Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!know!slug!wex From: wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Komarimasen) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: EFF and CPSR don't have the same purpose. Message-ID: Date: 5 Apr 91 21:56:49 GMT References: <1991Mar19.213148.14254@vpnet.chi.il.us> <669491914.4141@mindcraft.com> <7846@hsv3.UUCP> <1396@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <7858@hsv3.UUCP> Sender: news@pws.bulL.com Organization: Bull Worldwide Information Systems Inc. Lines: 72 Nntp-Posting-Host: dali.pws.bull.com In-reply-to: mvp@hsv3.UUCP's message of 26 Mar 91 23:35:20 GMT In article <7858@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) treats us to some real inanities for which I am about to flame him. Hit 'n' now if you have no interest. I was (briefly) on CPSR's mailing list. Isn't there an award given for long-distance conclusion-jumping? Mike, having vast experience with CPSR, feels qualified to grace us with his definitive conclusions on its form, purpose, motives, and putative resemblance to the EFF. Yeah, right. [1] 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. In his enlightened way Mike is, I think, trying to refer to CPSR's organizational position against Star Wars (SDI). I won't go into the details of that position - you can read for yourself about the debates and discussions that went on around the topic. Suffice it to say it wasn't a position CPSR took lightly, and it has been quite controversial. These topics have little to do with the Electronic Frontier. Perhaps. I can, when I'm in a mood, work up an argument that the surroundings of SDI, particularly the attempt to classify everything in sight and restrict things like the FOIA is related. I can also point out that the jingoism invoked by a US-only "defense shield" (stop laughing you in the back) is contrary to the standards of the emerging electronic community. But you're probably not interested in reasoned debate like that. You'd rather toss around phrases like... Unilateral disarmament. Anti-strategic-defense. Socialism. Booga-booga!! Socialism! Run fer the hills, wimmin, while us hairy-chested capitalist libertarian macho types protect you from the Red Menace. Yawn. None of this has anything to do with keeping the Electronic Frontier open. On the other hand, we might discuss how the socialists governments of countries like Finland and Sweden have passed privacy laws that may, in some ways, be superior to those of the good-ole Yew Ess of Ay. I might join an EFF chapter. I would not join a CPSR chapter. And I, sir, would not join any organization which would have you as a member. (That's sarcasm, Mike. Listing organizations to which we both belong shows you've missed the point.) Which is the only aspect of this debate that really belongs in this group. Debates on the merits of disarmament, strategic defense, and socialism should go to the appropriate talk.politics groups; this is not the place for them. This is kind of funny. A few months ago, when I dropped out of regular participation in the group, I wrote a note saying how disappointed I was that this group had become talk.politics.computers. Plus ca change... [1] For the record: I was a member of CPSR for four years, during part of which time I served as South region chapter treasurer and another part as program chairman for the same chapter. I am no longer a member because I think $40 dues are outrageous, esp. given how little of that is given back to the locals. -- --Alan Wexelblat phone: (508)294-7485 Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com "People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them that Benjamin Franklin said it first."