Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!lemans.dec.com!lemans.det.dec.com!libove From: libove@libove.det.dec.com (Jay Libove) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Missing mission Message-ID: Date: 29 Aug 90 13:51:30 GMT References: <11446@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Sender: news@lemans.dec.com Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Detroit Ultrix Resource Center Lines: 92 In-reply-to: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU's message of 24 Aug 90 09:06:22 GMT In article <11446@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes: Path: lemans.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!rust.zso.dec.com! bacchus.pa.dec.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!samsung!xylogics!bu.edu!purdue!spaf From: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Date: 24 Aug 90 09:06:22 GMT Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU Reply-To: spaf@uther.cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University Lines: 83 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. I'd like to add my suggestion to the EFF that it make Gene's excellent statement above in to one of its stated goals. [ ... excellent discussion about the need for the new statement ... ] 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 protecting our freedoms is perhaps less than half the necessary task. I think that we have to be very cautious in one place here: in fact, Gene provided the analogy that I will use to make my case... You do indeed have the right to bear arms, as does a cracker have the right to author code that could, improperly applied, be dangerous/viral/etc; you do not have the right to use your weapons indiscriminately, neither does the cracker have the right to unleash his/her creation(s) indiscriminately. But neither does he have the right to stop you from bearing arms, nor do you (or I) have the right to stop him from creating viruses &etc. Not that I'm advocating that everyone create their electronic stockpile of viral warfare, but it should be legal to have them. Unlike real stockpiles of nerve gas &etc a simple accident can't set off an electronic viral infection - that has to be done deliberately by someone. [ There are very definite ways of disputing this, but I think that a little responsibility would prevent all of them. ] 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. I think that you misunderstood the EFF's goals; I am certain that it is within their scope and intent to sponsor educational campaigns to teach people why breaking and entering electronically is no different than doing so physically, and as above I dispute the item about the authors of computer viruses. 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. Hopefully, this image is smaller than you believe, Gene; I have not seen enough response anywhere to it to indicate how it is yet being perceived. Let's work together with the EFF to make sure it has a positive image, and see the electronic world flourish, and maybe even grow more reasonable. -- 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 -- Jay Libove libove@libove.det.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation decwrl!libove.det.dec.com!libove Detroit ACT/Ultrix Resource Center Opinions? They're mine, mine, all mine! Farmington Hills, Michigan and D.E.C. Can't have 'em!