Re: Knights who say NII (was Crypto(A), govt & NII)

[fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham)]

> Steve Witham writes:
> 
> > Giving the government savvy advice, telling them they should do whatever
> > will promote, say, competition or open forums...what effects will these
> > have?  They may provide justifications, expertise and targeting info 
> > for interventions, for instance.  New ways to get involved...

Mike Godwin replies:

> The government is already tempted to get involved, all the time. We can't
> make the government go away by resolving that it would be nice if they
> weren't around. Best to work from where we are, not where we'd like to be.

Sure, I agree.  It's just, will the process-that-be have a tendency to be
encouraged to intervention in general, by positive-sounding things in
what you say.

> > I can't think of one positive thing (as opposed to the negative thing,
> > disengagement) government can contribute to the goals of EFF.

On being true police, see below.
 
> Government is not the only potential source of harm--private industry can
> be plenty harmful.

Private business can be nasty, slow and unhelpful, but 
short of physical sabotage and threats, they can't do nearly the kind of
harm and prevention of alternatives that government does.

> > ...the most centralized organization in the world as the 
> > decentralist's tool or ally doesn't seem workable to me.  The
> > means clashes against the ends.
> 
> I don't see how. One actually can use a weapon to keep the peace, for
> example.

Yes, you're right.  I wasn't thinking about that because I assumed 
there's a minimum of physical crime in the communications industry.  But 
now that I think about it, there's one thing State governments could 
limit: local governments' interference (franchises) in communications.

But other than real basic policing like that, the means clash with the
ends.  Government is okay at nabbing true bad guys, not at trying to 
steer people in good directions.

> > Telling a bull that he should make whatever 
> > positive contributions he can to the china shop...is worse than just 
> > not mentioning that there are none.
> 
> I think you're reasoning from your conclusions here, not toward them.

Well, sure, I'm talking from my view of how things are.  Mostly I'm
just saying that the *need* for positive government involvement is
dubious while the *danger* is obvious in the current state of things,
and if you aren't always saying that, then your well-informed comments 
and laudible goal statements can be misconstrued more easily, because
in certain circles, radical deregulation is not assumed.

That's my not-so-humble-but-trying (IMNSHBTO?) point in a nutshell.  Your 
participation without this particular sternness, may, as one side-effect, 
encourage and assist where we all won't be happy it did--and maybe it'll
fail to push through the single most helpful idea.

I know, it's not your particular hobbyhorse.  It's just what I'm afraid
will happen.

> What's more, government ain't the only bull in this shop.

Although the FCC is smaller than AT&T, there's nothing
in private industry with the momentum, power and difficulty of
correcting that our layers of government have.  Business without
the power of government behind it (which status-quo businesses
do have right now) faces much more immediate corrective pressure
than government.  Even combinations of big nasty companies are less 
of a problem.  Throw me in that briar patch, puh-*leeze*, it's better
than this one.

-fnerd@smds.com
quote me

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvtoxiQCVAgUBLMs3K
ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2toust1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz
3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hanC0R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG
sRjLQs4iVVM=
=9wqs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----