Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!chaos.cs.brandeis.edu!cos
From: cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Missing mission
Message-ID: <1990Aug26.063940.29357@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu>
Date: 26 Aug 90 06:39:40 GMT
References: <11446@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Organization: Brandeis University Computer Science Dept
Lines: 152

In article <11446@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@uther.cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes:
>I just finished reading through mailing #3, and I am disappointed.
>Why?  Because there is a very important mission statement missing from
>the list given:  helping to establish a sense of responsibility in
>users of networks and computers.

The EFF was established to fight against our
government/infrastructure's extrem position, so it may sound that the
EFF itself is too far on one side.  If you get in a debate with a
rabid anti-American, for example, you would probably sound like a
right wing nationalist even though you may not be one.

>I am all in favor of the other stated goals.  It is clear that
>telecommunications and computer technology are opening up whole new
>avenues of information flow that can drastically change our way of
>life.  It certainly is true that we must come to terms with the nature
>of these new capabilities, define the rights inherent in their use,
>and help educate the rest of the world about this new medium.
>
>At the same time, we cannot have rights without responsibilities -- be
>they legal, ethical, or just plain etiquette.  In our rush to define
>and protect our rights, let us also consider that there must be
>corresponding standards of "good" behavior that need to be developed
>an encouraged.  Failure to recognize and respect those
>responsibilities will make it more difficult to get broad support in
>the definition and protection of appropriate freedoms.

Consider the fact that these responsiblities may have already been
over-defined, and the EFF is trying to balance that.

>For instance: publishing a newsletter or sending e-mail may be
>something we want to define as protected forms of free speech.  But
>suppose the material is slanderous, or violates a company's trade
>secrets, or spreads a virus, or breeches national defense secrets?
>How about cases where someone is just unceasingly rude?  There are
>social and legal concerns here on both sides, and focusing on only one
>side will keep everyone from being supportive of the effort.

Well, what is illegal is already illegal.  Slander, for example, is
illegal.  No reason for the EFF to try to make it such, when it
already is.  The EFF's raison-d'etre was that the govt was seemingly
ignoring constitutional rights when it came to telecommunications, but
no one ever said they were not enforcing the laws...
Have you read Crime and Puzzlement?  If not, I recommend it as an
important background piece for this discussion.

>I've been using bulletin boards and the network for a decade.  In that
>time, I've seen some wonderful things happen.  I've also seen an
>increasing tide of impolite, inconsiderate, harassing, and even
>hurtful traffic.  Perhaps the posters have a right to write what they
>wish -- but should they have the right to use other people's machines
>and networks to spread it?  Do they have the right to inject that

People have a right to breathe, but do they have a right to breathe
other people's air?  They may have a right to move around freely, but
must they do it on someone else's streets?  They should be allowed to
listen to the news on TV, but should they be allowed to do it by
intercepting the government's airwaves?
My point is that Cyberspace, the Net, or whatever you choose to call
it, may not be the same thing as property.  Why shouldn't the
elctronic world be public, just as the real world is?  Why shouldn't
the cost of keeping network links up be a part of the function of
government, just as the cost of maintainig roads is today?
This is not to say that the government cannot prosecute criminals who
use the net, just as they can prosecute criminals who do no use the
net.

>material into inappropriate forums for others to stumble across?  Do
>they have the right to forge their name, and violate accepted
>protocols to make their statements that almost no one wants to read?
>What and who exactly is it that needs the protection?

Does a radio station have the right to broadcast opinions that almost
no one wants to hear?  Does anyone have the right to violate accepted
protocols, on the Net or off it?

>There is also the issue of criminal use of computers and networks.
>Recent situations that have made such headlines in the news may not be
>such good examples; likewise in any court there are likely to be some
>mistaken or bad cases of other types of crime.  Still, there are
>people writing viruses, breaking into computers, altering and stealing
>code and data, and crashing systems.  Don't their victims have rights,
>too?  Shouldn't we all share some sense of manners and ethics to
>prevent such activity?

This makes me think that you haven't read Crime and Punishment, or
much of the other recent (past year or so) news on the subject.  The
EFF was fromed because the government is over-prosecuting;  making
sure they get every guilty criminal even if it means getting a lot of
innocents as well.  This is not the way our justice system is supposed
to work.

>I've heard some "crackers" claim it is their "right" to break into any
>machine they can and read the data.  I've also heard someone suggest
>that writing computer viruses may be a protected form of free speech.
>I'm appalled by both attitudes, and I suspect that most people who
>depend on their computers would be similarly alarmed by such
>statements.  Most people want reasonable guarantees of freedom, but
>they don't want anarchy.  I have the right to bear arms, but not to
>use them wherever and whenever I wish.  I have freedom of worship, but
>I don't have the freedom to sacrifice you to my dieties.  Defining and
Agreed.
>protecting our freedoms is perhaps less than half the necessary task.

>I'm glad there are people other than me worried about the future and
>freedoms of our brave new world of telecommunications and computing.
>Still, I'm troubled that an organization with as much promise as the
>EFF fails to stress the development of responsibility and proper usage
>of computers as one of its aims.  From what I have read and been told,
>I have no problem believing that the EFF would help defend someone
>wrongly accused of computer trespass, or that they would sponsor
>lobbying to defeat passage of an unwise piece of legislation
>concerning telecommunications.  However, I also find it difficult to
>believe that the EFF would help sponsor a campaign in schools to teach
>kids not to break into others' systems, or that they would help
>legislators draft balanced computer crime bills, or that the EFF would
>marshall its resources to help catch computer virus authors.

Why do you have trouble believing this?  Have you read about the CSPR
grant from the EFF?  I have seen nothing so far that would lead me to
believe the EFF would not sponsor such a thing.  As for catching
computer virus authors - I don't think the EFF should get involved in
a case, unless there is good reason to.  Individual EFF people may
indeed help track down a computer virus author, but I see no reason
for the EFF as an organization to get involved in a case unless they
see some injustice in the way the government is handling it.  And
that's enough to swamp their resource alread! :) :(

>From my point of view, that is badly unbalanced -- and I *believe* in
>all of the EFF's stated goals!  It is no wonder there is such a strong
>image that the group is just a "cracker's defense fund."  Time and
>events will tell if this is just growing pains and poor publicity, or
>whether it is a skewed philosophy.  I dearly hope it is the former.

I think you are probably just misinterpreting the whole thing.  Before
you respond to me, please read Crime and Puzzlement, if you have not
done so already.  It is the most important piece of background to this
whole thing.  If you can't find it, I have a copy I could mail, plus a
few other related articles, and a whole slew of press releases.

This article is intended to provoke thought, rather than to prove a
point.  Think about that as you formulate your flame :)

>Gene Spafford
>NSF/Purdue/U of Florida  Software Engineering Research Center,
>Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
>Internet:  spaf@cs.purdue.edu	uucp:	...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf

  --  Cos (Ofer Inbar)  --  cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
  --  WBRS (BRiS)  --  WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu  WBRS@brandeis.bitnet
  "Good literature is about Love and War."
  "Junk Fiction is about Sex and Violence."