
The EFF should make an official statement of their position on this issue and if it is not the same as Ms. Dyson's she should be removed from the board. IMHO this is to important of an issue for the EFF to try to ignore.
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting WebExplorer & Java Enhanced!!!
Merlin Beta Test Site - WarpServer SMP Test Site
Author of PGPMR2 - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
Look for MR/2 Tips & Rexx Scripts
Get Work Place Shell for Windows!!
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info
- -----------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMi5aMo9Co1n+aLhhAQH+CwQAs/6nRK/jy2vUFIeWhmFIA0xCdf/m2Vgn
SVyzMm6NTx8rVlJiluubkx3Au1t7/lb/KzzZJqt2ocbRUtc0XQUo0TQImqgY06/G
0OAiDYjgddGppUr+42yeHtWXUHK8vhYEgWeSfGS1msnYKchlcqZ16xzDmYVlfize
ncf+FDLd+tE=
=nOVA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
NODE 8f2c96d4Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>Fri, 6 Sep 1996 19:39:30 +0800
> >If this is the case she needs to be _much_ more careful about what she
> >says in `personal' interviews.
>
> <sigh>
>
> There seems to be a point being missed in this thread. :(
>
> This was not a 'personal' interview. The paper was not interested in
> Ms. Dyson's views on anonymity on the internet because she seemed like a
> nice person. The only reason she was interviewed is because of her
> position with the EFF as chairwoman.
Rather unlikely, actually. Dyson is far better known, everywhere but the
Internet early-adopter crowd, as publisher of Release 1.0 and an industry
analyst. Same goes for a lot of our other boardmembers. Who many people
outside of the civ-lib crowd know Jane Metcalfe from EFF, vs. from Wired?
Even Mitch Kapor is better know as founder of Lotus than of EFF. A lot of
press coverage she gets never even mentions EFF at all! Barlow's
probalby the only exception - retired ranchers and songwriters who aren't
also singers generally don't attract many reporters.
--
<HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech@eff.org
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P> Online Activist </HTML>