Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ucselx!crash!lairdb
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird Broadfield)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF & CPSR
Message-ID: <8243@crash.cts.com>
Date: 28 Mar 91 21:19:06 GMT
References: <1991Mar27.193824.29232@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
Lines: 49

I also didn't want to clutter up an important newsgroup (not to mention
that it's one of the last with a reasonably small and appropriate flow)
but Mr. Bates's post contains some equally misleading information:

samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) writes:

>I do not want to get into an argument about what CPSR does and does not do,
>but the last post contained some rather misleading information.
>Mike Van Pelt writes:
>> I was (briefly) on CPSR's mailing list.  It mostly looked to me like
>> "Unilateral Disarmament *NOW*" stuff, with a technogeek spin:  "Because
>> There's Always One More Bug..." prefix to the unilateral disarmament
>> demand.  These topics have little to do with the Electronic Frontier.
>> 
>> For starters: Unilateral disarmament.  Anti-strategic-defense.  Socialism.
>> None of this has anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open.
>> 

>Mr. Van Pelt is correct that CPSR has other concerns that do not have 
>anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open.  However, CPSR 
>does share the EFF's concern with over-restrictive legislation of 
>"electronic liberties."  Hence one could join CPSR to talk about EFF issues,
>depending on how comfortable he/she is with the rest of CPSR's concerns.

One could indeed join CPSR to talk about EFF issues; one could also join
the Communist Party to talk about dialectical materialism. 

"Joining" an organization involves several things that people should
be conscious of; particularly given the current discussions of privacy and
information flow.  If you join CPSR, you will be counted as a CP who is for
SR; you will become one of the "nnn,nnn members who I represent, Congressman";
you will be listed as such on their rolls, you will (at least implicitly)
have given your support (*and* your dollars) to *their* goals.

Many organizations say right out front that by joining you state that you
support their goals; ACM is one of the most blatant examples.  I will not
join ACM, because I do not agree with all of their Canons; but if I'm not
Politically Correct, by *their* definitions, they exclude me.  I would like
to support the CM-related activities, I would like to attend SIGxxxx-es,
I would like to receive their journals, I would like to attend their meetings.
To do so, I *must* support their goals.

I would guess that CPSR is the same way; even if they don't say it right 
on the enrollment form (like ACM) it's there.  You are a *member* of
CPSR, just as you would be a *member* of the Communist Party.
-- 
--  Laird P. Broadfield                        | Year after year, site after
    UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb  | site, and I still can't think
    INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com                 | of a funny enough .sig.