Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!med.wcc.govt.nz!galaxy.southpower.co.nz!ccc.govt.nz!trevor
From: trevor@ccc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF Chapters
Message-ID: <1991Apr10.112210.199@ccc.govt.nz>
Date: 10 Apr 91 19:59:28 GMT
References: <1991Apr3.223200.9420@novell.com>
Lines: 54

In article <1991Apr3.223200.9420@novell.com>, tporczyk@na.excelan.com 
(Tony Porczyk) writes:

>>
>> [ header deleted... ]
>>
>>It takes some pretty tricky moral gymnastics to deny to oneself
>>that a fully functional `defensive' system would also be a potent
>>tool in an offensive setting.  I see no clear-cut moral distinction
>>between the two concepts.
> 
> So you see no difference between a scud and a patriot?  And it takes
> tricky moral gymnastics for you to figure that out.
> And you see no clear cut moral distinctions between defense and an
> indiscriminate weapon of terror.
> I think you just broke a record in my book of intellectual rape on
> oneself a person would commit to justify his ideology.
> 
> Tony

Ultimately, weapons of "defence" are blurred with weapons of "offense"; the
issue is not at all a back-and-white one (as Algernon Moncrieff said, the
truth is rarely plain and never simple). Part of British "defence" in WWII
was the nightly bombing of German industry (and also cities...). More recently,
the point of the ABM limitation treaties (and ABMs certainly ARE defensive, in
the same way that Patriots are) was the realisation that ABM sites would
encourage the proliferation of ICBMs and SLBMs to whatever point was neccessary
to saturate all extant ABM systems AND THEN destroy the cities they
"protected". (Re-read that ... kill the people ... ). I would cite the
realisation that there is no philosophical difference between offense and
defence as the major point of Robert McNamara's education during his term as
U.S. defence advisor (please read his account of it before flaming me over
this).

What has this to do with EFF? Not a lot, I suspect, but since the issue is here
I felt a need to answer it. Applying the same sort of arguments to caller-ID
(I'm for it), some arguments say it is a defence of privacy and others say it
will invade privacy; these arguments are not incompatible: it will do both, at
the same time. Someone, somewhere will make a profit out of the
junk-call/call-blocking "race" (but it still beats the arms race, morally), and 
we may (those of us who can afford to participate) end up benefitting in some
sort of "quality of life" way from freer & more flexible comms. (We also
benefit from technological improvements "spun off" the arms race...)

Trevor Ingham     			trevor@ccc.govt.nz
Christchurch City Council,              (the address in my header may be
Chch, New Zealand.                      incorrect)

The opinions expressed above may not be construed as representing those of my
employer or anyone else except myself.

"To know the moral precepts, and not to use them to eliminate suffering, is to
be like a sick person, who carries around a large medicine chest which is never
opened" 				- Dagpo Lha Dje