[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What is the EFF doing exactly?
At 09:11 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
>Both terms are _overloaded_, probably to the point of not even being useful
>terms for this debate. Everyone comes in to the debate with their notions
>of what "responsible" speech is, what "accountability" entails, etc.
>Having said this, and not knowing how your (or anyone else's) definitions
>relate to mine, I simply don't agree that I have to take responsibility for
>all of my speech/actions. I can think of many cases where I have elected to
>use untraceable anonymity, as many others have, so those are direct
>counterexamples to your point, thus disproving your "I think we'd all argue
>in favor of taking responsibility" point.
The semantic point is a good one, but I'd like to see an example of a
situation where you don't think you should take responsibility for something
you've said or done. I'm not sure whether we agree or not on that one...it
could be we're coming from different dimensions...
>>Getting beyond this discussion of EFF, has any global entity discussed
>>making remailers illegal?
>By "global entity" do you mean the U.N., or the Borg? The G7 issued a
>typically vague statement about cracking down on terrorist
>communications...this could be construed as the beginnings of an assault on
>Cypherpunkish sorts of things. Too soon to tell.
Well, we all know what the Borg think. I probably should have said
'governments' rather than 'global entities.'
>Within the U.S. there are few ways remailers could be shut down, in terms
>of legal action. The various Supreme Court cases have been discussed many
My real question is whether there is a real rather than possible legislative
threat that demands action now.
Jon Lebkowsky <[email protected]> FAX (512)444-2693 http://www.well.com/~jonl
Electronic Frontiers Forum, 6PM PDT Thursdays <http://www.hotwired.com/eff>
"No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough."--Saul Alinsky