Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!world!eff!mnemonic
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Molested ???
Message-ID: <1991Mar18.174258.22747@eff.org>
Date: 18 Mar 91 17:42:58 GMT
References: <1361@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Lines: 68

In article <1361@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William  Vajk ) writes:
>
>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.'

I don't know what counts as "notably absent." We have been publishing
editions of EFF News every few weeks, and we report on whatever we can
report on at the time of publication. 

>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.

I'm not sure what you are alluding to here. You will note that I
replied both to you and to Karl Denninger. Karl talked about how
EFF is interested primarily in public relations, in his view. My
point was that if this were true, we would always put a priority on
communicating everything we do at the time we do it, in order to 
maximize our apparent "omnipresence" (your word), and in spite of
the irreducible fact that tipping our hand may work against the 
interests of the people we're working for.

>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. 

We will give consideration to your opinions on these and other
matters about how best to present EFF to the public.

>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 ?

Perhaps. But I'm not sure how the issue of "following through" is
connected to the issue of publicizing ourselves when we follow through.

>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. 

We are aware of, and applaud, your independent efforts on these issues.
We take both your efforts and your criticisms seriously.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 | "You gotta put down the ducky
mnemonic@eff.org            |  if you wanna play the saxophone."
Electronic Frontier         |  
Foundation                  |