Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!mindcraft.com!karish
From: karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF and CPSR don't have the same purpose.
Summary: What CPSR is about
Keywords: EFF college academia chapters
Message-ID: <670397395.14829@mindcraft.com>
Date: 31 Mar 91 05:29:53 GMT
References: <1991Mar19.213148.14254@vpnet.chi.il.us> <669491914.4141@mindcraft.com> <7846@hsv3.UUCP> <1396@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <7858@hsv3.UUCP>
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Lines: 39

In article <7858@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (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.

The scope of what CPSR works on has expanded dramatically since
Mike read their mailings.  Some of the more active study groups
are working on electronic privacy issues and on other civil liberties
issues related to the rise of the electronic civilization.

[ Bill Vajk asked:]
>>Beyond that, I am also interested in hearing what the "trendy causes"
>>might include which, by implication in the included text, have little to 
>>no permanent significance to our societal framework.
>
>For starters: Unilateral disarmament.  Anti-strategic-defense.  Socialism.
>None of this has anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open.

The strategic defense stuff grew from two roots.  The first was
opposition to the more ambitious Star Wars projects, trying to keep the
tecnical feasibility of the control programs from being oversold.

The second was Cliff Johnson's hobbyhorse, the concept that a
launch-on-warning strategic defense system that bypasses
decision-making by the appropriate humans is both dangerously
destabilizing and a violation of US law.

Socialism?  The membership of the Palo Alto chapter has a bimodal
distribution, divided between New Left types and libertarians.
Whatever Mike says, lots of non-leftists are comfortable in CPSR.  The
radical libertarian individualists who think that "social" and
"society" are dirty words probably won't join.  I doubt that it would
be productive to limit any political action group's charter enough to
make them happy; let 'em sit in their own little bomb shelters with
their shotguns.

	Chuck Karish		karish@mindcraft.com
	Mindcraft, Inc.		(415) 323-9000