Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!spaf From: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Electronic ethics (was: Re: Musing on Constitutionality) Message-ID: <11646@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Date: 10 Sep 90 22:11:28 GMT References: <11503@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <82778@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <9009091647.AA23752@mindcrf.mindcraft.com> Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University Lines: 74 In article <9009091647.AA23752@mindcrf.mindcraft.com>, karish@mindcrf.UUCP (Chuck Karish) writes: > Both in their initial press releases and in John Barlow's article in > the current issue of `Whole Earth Review', the EFF have put much > emphasis on the need to establish a shared set of values to inform > future judgements on proper and improper use of electronic > communications media. The motivation is the well-founded fear that, if > we don't articulate such values soon enough and forcefully enough, > Congress will create a new rationale for censorship, as they did for > the broadcast media. Exactly my fear, and a point I have been making to seminar audiences and my classes for years. However, I believe regulation is more appropriate a term than censorship. Unfortunately, this concern was not mentioned in the initial posting here listing the EFF's stated missions. That's why my initial posting referred to a "missing mission." > Gene Spafford's contribution has been a near-hysterical attack on the > EFF principals for failing to pre-judge what those values should be. Bullsh*t! I made no attack on the EFF's principals (or principles...I'm not sure which you really meant). I also made no attack on them for not already deciding what those values are. Rather than attack me as "hysterical," please try reading what I've written before you respond to it. > His comments probably would not have incited an exchange of flames if > he'd entered into a reasonable discussion, and not immediately > presented an apparently-closed-minded judgement. About as close-minded as your posting was. Go back and read my original posting again. Then tell me whose posting was close-minded and pre-judged. My postings have been flamed because I dare to suggest that there is another side to some of these claims of rights-abuse, and that unless an awareness is cultivated of *both* sides of the argument, the problem will not be properly addressed. > > I have two problems with his pronouncements: > > - It's not practical to solve security problems by locking up all the > hackers, any more that we can solve drug problems by locking up > all the users. In both cases, there are just too many of us. Obvious. I never claimed otherwise. Don't attribute it to me unless you can find someplace I've said it...or even implied it. > - It's silly to put so much emphasis on `encouraging responsibility' > before we discuss what that responsibility entails. How can > we even think of putting all of `them' away before we decide > who `they' are? I never made a claim anywhere about "putting all of 'them' away." What the heck have you been reading? Has somebody been forging articles with my name on them? Or are you just making stuff up and attributing it to me? We must discuss what responsible & appropriate use of computers *is* before we can talk about appropriate laws and regulation (if any). We very well can't talk about abuses before we know what responsible use is. THAT is what I think the EFF should be working on (in addition to the other efforts), and so far, the abuse I've received here for suggesting it has done nothing but convince me (and many others responding by e-mail) that I'm right. -- 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