Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!milton!ogicse!intelhf!ichips!iwarp.intel.com!gargoyle!learn
From: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William  Vajk )
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Molested ???
Message-ID: <1361@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>
Date: 15 Mar 91 17:26:57 GMT
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Lines: 76


Included text is gathered from several articles:

Mike Godwin wrote:

& Both Karl Denninger and William Vajk are mistaken to assume that
& the EFF is not acting on certain cases. As we indicate in EFF News 1.03,
& there are a number of cases we simply cannot talk about yet.
 
I look forward to future reports which, as I mentioned, are presently notably 
absent, and according to my understanding of more recent statements, 'must 
remain so for tactical reasons.'

John G. DeArmond wrote:

} ... why not share the information with the net?
} It would cut down on criticisms like you responded to and it would 
} reassure others like myself who probably would NOT speak out, that the
} EFF is indeed involved and providing some form of assistance.

Mike Godwin replies:
 
& Are you saying that sharing such information would be good public
& relations? It is precisely the criticism that we care too much 
& about public relations that I was responding to.
 
This is the information age. This is the age of communications. It seems
that in spite of the fact we're on the same team, we're having trouble
communicating. Perhaps it is a matter of being in the right church, the wrong 
pew ? I have chosen my words in this newsgroup very carefully. I find it 
impossible to defend against things I didn't say. Actually, it shouldn't
be necessary.


Michael P. Deignan wrote:
 
% Clearly, since the parties in other cases could become lax and take
% advantage of the EFF's goodwill, it may be a good idea take this type of
% position. Other times, depending on the nature of the case in question,
% it would be nice to know if the EFF is going to get involved (or, if the
% EFF is contemplating action.)
 
Successful strategy for this form of activism requires the appearance of 
omnipresence and strength. It also requires a virtual presence at all 
targeted working levels. To get there requires some direct contact in the 
initial stages to enhance recognition. 

One need only look at the ACLU to note that once an organization has taken
a hand in helping to establish case law, the need for direct intervention
reduces over the long haul. This assumes a general understanding by all 
concerned that the strength and resolve continue to exist. Where any weakness 
is discerned, the image of invincibility necessary to success by mere presence 
deteriorates rapidly.

In my humble opinion, best to stop contemplating issues like good will and 
begin contemplating issues like power. In 1990, the Computer Fraud Control 
Association (CFCA) perceived a new threat to successful prosecutions (eg, 
doing business the old way) arising if "several organizations promising 
funding for legal defense follow through." Doesn't this imply a recognition by 
the CFCA of the general weakness of the bulk of the cases provided serious 
monies were available for defense ?

To bring this all back down to a personal level, which is where I live, I 
feel it appropriate to mention that I'm not here on the net simply griping 
because there's a medium here for my use. I'm expending at least one day per 
week actively working on issues related to these discussions, usually ferreting
out information or expanding a database of names/places/events/legal_issues. I 
thought it important enough to disseminate information regarding this frontier 
to the non-netted public sector to assist Glen Roberts in putting together 
issue 22 of his Full Disclosure newspaper. I mention these matters to place my 
reasoning and positions into perspective. My criticisms are meant to be 
constructive, to be challenges. 


Bill Vajk      |        Nature abhors a vacuum.
                             - Francois Rabelais [Gargantua]