NODE 76eebb67Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
Jon Lebkowsky <jonl@well.com>Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:21:00 +0800
At 12:04 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote:
>> 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.
Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing; without some give and take, we
sorta run right over each other. OTOH, I do agree that a strong position is
necessary at this juncture.
--
Jon Lebkowsky http://www.well.com/~jonl jonl@hotwired.com
NODE cef3d986Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>Wed, 4 Sep 1996 11:56:11 +0800
> Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing; without some give and take, we
> sorta run right over each other. OTOH, I do agree that a strong position is
> necessary at this juncture.
Certainly. EFF regularly compromises with our allies, e.g. on who will
run a particular web page, what a campaign icon will look like, where an
event will be held, etc. We're just not in the habit of compromising on
legislation, since we are not in a position to give or sell anything,
particular the rights of the public and of individual citizens.
--
<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>