[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
[This post may be fwd'd to the CP list if it does not show up there from
my sending it.]
Bill Stewart typed:
> While nobody's called Esther Dyson a Communist here yet, there are
> people on the board I disagree with - Mitch Kapor, in particular, has shown
who is no longer on the board
> signs of being a (gasp!) Democrat! My initial reaction to the EFF's first
Democrat v. Republican is largely irrelevant here, though more relevant
when you get into infrastructure, universal access, and intellectual
property issues - stuff that EFF has touched on here and there, but which
is not at the heart of our mission. There are other democrats on our
board and staff, as well as Republicans. Even Kapor, however, is very
strongly for competition, for entrepreneurs, for markets, and ergo
differs from a lot of Democrats in that regard. And no one at EFF that I
know of is an extreme liberal or conservative on social issues (both
extremes are very censorious - the right of "ungodly" things, and the
left of "un-p.c." things). So, again, I'd like to suggest that political
party affiliation is approaching meaninglessness. The political axis that
counts isn't l. vs. r., but civil libertarian v. authoritarian. No one at
EFF is an authoritarian.
> year or two was that they were doing some very good things
> (the Steve Jackson defense),
That was quite a bit more than a year or two ago. :)
> and also had people making speeches about
> the need to provide everybody with access to the Information SuperHighway.
> Getting the S.266 anti-crypto-pro-wiretapping bill killed a few years
> ago was what convinced me to join them, though their compromise positions
> on some of the other anti-freedom bills since then have not helped
> my mixed views of the organization.
There were no compromise positions. We have 100% opposed implementation
of such legislation. In the case of the Digital Telephony Bill (the
later version of S.266, drafted by the FBI), we were simply unable to
stop it, and instead had to try to strip as much FBI wish list out of it
as possible and insert privacy protections. That's not a compromise,
that's emergency action. We did everything we could.
We are too, for numerous reasons.
> Maybe. If it's a good position, it will recognize that anonymity
> is a mixed blessing; there are people who use it creatively and
> responsibly, like Black Unicorn and Lucky Green, and there are
> spammers who abuse it to the detriment of society, like the slimeball
> who used my remailer to post hatemail to the gay newsgroups with
> somebody else's name attached to the bottom. On the other hand,
> free speech is also a mixed blessing; there _are_ things I wish people
Such a position is likely to be the one EFF takes if it takes one, which
is probable. EFF in generally does not issue extremist position
statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits,
and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks.
> had the good taste not to say, but I'm not going to get in Voltaire's
> way while he defends to the death their right to say them...
Just as an aside, in case anyone's interested, what Voltaire actually
said was, "I never approved either the errors of his book, or the trivial
truths he so vigorously laid down. I have, however, stoutly taken his side
when absurd men have condemned him for these same truths." The "defend
to the death his right to say it" paraphrase is an embellishment. :)
<HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:[email protected]"> [email protected]
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/A"> Online Activist </A></HTML>